Cultural in¯uences on informal information sharing in
Chinese and Anglo-American organizations:
an exploratory study
Chee W. Chow
a, Graeme L. Harrison
b,*, Jill L. McKinnon
b, Anne Wu
caSan Diego State University, USA bMacquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
cNational Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan
Abstract
This study examines cultural factors which may facilitate or impede the sharing of informal information in the con-text of face-to-face meetings in Chinese compared to Anglo-American organizations. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected through personally conducted interviews with middle level managers in a sample of Taiwanese and Australian manufacturing ®rms. The results suggest the importance of individual dierences, individual assertiveness, and corporate culture in in¯uencing informal information sharing in Australia; and the trade-o between collective interests, respect for hierarchical status and concern with face in Taiwan. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
This study explores national cultural factors which may facilitate or impede the sharing of information in the interpersonal communications context of face-to-face meetings in Chinese com-pared to Anglo-American organizations.
A study of information sharing is important because, as Macintosh (1994, pp. 58±61) notes, information sharing is crucial for increasing the capacity of organizations to process information in planning and controlling their operations. Other writers have also emphasized that open
sharing of information among organizational members is fundamental to such processes as benchmarking (Smith, 1994, p. 32), managing the value chain (Nanni, Dixon & Vollman, 1992, p. 3), networking (Fairtlough, 1994, p. 89), total quality management (Chenhall, 1992, p. 4), and organiza-tional learning (Levinthal & March, 1993, p. 96).
Information sharing in organizations occurs through formal and informal mechanisms. Formal mechanisms include traditional management accounting systems which collect data in routine form from dierent parts of an organization, and ``manipulate, aggregate and distribute'' that information, typically in report format (Emma-nuel, Otley & Merchant 1990, p. 97; Bruns & McKinnon, 1993, p. 104). Informal mechanisms include interpersonal communications in the
con-0361-3682/99/$ - see front matter#1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. P I I : S 0 3 6 1 - 3 6 8 2 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 2 2 - 7
www.elsevier.com/locate/aos
* Corresponding author. Tel: 9850-8515; fax: +61-2-9850-8497.
text of meetings and conversations, direct obser-vation and informal reports (Bruns & McKinnon, pp. 94 and 104; Macintosh, 1994, p. 39).
This study focuses upon informal information exchange in face-to-face meetings. This context is chosen because, as Bruns and McKinnon (1993, p. 94) found, informal information sourced through interpersonal communications such as face-to-face meetings ``dominate other sources of information for day-to-day needs and remain important for longer term needs''. Similarly, Abernethy and Lillis (1995, pp. 244 and 252) identify meetings among decision-makers of dierent departments and func-tions as one of the integrative liaison devices which need to supplant formal and structured information reporting and exchange as ®rms increasingly pursue ¯exible manufacturing strategies.
The study focuses speci®cally on information which may be seen as carrying some tension, con-¯ict or diculty for a participant in a face-to-face meeting. In such a meeting, a participant may be an information provider or seeker, and the infor-mation may have dierent attributes and con-notations for the participant. Some information provided to the meeting may be supportive of the otherwise general view of the meeting while other information might constitute a contrary or chal-lenging view. Similarly, some information may enhance the provider's standing in the view of others (for example, information about the parti-cipant's past successes), while other information might potentially detract (information about past failures). In the information seeking role, the information sought might be perceived by the participant as unknown to the meeting generally, or unknown to the participant only. In this latter context, seeking information might be perceived to reveal his or her lack of knowledge.
We concentrate in this study on information of the second type in each of these three examples; i.e. on information which may challenge or con-front, may expose a past mistake, or may expose lack of knowledge. We do this because it is infor-mation of this type which, on the one hand, is likely to produce the greater con¯ict and tension in the mind of the participant and, hence, be the more dicult to share, but which, on the other, has been seen in the literature as important to
share for organizational bene®t.1 Levinthal and
March (1993), for example, observe in relation to organizational learning that such learning is often biased by the tendency to emphasize success and de-emphasise failure. Similarly, Peters (1994, pp. 54±55) argues that organizations need to foster the promotion of challenging ideas, the creation of a questioning environment, and to de-stigma-tize failure so as not to deter innovation and crea-tivity.
The study explores the factors which facilitate or impede sharing of information of the type detailed in the previous paragraph in two national cultural settings; Anglo-American culture which is typically regarded as characterising countries such as the US, UK, Australia and Canada, and Chi-nese-based culture, typically regarded as char-acterising countries such as China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan. The cross-cultural focus is motivated by the ®ndings of a growing body of research which suggests that people in dierent nations often dier in how they react to given job-related conditions (see, for example, Chow, Kato & Merchant, 1996; Chow, Kato & Shields, 1994; Chow, Shields & Chan, 1991; Birnberg & Snod-grass, 1988; Harrison, 1992, 1993; Harrison, McKinnon, Panchapakesan & Leung, 1994; Mer-chant, Chow & Wu, 1995; O'Connor, 1995). The Anglo-American and Chinese-based cultures are chosen for study because of their general eco-nomic and political signi®cance globally, and
1 It is acknowledged that these are just three examples of a
because they encompass a number of substantive dierences observed to exist in Western and East-ern cultures.
It is acknowledged at the outset that the study focuses only on cultural inputs to information sharing propensities and factors in the face-to-face meeting context. It does not examine other vari-ables identi®ed in the literature as relevant to the need for, or ecacy of, informal integrative liaison devices generally. Such other variables include, for example, the degree of interdependent coordina-tion requirements of the organizacoordina-tion (Macintosh, 1994, p. 61) arising from exigencies of structural dierentiation or the implementation of programs such as Total Quality Management (Chenhall, 1992). Nor does the paper assume that all organizations are subject to the same contexts or require the same characteristics of organizational learning, experi-mentation and innovation described by Levinthal and March (1993) and Peters (1994). While these multiple variables and contexts are relevant in developing an overall model of when and where such liaison devices will be eective, this study seeks solely to contribute some understanding of one potential input to the model when the model is extended to a cross-national setting. That input is, how national cultural characteristics might aect the intrinsic propensity of individuals in organiza-tions to share information in the speci®c context under study. Because of this restricted focus, the study does not seek to measure the eectiveness of information sharing, which, as noted above, will be dependent on multiple independent variables outwith the scope of this study.2
Finally, the study must be seen as exploratory in that, while the literature identi®es face-to-face meetings as an important information sharing context, no empirical research into how people in dierent cultures operate in that context has yet been conducted. Such research is important, how-ever, for several reasons and audiences. First, it adds to the growing body of research literature
directed at understanding how people in organi-zations in dierent cultures may respond dierently to work-related practices and conditions, and, hence, is intrinsically important for cross-cultural research development generally. Second, the rese-arch has pragmatic importance to managers and management accountants in organizations operat-ing either in a sole Anglo-American or Chinese cultural context, or across such cultural contexts. In both contexts, the research may enable man-agers to understand when (and how) national cul-tural characteristics might facilitate or, more importantly, impede information sharing in their organizations, and prompt the development of mechanisms to overcome such impediments. While the cross-national comparison in this study might be most important for managers and man-agement accountants in organizations operating in both cultures, the results for each culture should also be important at the single country level.
