A central question in cross-cultural research: do employees of different cultures interpret work-related measures in an equivalent manner?

Journal of Management, Fall, 1994 by Christine M. Riordan, Robert J. Vandenberg

Some of the general value differences between individualistic and collectivistic societies that are commonly thought to influence how members of each culture react to and interpret the work environment include: (1) individual regulation vs. ingroup regulation; (2) self-sufficiency vs. interdependence; (3) personal fate vs. shared fate; (4) person as center of psychological field vs. the group as the center; and (5) "I" orientation vs. "We" orientation (NOTE: Individualistic attributes are presented first in all cases; Meindl et al., 1989). These observed cultural values are typically used to formulate hypothesized patterns of differences in mean levels of specified variables between individualistic and collectivist samples (e.g. Gabrenya, Latane & Wang, 1985; Kim, Park & Suzuki, 1990; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai & Lucca, 1988).

Three instruments were selected for purposes of this study. These three instruments operationalize a variety of psychological constructs that are commonly of interest in organizational behavior research: (1) the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ; Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979) which measures employee organizational commitment or psychological attachment to the organization; (2) the Organizational Based Self Esteem instrument (OBSE; Pierce, Gardner, Cummings & Dunham, 1989) which indexes the degree to which employees believe they are valuable, worthwhile, effectual members in their particular organization; and (3) the Satisfaction With My Supervisor Scale (SWMSS; Scarpello & Vandenberg, 1987; Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1992) which operationalizes how satisfied each subordinate is with his/her supervisor's involvement in the subordinate's work related tasks; roles, career planning and progress, and performance recognition.

The selection of these three measures was not accidental. Each instrument has been used in a wide variety of organizational studies conducted in the United States. In all cases, the properties underlying the three instruments have been well researched and there is ample evidence supporting their reliability and validity. However, the most relevant reason for selecting these three instruments was the differences in which the item content for each instrument was originally identified and developed (original sources should be consulted for detail by the reader; Mowday et al., 1979; Pierce et al. 1989; Scarpello & Vandenberg, 1987).

It should be noted first that the developmental bases of all three instruments were linked to sound theoretical foundations. Thus, the construct characterizing each instrument was well defined within the research literature. Where the instruments differ was the manner in which the content domain of their respective constructs was uncovered. The content of the organizational commitment construct appeared to have been generated from the researchers' own interpretations of the theoretical literature, and based upon their vast research experiences in the study of commitment (Mowday et al., 1979; Porter, Steers, Mowday & Boulian, 1974; Steers, 1977). Thus, items for the OCQ were written from a content domain representing the researchers' interpretation of the existing organizational commitment literature. In contrast, the developers of both the OBSE and SWMSS exposed the content domain underlying each of their respective constructs from discussions with American employees. For example, the developers of the OBSE derived the items for the scale from comments that they often heard in discussions with American employees, managers, and organizational scientists. From these comments and discussions, the developers of the OBSE came to the conclusion that it was not "uncommon for employees to develop a belief that they "do not count", "do not make a difference", "are not a valuable part of this place" (Pierce et al., 1989, p. 634). It was out of this context that the items for OBSE measure were written. Similarly, the developers of the SWMSS specifically interviewed American employees and asked them to think of critical incidents in their work histories that would operationally define their relationship with their supervisors. This step was purposely completed by the SWMSS designers to capture the content domain of the construct as expressed through the employees' own perceptions, words and feelings. Items of the SWMSS were written from these employee statements.