2. Theory and hypothesis
A consequence of the exploratory nature of research in this area is the absence of prior litera-ture or established theory to develop de®nitive and directional hypotheses which might then support empirical testing using standard statistical meth-ods. There is considerable literature available which describes the cultural characteristics of Chinese-based societies and which contrasts those characteristics with Anglo-American societies. However, that literature does not directly address the phenomenon at issue in this study, and, when we searched that literature for cultural insight into the phenomenon, we were confronted with several relevant, but sometimes con¯icting implications. Hence, our approach is to put forward those implications from the literature, and then seek both quantitative and qualitative data to shed empirical light on them. The qualitative data, obtained from personal interviews conducted with managers in the ®eld, allow in-depth exploration of the implications from the literature.
Students of national culture frequently point to three attributes as being particularly dierent between Anglo-American and Chinese-based
2 The scope of the study is partial also in that it does not
cultures: the emphasis on the interests of the self versus those of the group, sometimes referred to as individualism/collectivism (Hofstede, 1980, p. 51; Triandis, 1995); the importance placed on the concept of ``face'' (Bond & Hwang, 1986; Redding & Wong, 1986); and the respect for authority and hierarchy, often referred to as power distance (Hofstede, 1980, p. 70).3
2.1. Individualism/collectivism
``Individualism pertains to societies in which...everyone is expected to look after himself
or herself and his or her immediate family...its
opposite, collectivism pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong cohesive ingroups'' (Hofstede, 1980, p. 51). One attribute of collectivism is a ``we'' consciousness and orientation to the collectivity (Triandis, 1995, p. 43). Consequences of this are a perceived moral involvement with the company, and individual behaviour premised on a sense of loyalty and duty to the organization (Hofstede, 1984, p. 166). This contrasts with an ``I'' orienta-tion and an emphasis on the self in an individualist society, leading to a calculative involvement with the company, and to behaviour allowing for indi-vidual initiative, expression and assertion (Hof-stede, 1984, p. 166). Triandis (1995) supports this by noting:
One can identify collectivism when group goals have priority and individualism when personal goals have priority... (Cognitions) that focus on norms, obligations and duties guide much of social behavior in collectivist cultures...(while cognitions) that focus on attitudes, personal needs, rights, and con-tracts guide social behavior in individualistic cultures (Triandis, 1995, pp. 43, 44).
Students of Chinese culture have often cited collectivism as one of its main characteristics, not-ing especially its emphasis on subjugatnot-ing personal
interest to that of the collective (Hofstede, 1991; Leung & Bond, 1984), while individualism and the self-interest motive are frequently cited as typify-ing Anglo-American culture (Hofstede, 1991; Tri-andis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai & Lucca, 1988).4
At ®rst pass, therefore, it could be expected that, when faced with a situation where a person has information to share which is bene®cial to the collectivity but potentially disadvantageous in some way to the individual, a person in a collecti-vist society would be more likely to share that information than one in an individualist society.
2.2. The concept of ``face''
Complicating this expectation, however, are other characteristics of collectivist cultures which also appear to have implications for the informa-tion sharing issue. One, arising from the collecti-vist culture's group orientation, is the concern with maintaining ``face''. At a general level, Ho (1976, pp. 871 and 876) explains that ``(a) person's `face' is assessed in terms of what others think of him...Face may be lost when conduct or
perfor-mance falls below the minimum level considered acceptable''. At this level, face is a human uni-versal and, indeed, appeared in the Western sociological literature as long ago as Goman (1955), who de®ned it in self-presentational terms as ``the positive social value a person eectively claims for himself'' (p. 213).
However, there are two features which distin-guish the importance of face in Chinese collectivist and Western individualist cultures. The ®rst is that in Western cultures: ``Everyone has a free choice in the use of language and action'' (Bond & Hwang, 1986, p. 245); i.e. people are free to determine whether, and how, they engage in self-presentation. By contrast, no such choice exists for a person in Chinese collectivist cultures. Here, face is an automatic consequence of their belonging to,
3 As will be seen in the subsequent theory development in
this section, these three attributes of culture are also of parti-cular relevance to the phenomena at issue in this study.
4 Studies quantifying the degree of
and their status in, the collective. Face is main-tained or lost through compliance with or viola-tion of the behaviour expected of the person in that particular status (Bond & Hwang, 1986, p. 249). The second distinguishing feature is the general belief in the permanence and, hence, criti-cality, of loss of face. Stover (1974, pp. 244±245, cited in Bond and Hwang, p. 245) notes that: ``It is generally believed (in Chinese society) that the image of self presented to others has a lasting impact, so one has to be very careful about one's behaviour''. Similarly, Redding and Wong (1986, p. 286) argue that one of the features which dis-tinguish the importance of face in Chinese cultures is the sheer degree of concern with it.
The degree of concern with face in Chinese society is re¯ected in both the amount of literature devoted to it (see, for example, the references to this literature in Bond & Hwang, 1986), and the depth of its permeation into social relationships and interpersonal behaviour. Bond and Hwang (pp. 245±249) discuss six types of face behaviour in Chinese society, including saving one's own face, and saving the face of others. They (Bond & Hwang, 1986, p. 248) also cite the importance of maintaining group structural harmony in collec-tive Chinese societies, and reinforce the impor-tance of face as determined by the behaviour of individuals relative to their status, particularly hierarchical status, within the group.
In a...society where the importance of struc-tural harmony within a group is emphasized, every person has to concern himself or herself with `right conduct in maintaining one's place in a hierarchical order' (Stover, 1974, p. 274). He or she must pay attention to preserving others' face in social encounters, especially the face of superiors. Since exposing a per-son's mistake may provoke public reaction and create disharmony, Chinese usually show heightened reluctance to criticize others.
The nature and importance of face in Chinese collectivist cultures would appear to constitute a constraint on information sharing in each of the three examples we posit. The examples of reveal-ing a past failure and askreveal-ing questions (which
might be seen as revealing one's ignorance) both invoke the concern with protecting one's own face. The example of openly expressing a contrary or challenging view and implying a criticism of others invokes the concern with protecting the face of others, and indirectly one's own face.
In sum, the moral involvement with the com-pany associated with collectivist cultures emerges from the literature as a factor facilitating sharing of information of the type, and in the contexts, of the three examples in the study. By contrast, the calculative involvement with the company and the emphasis on self, associated with individualist cultures arises as a factor impeding information sharing in those same contexts. However, the importance of face in collectivist cultures compli-cates hypotheses development, in that it emerges from the literature as a factor impeding information sharing in collectivist cultures. As such, the study proceeds to examine the relative importance of these factors as they are perceived to exist in the minds of organizational participants in both cultures.
2.3. Power distance
The quote from Bond and Hwang (1986) near the end of the previous section highlights the importance of subordinate/superior relationships in Chinese-based societies. The importance of the hierarchy, and of the socially expected behaviours of people in dierent statuses in the hierarchy, constitutes the third attribute frequently seen as particularly dierent between Anglo-American and Chinese-based cultures. This attribute is com-monly known as power distance.
and leadership, while also expecting them to take the responsibility of authority and leadership (Bond; Bond & Hwang, 1986); and (iii) regard the involvement of subordinates in decision mak-ing as a sign of poor leadership by the superior (Child, 1981; Hofstede, 1991, pp. 33±34). By con-trast, subordinates in low power distance cultures consider themselves to have equal rights to their superiors, and expect to be consulted on, and have input to, decisions aecting them (Child, 1981; Hofstede, 1980). Observers of Chinese-based cul-tures have placed them among the highest in power distance (Chinese Cultural Connection, 1987; Hof-stede, 1980, 1991), while members of the Anglo-American cluster are generally seen as being low on this dimension (Hofstede, 1991, p. 26).5
The importance of power distance in Chinese culture, and its implications for the expected behaviours of subordinates and superiors, point to a potential dierence in information sharing behaviour in face-to-face meetings depending on whether a person's superior is present at the meeting or not. This dierence would be expected to be manifest in each of the three examples we consider in this paper. In all three examples, the perception of Chinese subordinates that their opi-nions, information and questions are less impor-tant, knowledgeable and intelligent than those of their superiors would tend to reduce the pro-pensity that they would oer those opinions and information, or ask questions, when their superior is present compared to when absent. By contrast, the perception of an intrinsic equality between superior and subordinate in low power distance cultures, together with the subordinate's expecta-tion to have input into decisions and discussions, suggests that the information sharing propensities of participants in face-to-face meetings will be less (or not) aected by the presence or absence of a superior.
In sum, the cultural literature reviewed in this section does not allow directional hypotheses to be
formulated for dierences in information sharing behaviour between people in Anglo-American and Chinese organizations in the context of face-to-face meetings. The literature does suggest, however, that the behaviour is likely to be dierent depending upon the presence or absence of super-iors in the Chinese setting, but not in the Aus-tralian setting. Hence, we state the following interactive hypothesis as an exploratory hypoth-esis, which we examine using both quantitative and qualitative data.
There is no interaction between the presence or absence of a superior and a subordinate's culture (Anglo-American or Chinese) aect-ing the subordinate's propensity to share information through asking a clarifying question (H1a), expressing a contrary or challenging opinion (H1b), and revealing a past mistake (H1c) in the open forum of a face-to-face meeting.
3. Method
Data were collected through both a structured questionnaire with closed-ended questions and follow-up, open-ended questions in personal interviews with middle level managers in their organizational settings in Australia and Taiwan (chosen to represent an Anglo-American and Chi-nese culture respectively). The interview instru-ment comprised three scenarios, each describing one of the three information sharing examples of asking questions, expressing a contrary or chal-lenging opinion, and revealing a past mistake in the context of a face-to-face meeting. The details of the scenarios are given in the Results section of the paper. To ensure the scenarios simulated the circumstances intended, the instrument was pilot tested with managers in both countries with simi-lar organizational positions and level to those in the main sample. The instrument was ®rst devel-oped in English, translated into Chinese by a bi-lingual person not associated with the study, and then back-translated by one of the bi-lingual research team members. The instrument was then evaluated by a second bi-lingual member of the
5 Studies quantifying the degree of power distance across
research team. The English version was used in Australia and the Chinese version in Taiwan.
Each scenario was accompanied by two ques-tions asking the respondent to indicate, on a nine-point scale, the likely behaviour of a ``typical per-son'' in his/her organization in the scenario con-text. One question assumed that the person's superior was present in the context, and the other assumed that the superior was absent. These questions were designed to obtain quantitative data for the exploratory hypothesis. After the respondent had provided his/her numerical answers, the interview proceeded to probe the reasons for the answers with the purpose of elicit-ing the factors that the respondents saw as in¯u-encing the likely behaviour of people in their organization in the context of each scenario.
Two aspects of the data collection are of note. First, asking for the likely behaviour of another person, rather than the behaviour of the person him/herself was designed to reduce the potential for social desirability bias.6 Second, the use of
scenarios and follow-up discussions is a variant of the ``in-basket'' format developed by Frederiksen, Saunders and Wand (1957), and used in a number of studies of managers' decisions (e.g. Mac-Crimmon & Wehrung, 1984; Tse et al., 1988). For an exploratory study such as ours, a major advantage of this approach is that it allowed us to move beyond the numerical responses to explore the reasons why the respondents had given the answers they did. Tse et al. (p. 92) argue that the ``in-basket'' format has advantages over ``conven-tional tools for studying executives' decisions,
such as belief statements'' because it provides more relevant decision variables to respondents.7
3.1. Respondent sample
Data were collected from 52 (50) middle level managers from 13 (14) Taiwanese (Australian) companies. To control for in¯uences other than culture on information sharing behaviour (e.g. technology and competition), the companies were matched on size (assets) and were drawn from the same ®ve industries: cement, glass and steel; che-micals, plastic and rubber; construction; food and beverages; and paper. The Taiwanese member of the research team identi®ed a sample of companies in Taiwan. The Australian team members then matched this sample using data from corporate directories and business periodicals. Companies were initially contacted by letter personally addressed to the Chief Executive Ocer. Follow-up telephone calls were then made. We targeted wholly-owned companies within each nation to avoid contamination by a Chinese or non-Anglo-American culture.8
6 It is acknowledged that this approach does not overcome
the potential for socially desirable responses entirely. However, it provides some guard against such bias. Additionally, while some respondents had diculty visualising the ``typical per-son'', others were able to do so easily. Respondents frequently said that they recognized the situation in the scenarios well, that they had had exactly these types of incidents occur in their organization, and then described what had happened in the organizational reality of the scenario. Even in the cases of respondents who questioned the ``typical person'', these respondents usually answered by giving us explanations of, and factors underlying, how dierent people might react in the sce-nario. As it was these explanations and factors that we were essentially interested in, we do not think social desirability bias was a problem in the study.
7 A diculty in cross-national research in countries with
dierent languages is ensuring the cross-cultural equivalence of the terms, concepts and decision meanings used in the research instrument. Tse et al. (1988, p. 92) note that the use of ``in-basket'' scenario formats is particularly appropriate for cross-cultural studies in that ``because executives representing
dier-ent backgrounds and organizations are responding
to...common decisions, their behaviour can be compared''.
Additionally, the process of translation and back-translation of the instrument involving independent bi-lingualists also lends con®dence to the equivalence of terms and concepts, as did the pilot testing of the instrument which was conducted in both Australia and Taiwan. In both countries, and using the respec-tive language versions of the instrument, the pilot test managers supported the authenticity of the scenarios and their terminol-ogy in capturing the essence of the decision contexts and meanings, as well as supporting the comparability and typi-cality of the scenarios in both countries.
8 Some of the targeted Australian companies chose not to
The respondent managers were matched on function with half the sample in each country and company drawn from sales/marketing and half from production/operations. The purpose of matching was, again, to control for any in¯uences other than culture on information sharing beha-viour (e.g. nature of task and occupational sub-culture). The managers in each company (we initially sought four in each company) were selec-ted by the Chief Executive Ocer or his/her nominee, based on speci®ed criteria. These criteria were that the respondents be at middle manager level (such that they both reported to a superior and were reported to by subordinates), and that two be in sales/marketing and two in production/ operations. Two quali®cations on the data arose from restrictions imposed by some Australian companies. First, not all Australian companies allowed access to four managers, necessitating a 14th company being drawn on. Second, four ®rms restricted the number of managers we could inter-view, allowing the other managers to complete the (closed-ended) questionnaire only. Thus, the Aus-tralian data comprise both completed ques-tionnaire (quantitative) and personal interview (qualitative) data for 42 respondents, and com-pleted questionnaire data only for a further eight respondents.9
3.2. Content analysis
We drew on content analysis to guide us in analyzing the qualitative data.10 Two members
of the research team analysed the interview transcripts, both jointly and independently, and at dierent points in time. First, all transcripts were read jointly and discussed, with the objec-tive of identifying and classifying into categories
the factors given by respondents as in¯uencing the likely behavioural outcomes in the scenarios. Some months later, one team member reread all transcripts with the same objective, but, on this occasion, (i) determined and documented a set of decision rules for category identi®cation and clas-si®cation, and (ii) applied those rules to obtain a count of the relative frequency with which cate-gories were raised across the respondent samples. The decision rules consisted of a list of the text units of words and phrases regarded by the team member as being indicative or connotative of factors in¯uencing the behavioural outcomes in a given scenario. The second team member then independently read the transcripts with the pur-poses of; (i) evaluating the categories and decision rules, and (ii) applying those rules to the tran-scripts to conduct a second and independent fre-quency count.
The two readings and classi®cations separated by time allowed some comfort of reliability through stability (Krippendor, 1980, p. 130) in that the categories identi®ed by the same coder on the second reading were the same as the ®rst, except for a ®ner gradation of categories in some instances. The two subsequent codings and counts by each researcher independently allowed some comfort of shared meaning of the categories and decision rules (Gray, Kouhy & Lavers, 1995, p. 80), and of reliability through reproducibility (Krippendor, p. 131) in that again there was a high level of agreement between the two coders.11
We acknowledge that our use of content analy-sis is tailored to suit our study, and falls short in some ways of the reliability and validity criteria ideally associated with content analysis. In parti-cular, the categories we developed were generated from the interviews themselves, rather than from an external referent. Hence, we cannot assure exhaus-tiveness of the categories or factors in¯uencing the
9 Mean comparisons of responses to the scenario questions
between the eight who completed the questionnaire in non-interview format and the 42 who completed it in non-interview set-tings showed no dierences. The analysis of the quantitative data is, therefore, based on the full Australian sample of 50 managers.
10 Weber (1990, p. 9) describes content analysis as ``a
research method that uses a set of procedures to make valid inferences from text'', and can be used for many purposes, including coding open-ended questions.
11 Our objective was to determine the relative frequency with
likely behavioural outcomes in the contexts at issue (Guthrie & Mathews, 1985, p. 260). Rather, we can only report and compare the relative fre-quency of occurrence of those categories perceived by our respondents as important in¯uences on information sharing behaviour in those contexts. However, given that the categories and their iden-ti®cation were relatively straightforward, we do not believe that this process detracts substantially from the credibility of the categories and their de®nitions. To provide transparency, the cate-gories and examples of text units included in each category are given in Tables 3, 4 and 5 for each scenario so that readers can also assess their rea-sonableness.
4. Results
The three scenarios used were as follows. Sce-nario 1, asking a clarifying question, involved a meeting of peer managers to decide between two investment proposals. The focal manager has completed his own ®nancial analysis beforehand and favours one alternative.12 In the meeting,
another manager argues in favour of the other alternative, basing this argument on the results of a ®nancial analytical technique referred to by the acronym IVA (for intrinsic value analysis). The focal manager has no knowledge of this technique, but it appears to be familiar to all the other man-agers at the meeting and is apparently leading a number of those managers to favour the other alternative.
Scenario 2, expressing a contrary or challenging opinion, described a situation in which a divisional manager has called a meeting of his marketing, design and production department managers, and their assistant managers, to discuss the poor per-formance of the division. With the meeting not going well and the marketing and design managers each blaming the other, the assistant marketing
manager speaks up. He provides information he has obtained from customers and suggests that there are de®ciencies in both the marketing and design departments. Scenario 3, revealing a past
mistake, involved a department manager who had
been promoted to that position a year earlier. The manager had, as one of his ®rst decisions, pushed for the introduction of a new technology to replace an existing technology in the department. A year later, the new technology is looking like an expensive mistake through cost mis-estima-tion, but a mistake which the manager has been able to conceal in the absence of post-audits of speci®c projects. The scenario states that the manager and his superior have been asked to attend a meeting at another plant to advise on a similar technology replacement decision. The sce-nario creates a situation where, unless the depart-ment manager openly discloses his previous mis-estimation, the other plant is likely to repeat that mistake.
4.1. Quantitative results
As noted earlier, for each scenario respondents were initially asked to indicate how likely it was that the focal manager (if he were a typical person in the respondent's organization) would ask a clarifying question (Scenario 1), speak up and express a contrary or challenging opinion (Sce-nario 2), or reveal a past mistake (Sce(Sce-nario 3). Respondents were asked this question twice, once assuming the superior were present in the context, and the other assuming his absence.13 A
nine-point response scale was used for each question anchored by 1=``would de®nitely not (ask; speak up; reveal mistake)'' and 9=``would de®nitely (ask; speak up; reveal mistake)''. The descriptive statistics are given in Table 1.
12 All subjects in the scenarios were males to avoid any
potential gender eect. The focal managers in the scenarios were given typical Chinese names in the Chinese version of the interview instrument used in Taiwan, and typical Anglo-Amer-ican names in the English version used in Australia.
13 The order of superior presence/absence was varied. In
Table 2
Results of estimating interaction model for scenario responses
Variable Coecent Value SE t p
Panel A: asking clarifying questions (Scenario 1)a
Intercept b0 6.840 0.231 29.595 0.000
Nation b1 0.872 0.324 2.693 0.007
Superior b2 ÿ0.770 0.327 ÿ2.356 0.019
Interaction b3 ÿ0.692 0.458 ÿ1.511 0.132
Panel b: speaking up and expressing a contrary or challenging opinion (Scenario 2)b
Intercept b0 7.510 0.233 32.196 0.000
Nation b1 ÿ1.029 0.327 ÿ3.150 0.002
Superior b2 ÿ0.700 0.330 ÿ2.122 0.035
Interaction b3 0.758 0.462 1.640 0.103
Panel C: reveal a past mistake (Scenario 3)c
Intercept b0 7.080 0.229 30.875 0.000
Nation b1 ÿ0.138 0.321 ÿ0.429 0.669
Superior b2 ÿ0.960 0.324 ÿ2.960 0.003
Interaction b3 ÿ0.117 0.454 ÿ0.257 0.797
a R2=0.14; adjustedR2=0.12; F=10.54; Signif. 0.0000. b R2=0.06; adjustedR2=0.04; F=4.15; Signif. 0.0070. c R2=0.09; adjustedR2=0.08; F=6.99; Signif. 0.0002.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for scenario responsesa
Scenario Country Observed
range
Mean (SD)
1. Asking clarifying questions:
with superior absent Taiwan 6±9 7.72 (0.72)
Australia 2±9 6.84 (1.74)
with superior present Taiwan 3±9 6.25 (1.43)
Australia 1±9 6.07 (2.29)
2. Speaking up and expressing a contrary or challenging opinion:
with divisional manager absent Taiwan 3±9 6.48 (1.78)
Australia 2±9 7.51 (1.54)
with divisional manager present Taiwan 3±9 6.54 (1.50)
Australia 2±9 6.81 (1.76)
3. Revealing a past mistake:
with superior absent Taiwan 3±9 6.94 (1.24)
Australia 2±9 7.08 (1.66)
with superior present Taiwan 2±8 5.87 (1.59)
Australia 1±9 6.12 (1.94)
The hypothesis was tested using the following multiple linear regression model:
Yb0b1X1b2X2b3X1X2e
where:
Y= likelihood of asking question (Scenario 1), speaking up and expressing a contrary and challenging opinion (Scenario 2), revealing a past mistake (Scenario 3);
X1= nation, coded 0 for Australia and 1 for
Taiwan, proxying for culture; and
X2= superior absence (coded 0) or presence
(coded 1).
The results are shown in Table 2, with Panels A, B and C presenting the results for Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Table 2 shows the main eects for nation in Scenarios 1 and 2. The Taiwanese managers were perceived as more likely than the Australian managers to ask clarifying questions (Panel A, t=2.69,p =0.007); however, the Aus-tralian managers were perceived as more likely to speak up and express a contrary or challenging opinion (Panel B, t=3.15, p=0.002). No dier-ence was reported in the tendency to reveal past failures. In all three scenarios and for both the Australian and Taiwanese samples, Table 1 shows that mean scores are above the mid-point indicating an overall propensity to share information. Table 2 also shows a main eect for presence/absence of a superior in all three scenarios, with the direction in each case being a reduced tendency to share information with the superior present compared to absent. A weak interaction eect was found only in Scenario 2 (atp=0.10). This eect was contrary to expectation with the Australian respondents perceiving that the presence of a superior would have a greater eect on reducing the likelihood that a manager would express a contrary or chal-lenging opinion than the Taiwanese.
4.2. Qualitative results
The quantitative results reveal little about information sharing behaviour in the face-to-face meetings context. This was not unexpected given
the lack of prior theory, and the fact that the lit-erature reviewed for the paper provided several relevant but potentially con¯icting cultural impli-cations for such behaviour. Hence, the qualitative data from the open-ended interview questions were looked to for insight. These data are reported in Tables 3, 4 and 5 for Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The tables show: (i) the categories of factors identi®ed by the interview respondents as reasons for or against information sharing in each scenario;14 (ii) examples of the spoken text units
contained in the interview transcripts which were taken to indicate each category; and (iii) the absolute and percentage frequency of citation of each category across the Taiwanese and Aus-tralian interview responses. Panel A in each table summarises the factors in¯uencing the likelihood of information sharing in each scenario, while Panel B focuses speci®cally on the impact of a superior's presence (Scenario 1) or absence (Sce-narios 2 and 3). By contrast with the quantitative results, the qualitative data were revealing, with Tables 3, 4 and 5 showing several systematic and consistent dierences underlying the general pro-pensity to share information. These dierences are, in turn, consistent with the cultural char-acteristics of Taiwanese and Australian societies.
4.3. Scenario 1: Asking clarifying questions
Table 1 showed that both national samples considered it likely that the typical person would ask (for the IVA technique to be explained to them) when only his peers were present at the meeting. However, Table 3 (Panel A) shows that the factors or reasons underlying this propensity to ask were seen and expressed dierently by the Taiwa-nese and Australian respondents. First, by far the most frequently stated reason seen as underlying
14 Occasionally, a factor was raised by a respondent on a
Table 3
Asking clarifying questions (Scenario 1)
Taiwan Australia
Category Examples of text units Number % Number %
Panel A: factors in¯uencing likelihood of asking questions
Reasons for asking
The good of the company Problem can't be realized/solved without further explanation/understanding of problem/content/analysis; company decision would be aected; eect of company decision would be great/critical/important; have to understand problem/analysis to avoid wrong/bad decision/judgement; whole company/entity/section would be aected/harmed; can't communicate eectively if no understanding
47 90 1 2
Individual assertiveness People are vocal/forthright/open/not backward/con®dent; not worried about sticking their neck out; no compunction in admitting ignorance/asking ``dumb'' questions; no embarrassment; would ask in no uncertain terms; no/few impediments
0 0 26 62
Company culture Company/corporate culture encourages/supports/allows questioning/asking questions; people expected to participate; culture of openness/maturity
3 6 9 21
Contingent factors
Individual dierences Personality; some outgoing/some introverted; shy/con®dent; that's the way they are 0 0 6 14
Panel B: impact of superior presence on likelihood of asking questions
Less likely to ask
Loss of face Afraid of losing face; problem of/with face; problem of face more important if superior present; more conservative to protect face
39 75 0 0
Adverse opinion/perception by superior Afraid that superior would doubt knowledge/consider him little talented and little learned; have bad impression; showing insucient knowledge
5 10 4 10
Career risk Career risk; (potential) adverse eect on career/future 1 2 7 17 Superior responsibility Expect superior to ask question/make decision 3 6 0 0
C.W.
Chow
et
al.
/
Accounting,
Organizat
ions
and
Society
24
(1999)
Speaking up and expressing a contrary or challenging opinion (Scenario 2)
Taiwan Australia
Category Examples of text units Number % Number %
Panel A: factors in¯uencing likelihood of speaking up
Reasons for speaking up
The good of the company Bene®t/bene®cial/useful to/good of/in interest of/concern for/ the company/whole company/whole entity. Emphasize cause/understand truth of problem; solving problems is everyone's responsibility; let everyone see/pay attention to problem; righteous speaking is good for company
34 65 0 0
Individual assertiveness People (here) are pretty vocal/forthright/keen to speak up/to ``put their oar in''/get things discussed/out in the open; not at all backward; don't hold back; point will be made regardless of consequences
0 0 14 33
Company culture Company culture is open/encourages open speaking/telling the truth/raise problems; create supporting environment/climate; more concerned with problem solving than apportioning blame; try ``not to shoot the messenger''; expect people to speak up
5 10 16 38
Reasons against speaking up
Maintenance of harmony Maintain/preserve/emphasize harmony/human relations/friendship; have to cooperate with colleagues afterward; avoid people blaming each other and cause future trouble
7 13 0 0
Face Face; problem about face; self-protection; save others face 7 13 0 0 Heirarchy and status Respect superior's opinion/viewpoint; speaking has no eectiveness because of junior
status; lower level would be taken lightly/considered unimportant; afraid of giving dierent ideas from superior; lack of status
7 13 3 7
Contingent factors
Individual dierences Depends on person; people dier on personality/con®dence/characteristics; extroverts vs introverts
1 2 16 38
Panel B: impact of superior absence on likelihood of speaking up
More likely to speak up
Less concern with face No/less concern/about problem about face; face not as serious; individual and boss 4 8 0 0 Less felt pressure from superior No/less/reduction in pressure; not harmful to interests/career; free to ¯oat
ideas/speculate/kite ¯y; lower feeling of intimidation/uncertainty; greater con®dence; consider themselves decision-makers/problem solvers
19 37 6 14
For good of company Emphasize cause of/solution to problem 4 8 0 0 Less likely to speak up
Reduced eectiveness Speaking up is useless/ineective/loses eectiveness/can't do any good in absence of superior/decision-maker/person responsible/person with real power; problem can't be solved; meeting is unimportant/can have no conclusion; emphasis on problem and blame, not on solution; people won't listen
18 35 0 0
Face Save others' face; avoid oense 2 4 0 0 Statement of no dierence No/not much/marginal dierence/impact; no change; not aected; not an issue 10 19 23 55
C.W.
Chow
et
al.
/
Accounting,
Organizat
ions
and
Society
24
(1999)
561±582
Table 5
Revealing a past mistake (Scenario 3)
Taiwan Australia
Category Examples of text units Number % Number %
Panel A: factors in¯uencing likelihood of revealing a past mistake
Reasons for revealing mistake
The good of the company Sake of/loyalty to/bene®cial to/important to/in interests of/useful to/for good of/to help the company/whole entity; help other plant; avoid/prevent mistake being made second time; obligation to help company/admit mistake/tell truth; should have sense of responsibility/honour
33 63 6 14
Company culture Company culture/philosophy of openness; support/tolerate mistakes/errors; do not crucify/punish/go on witchhunt (in order to facilitate) innovation/proactivity
2 4 16 38
Reasons for not revealing
Adverse career implications Afraid/fear of aecting/in¯uencing career/future/promotion/interests/development; career risk; harmful
8 15 6 14
Face Save/protect face of individual/superior/plant; avoid domestic shame made public 12 23 0 0 Admit indirectly Reveal some/a little/part/not all mistake; less than full story; talk generally/tactfully/
indirectly/restrained/subtly; put a ``good gloss'' on it; get message across without admitting mistake/how bad it was
11 21 15 36
Contingent factors
Individual dierences Depends on individual/personality/style; some would, some wouldn't 1 2 12 29 Relations with others Friendship; (terms of) personal relationships; spirit of solidarity 11 21 0 0
Panel B: impact of superior absence on likelihood of revealing mistake
More likely to admit mistake
Less concern with face No/less concern/reduction in problem about face; problem with face not as serious 27 52 0 0 Less felt pressure from superior No/less/reduction in pressure; fear less; more courage/easier to admit 35 67 4 10
Less career concern 0 0 4 10
Statement of no dierence 12 23 19 45
C.W.
Chow
et
al.
/
Accounting,
Organizat
ions
and
Society
24
(1999)
the tendency to share information in the Taiwa-nese sample was the good of the company, with this reason being stated overtly by 47 of the 52 Taiwanese managers (90%). The Taiwanese sam-ple almost universally noted the need to under-stand (IVA) in order that the problem could be understood and, consequently, that a better deci-sion would be made for the company. Comments such as ``the problem can't be solved without fur-ther explanation'', and ``because the analysis would aect the decision, he has to understand it entirely'' were representative.
By contrast, although the good of the company might have been implicit in the responses of the Australian sample, it was not stated overtly in those terms. Instead, the reasons given either re¯ected an individualist theme, or reference was made to the corporate culture. Six of the 42 inter-viewees (14%) noted individual dierence factors including personality (``some people are intro-verted, some are extroverted''), while 26 (62%) made comments which we classi®ed as individual assertiveness because they re¯ected a tendency not even to ponder why someone would ask, or not ask, for an explanation, but to simply assume they would assert themselves and do so. Comments such as ``these guys are pretty forthright'', and ``people are not worried about sticking their necks out'', are expressive of this.
Among references made by the Australian man-agers to corporate culture were descriptions of existing cultures or ones being instituted to pro-mote openness in contexts such as this scenario:
I hope that the culture of support should pre-vail here as well. It's OK to say I don't know. You're not expected to know everything.
The process here is transparent. The (corpo-rate) culture allows speaking up. No-one would feel embarrassed. One of the big gains here (resulting from a deliberate cultural change within the company) is that if you feel something is wrong, you put your hand up.
Table 1 shows that the likelihood of asking a clarifying question decreases for both the Taiwa-nese and Australian samples when the person's
superior is present at the meeting compared to absent. However, the regression results in Table 2 (Panel A) do not show a statistically signi®cant dierence in the decreases (t=1.51, p=0.13). Despite this, a headcount showed that almost all (43, or 83%) of the Taiwanese sample had decreased their quantitative score of likelihood in the presence (versus absence) of a superior, com-pared to just half the Australian sample. Addi-tionally, almost all the remainder (46%) of the Australian sample stated overtly that the presence of the superior would have no eect on the sub-ordinate's propensity to ask for an explanation, while only 17% (9 respondents) of the Taiwanese made this statement.15
These results do suggest some support for a greater sensitivity to the hierarchy in information sharing behaviour in the Taiwanese compared to the Australian sample. The reasons given in the open-ended discussions also provide support for the cultural underpinnings of that sensitivity. Table 3 (Panel B) shows that the Taiwanese respondents' reasons for the reduced likelihood of asking for explanation in the superior's presence were overwhelmingly related to face and its inten-si®cation in the presence of hierarchical status dierences. Of the 52 Taiwanese respondents, 39 (75%) explicitly referred to a concern with loss of face if the superior were present, and a further ®ve (10%) referred to a concern with the superior's adverse opinion or perception of them. The fol-lowing comments were typical:
If his superior is present, he (the subordinate) would ask less to protect his face.
If his superior were at the meeting, he (the subordinate) would not dare to ask for an explanation because of the problem about face.
15 Six of these nine came from just two companies,
In addition to being worried about provoking disagreement at the meeting, and expecting the superior to make decisions directly, they are also afraid of losing their face, so they tend not to ask.
In contrast, none of the Australian respondents made any reference to face, with the main reason given for a greater reluctance to ask for explana-tion in the presence of a superior being ``concern over career''. That explanation itself was given by only 17% of the Australian sample (compared to 75% of the Taiwanese respondents who gave the explanation of concern over face). Even among those Australian respondents who had decreased their quantitative scores in the superior present (versus absent) situation, the typical assessment was that the eect would be relatively minor.
He might be a little less likely to ask with his superior there, but not much. His boss may expect him to be at the forefront of things.
And among those Australian interviewees who had not decreased their quantitative scores, com-ments were generally unequivocal.
Most people would ask and there would be no dierence if the superior was there.
It doesn't matter who is there. He (the sub-ordinate) would ask.
4.4. Scenarios 2 and 3: Expressing a contrary or challenging opinion, and revealing a past mistake
The interview data for the second and third scenarios provided a high degree of consistency with Scenario 1. Again, while Table 1 showed that both national samples considered it likely that the typical person would speak up (and express a contrary or challenging opinion) in Scenario 2, and reveal a past mistake in Scenario 3, Tables 4 and 5 (Panels A and B) corroborate dierences in the factors underlying information sharing behaviour in the two national samples. Similarly, those dierences are consistent with cultural explanations.
Tables 4 and 5 again show the good of the company as the predominant reason given by Taiwanese respondents as supporting information sharing tendencies, with 34 of the 52 respondents (65%) citing this reason in Scenario 2 and 33 (63%) in Scenario 3. For Scenario 2, the solution to the problem (of poor divisional performance) was seen to depend on ``righteous speaking'', ``speaking truth'', and recognition that ``solving the problem is everyone's responsibility''. These statements were relatively unequivocal in their emphasis on the collective responsibility of people to speak up for the company good.
By contrast, the responses from the Australian sample in both scenarios conveyed, as in Scenario 1, the two themes of individualism (individual dif-ferences and individual assertiveness) and refer-ence to corporate culture. Although, again, concern for the company's interests might have been implicit in the Australian responses, there was no statement overtly conveying the sense of an assumed collective obligation to speak up for the good of the company in Scenario 2 (Table 4, Panel A), and only six such citations in Scenario 3 (Table 5, Panel A). Rather, individual-oriented factors, such as personality, style, skill and con-®dence were cited by 16 (38%) of the Australian respondents in Scenario 2 and 12 (29%) in Sce-nario 3, compared to just one such reference from all 52 Taiwanese respondents in each scenario (Tables 4 and 5, Panel A). Individual assertiveness was also strongly present in Scenario 2, with 14 (33%) Australian respondents making overt state-ments using terms such as ``forthright'', ``keen to put their oar in'', ``not at all backward (in coming forward)''. The following quotes are representative.
People are pretty open and vocal here. In this company, there are a lot of voices saying what they think.
There is a strong input from anyone who has something to say. You end up trading pun-ches. It's very open and you've got to be pre-pared to take it back Ð to take as good as you give.
They would speak up. There would be an inhibition to some extent, but if there's a point to be made, it will be made regardless of the consequences.
The emphasis on individual dierences and individual assertiveness is consistent with an individualist society, where a person's unique characteristics are seen as more important deter-minants of behaviour than in a collectivist society, and where people can come into overt confronta-tion in one public forum without prejudice to the continuing relationships between those people in other contexts. The ability to separate and abstract the instance of confrontation and con¯ict in one context from the ongoing relationships between people was implied frequently in the interviews.
This characteristic may be seen to contrast with the dictates of a collectivist society. In Scenario 2, for example, the importance of the maintenance of harmony, and the lesser ability to disassociate instances of confrontation and challenge between parties in one context from the ongoing relation-ship between those parties, was frequently expres-sed by Taiwanese respondents. Illustrative quotes were: ``he wants to avoid the scene in which speakers blame each other and cause future trou-ble'', and ``he has to cooperate with colleagues afterward''. Reinforcing this was the emphasis given in the Taiwanese responses to the nature of the ongoing relations with others as a contingent factor aecting whether a person would reveal a past mistake in Scenario 3. Table 5 (Panel A) shows that eleven of the Taiwanese respondents (21%), compared to no Australian respondent, identi®ed the existing state of interpersonal rela-tions, including the strength of ongoing friendship, as an important determinant of information shar-ing behaviour.
The second theme in both Scenarios 2 and 3 arising in the Australian responses was the impor-tance of developing an organizational culture of openness wherein people who, by personality or other individual characteristics, might not other-wise speak up and express a contrary or challen-ging view, or reveal a past mistake, are encouraged and supported in doing so. In an
individualist society, and in the absence of a per-ceived collective responsibility to act for the good of the company, the creation of an organizational culture which aligns individual interests with cor-porate interests is an appropriate response. The importance of creating a climate of openness was the most frequently raised issue in the Australian interview discussions of both Scenarios 2 and 3, being cited by 16 (38%) respondents in each sce-nario (Tables 4 and 5, Panel A), with those respondents representing eight of the 14 Aus-tralian companies in the sample. The following quotes were representative.
We don't shoot the messenger here. We don't punish people here Ð it is important to understand the problems (Scenario 2).
This is a real mixed bag. Some people would (admit their mistake), some wouldn't. How-ever, the corporate philosophy is that mistakes are made. It (the philosophy) acknowledges that. We take it on the chin and analyze the mistakes (Scenario 3).
Respondents from ®ve of the eight Australian companies claimed that their companies had well developed and accepted cultures of openness wherein people, irrespective of level, were encour-aged to share information freely. The remaining three companies were instances of organizations seeking, through restructuring and cultural change mechanisms, to overcome problems of interfunc-tional and interdepartmental communication. These, and the companies which claimed to have such cultures already in place, provided consistent evidence of the central thesis of this paper Ð that the open exchange of information is seen as one of the essential operational attributes for competi-tiveness in the contemporary global environment.
Mistakes will be made if we are going to be innovative. We have to be tolerant of our fail-ures. We are supportive of mistakes.
Although the overall tendency of both the Taiwanese and Australian samples was to speak up (in Scenario 2) and reveal a past mistake (in Scenario 3), the reasons underlying the residual tendency against doing so were also informative and consistent with cultural premises. In the Tai-wanese sample, face was the most frequently cited reason for not speaking up and for not revealing a past mistake (cited by 7 and 12 of the 17 and 20 respondents who gave reasons for not speaking up and not revealing a mistake in Sce-narios 2 and 3 respectively) (Tables 4 and 5, Panel A). By contrast, there was no mention of this fac-tor among the Australian responses. In Scenario 3, the issue of face was identi®ed by Taiwanese respondents in each of its contexts of concern with the face of the individual him/herself, that of their peers, and that of their superiors and collective organizational units. The following quotes are representative.
To protect his face, and his superior's face.
He must protect the face of executives of his plant.
Domestic shame should not be made public.
Compared to the whole entity, the indivi-dual's face is more important.
The impact of face and of power distance dif-ferentials between the two societies was most visi-ble when the superior was taken out of the scenario. Recall that Scenarios 2 and 3 ®rst posited a meeting context in which the focal manager's superior was present and then asked respondents to discuss the likely behaviour of the manager if the superior were absent. The interview discussions for Scenario 2 are most illuminating here. The quantitative results for Scenario 2 showed that, contrary to expectation, the presence of a superior was seen to have a greater eect on reducing the likelihood that a subordinate manager would speak up and oer a contrary or challenging opi-nion in the Australian sample. It was expected that the eect would have been greater in the Taiwanese sample. The reason for the quantitative
results was, as shown in Table 1, that the Taiwa-nese mean response for likelihood to speak up remained virtually unaected by the absence or presence of the superior, while the Australian mean response changed between the two condi-tions.
While the quantitative data suggested the absence of the cultural eects we had anticipated, the interview data revealed that those cultural in¯uences were indeed operating, but in ways we had not anticipated. For the Taiwanese sample, the relatively unchanged mean between the two questions was not due to the individual responses having remained the same. Rather, almost half the respondents (24 of 52) had increased their score (by an average of 1.6 points on the nine-point scale), while another 18 respondents had decreased their score (by an average of 2.2 points).
As shown in Table 4 (Panel B), the Taiwanese interviews revealed that the reasons for the increased likelihood of speaking up in the absence of the superior were consistent with the cultural literature on the importance of hierarchy (power distance) and face. The reduction in felt pressure from superiors, and its consequence for a greater perceived freedom in speaking up, was raised explicitly by 19 of the 24 respondents who had increased their score on this question. The fact that there would be a reduction in the concern for loss of face was also raised by four of these respondents. The 18 Taiwanese respondents who had decreased their scores almost universally gave the same reason. As shown in Table 4 (Panel B), this was that, in the absence of the divisional manager, the meeting had lost its decision-maker. In that situation, the respondents stated that there would be little point in speaking up; doing so could not achieve anything purposeful or con-clusive, and would instead only cause the meeting to focus on blaming people. The following two quotes are representative.
The problem can't be solved without the superior at the meeting. Speaking up is useless.
By contrast, the Australian responses to the removal of the superior from the scenario split virtually into halves, with 24 respondents indi-cating that the focal manager would be more likely to speak up, and 23 making the overt statement that there would be no dierence. Of the former 24, none made mention of face as a factor. Rather a typical theme was that, in the divisional manager's absence, people in the focal manager's position would be freer and more likely to make speculative statements, to ``kite ¯y'' ideas, and to engage in ``brainstorming''; activities and behaviours which are generally argued to be important in sustaining a creative, innovative organization.
The interview discussions associated with nario 3 reinforced the factors emerging from Sce-nario 2. Once again, although the responses to the quantitative scaled questions did not show a sta-tistically signi®cant dierence between the sam-ples, the interviews suggested that the presence or absence of the superior was again of greater per-ceived importance to the Taiwanese than the Aus-tralian respondents. Of the 52 Taiwanese respondents, 39 (75%) increased their assessment of the likelihood that the typical person would reveal his mistake without the superior at the meeting. The main reasons given by these respon-dents (shown in Table 5, Panel B) were, as for Scenario 2, a reduction in concern for face (27 respondents or 52% of the Taiwanese sample) and a reduction in felt pressure from the hierarchy (35 respondents or 67%). The corresponding number increasing their assessments in the Australian sample was 26 (52%). While eight of these cited less pressure and less career concern with the superior absent, the concern for face was, again, not evident in the Australian responses, and the frequency of citation of felt pressure from the hierarchy was substantially less compared to the Taiwanese sample (4 respondents or 10% com-pared to 35 or 67%). Hence, the contrast between the reasons given by the two national samples of respondents again provides support for the cul-tural dictates of greater (lower) emphasis on the
hierarchy in high (low) power distance societies, and the more intense and pervasive emphasis on hierarchy and face in Chinese-based culture.
5. Conclusion
The study identi®ed several systematic dier-ences in the factors underlying information shar-ing behaviour in Taiwan and Australia; dierences which, in turn, are consistent with the cultural characteristics of Chinese and Anglo-American cultures. First, a consistent theme emerging from the Taiwanese responses across all scenarios was a sense of collective responsibility on the part of organizational members to share information for the good of the company, even if doing so was potentially disadvantageous for the person con-cerned. This motivation accords with an intrinsic acceptance of a moral involvement with the com-pany which is consistent with the precepts of a collectivist culture. By contrast, the preparedness to share information in the Australian context was seen to depend on individual dierences (such as personality, style and skills), and to be related to individual assertiveness and personal expression and choice. These considerations are, again, con-sistent with the behavioural precepts of an indivi-dualist culture.
Second, although the results show that sharing information which is potentially personally dama-ging is constrained by the presence of a superior in both Taiwan and Australia, the interview respon-ses suggest that sensitivity to the hierarchy in Tai-wan is greater than in Australia. The responses generally attributed such sensitivity to concern with face, and its intensi®cation in the presence of a superior, and to the perception of the superior as the greater authority, and the legitimate and obliged decision-maker, relative to subordinates. Again, these attributions and perceptions are consistent with the high power distance dictates of Chinese-based culture.
allow managers of organizations in those cultures to understand when (and which) cultural char-acteristics might facilitate information sharing, and when such characteristics might impede informa-tion sharing. Recogniinforma-tion of this latter circumstance may prompt the development of mechanisms to overcome such impediments. The current study revealed instances of this, particularly in the Aus-tralian sample. In this sample, recognition that the calculative rather than moral basis of involvement of the individual with the organization does not provide an intrinsic acceptance of collective responsibility appeared to underpin the relatively frequent approach of seeking to build an organi-zational culture conducive to cooperative, infor-mation sharing behaviour.
It should be noted that the dierences in factors underlying information sharing behaviour in the two societies, and their cultural determinants, were revealed only in the qualitative data gained in the interview discussions. By contrast, the aggregated responses to the scaled questions washed these dif-ferences out and typically concealed, and, in one instance, potentially misrepresented the underlying motivations and behaviours. The instance of potential misrepresentation occurred in Scenario 2, where the mean response of the Taiwanese did not dier between the circumstances where the superior was present and absent, resulting in the regression analysis showing no eect of the super-ior on the Taiwanese sample's behaviour. Further analysis from the interviews, however, revealed that there were, in fact, two eects, both impor-tant and consistent with national cultural char-acteristics but which were o-setting in their eect on the quantitative analysis based on mean response comparisons. This circumstance high-lights the importance of using qualitative, con-textual data in studies which are exploratory and unable to be guided de®nitively or directionally by prior literature or theory.
As noted in the introduction, the study has a number of limitations, particularly scope limita-tions. It studies only one instance of informal information exchange (face-to-face meetings) and one type of information (information which has a potentially damaging eect on the subject person). Additionally, although motivated by the
impor-tance of integrative liaison processes in con-temporary business organizations, the study concentrates on just one input to such processes (cultural considerations in cross-national compar-isons). The study does not address other inputs or diering organizational circumstances which may aect the need for, or eectiveness of, such pro-cesses. Finally, although the scenarios were gen-erally seen by respondent managers as realistic and representative, and the qualitative data arising from interview discussion of those scenarios revealed much about perceived information shar-ing behaviour, it must be acknowledged that the scenarios are arti®cial manipulations which sim-plify complex situations and may also therefore simplify perceived behaviours.
Similarly, the study relies on the value dimen-sional conception of culture which Harrison and McKinnon 1999), in their review of cross-cultural research in management control systems design, argue is a restricted focus on culture and one which is ``limited in its ability to examine and understand the dynamic processes of MCS (management con-trol systems) and their cultural interplays'' (Harri-son & McKinnon, 1999). Thus, although the study implements Harrison and McKinnon's suggestions for enhancing the methodological basis for cultural research using the values lens (particularly in the use of ®eld and interview-based data collection methods), the functionalist lens of values remains limited in its ability to reveal the complexities and dynamics of behaviour in cultural contexts that might be revealed by other lenses, particularly those emerging from the anthropology, sociology and history literatures. Further research overcoming these limitations, studying other types and venues of informal information sharing, examining beha-viours rather than perceptions of behabeha-viours, and drawing on conceptions of culture other than those in the value dimensional mode, will be valuable.
