Dong-One Kim, Joo-Young Park

1. ILERA EUROPE 2016 Sept. 9, 2016 Employee voice behavior across cultures: cultural values and employee voice behaviors in Korea and the United States Dong-One Kim, Joo-Young Park

2. Overview • Introduction • Proposed Model • Research design • Findings • Conclusion: Contribution, limitation, and future research

3. Introduction • How do employees respond to negative workplace situations? • What affects these decisions? • What’s the outcome? • It is so-called ‘employee voice’ literature!!!

4. Why important? Absenteeism (e.g. Tyler, 1987) Anger (e.g. Tyler, 1987) OB IO PSY Stress (e.g. Sheppard et al., 1992) IR Employees’ Voice Quit Rates (e.g. Batt et. al. 2003) HR Job Tenure (e.g. Tyler, 1987) Org Justice OCB Procedural Justice Perception (e.g. Folger, 1997) Org’ productivity & Effectiveness (e.g. Leck & Saunders, 1992)

5. What does affect employees’ voice behavior? • INDIVIDUAL FACTORS • Job satisfaction • Alternative quality • Investment size • (e.g. Rusbult, et al., 1988) • Self-esteem (e.g. Brockner et al., 1998) • Self-efficacy (e.g. Avery, 2003) • Big Five Personality (e.g. LePine & Van Dyne, 2001) Employees’ Voice Behavior • ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS • LMX (e.g. Botero & Van Dyne, 2009) • MGT style (e.g. LePine & Van Dyne, 1998) • Org voice mechanism (e. g, Van & Landau, 2009) • Culture? • Deserving area of future attention!!! • (Botero & Van Dyne, 2009; Edward & Greenberg, 2009; Landau, 2009; Lee & Jablin, 1992; Price et al., 2001; Xu et al., 2005)

6. Research Questions • Do employees respond to negative workplace situations differently across culture? • If so, how does culture affect employees’ response to negative workplace situations? 5

7. Proposed Model How employees respond to negative workplace situations? • HARMONY CULTURE FACTORS • Collectivism • Face-Saving • Conflict-Avoiding EXIT VOIVE LOYALTY NEGLECT • OTHER FACTORS • Alternative Quality • Self-esteem • Power Distance • LMX

8. Theoretical Framework Employee respond to negative workplace situations? • EVLN Construct (Rusbult, et. al., 1982) • Exit: Leaving an organization by quitting, transferring, searching for a different job, or thinking about quitting • Voice: Actively and constructively trying to improve conditions through discussion problems with a supervisor or co-workers, taking action to solve problems, suggesting solutions, seeking help from an outside agency like a union, or whistle-blowing • Loyalty: Passively but optimistically waiting for conditions to improve-giving public and private support to the organization, waiting and hoping for improvement, or practicing good citizenship • Neglect: Passively allowing conditions to deteriorate through reduced interest or effort, chronic lateness or absences, using company time for personal business, or increased error rate

9. Theoretical Framework Culture: Hofstede (1980) • “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one category of people from those of another” • Composed of values that represent patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting in certain societies • In particular, people from the same country would share the same culture and would exhibit similar behaviors Kozan (1980)’s Culture Model • Asian countries: Harmony Culture • Collectivism, Conflict-avoidance, and Face-saving

10. Proposed Model KOREA • HARMONY CULTURE FACTORS • Collectivism • Face-Saving • Conflict-Avoiding EXIT VOIVE LOYALTY NEGLECT • UIVERSAL FACTORS • Alternative Quality • Self-esteem • Power Distance • LMX v.s. • HARMONY CULTURE FACTORS • Collectivism • Face-Saving • Conflict-Avoiding EXIT VOIVE LOYALTY NEGLECT US • UIVERSAL FACTORS • Alternative Quality • Self-esteem • Power Distance • LMX

11. Research Design • A cross-sectional survey with 510 employees of the Korean organizations in auto industry in the U.S. and Korea • Lyons & Chryssochoou (2000)’s guide for cross-cultural research design • all of choices should be made based on theoretical grounds, as well as practical grounds • two stages of sampling • which cultural groups will be used : should be based on theoretical grounds : Korea vs. the U.S. based on Kozan (1997)’s categorization • which subgroup within each culture will be used : should try to match the subgroup to the research purpose across the selected cultures in the first stage of sample : employees at the Korean facilities in manufacturing industry, particularly automotive industry in the U.S. and Korea, to be free from other possible contextual factors such as industry characteristics and the nationality of company • The findings from studies using different methods are consistent, when they use employee samples (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; Van Yperen et al., 2000)

13. Findings: Employee Response to Negative Workplace Situations Howand whydo employees respond to their negative workplace situations differently across cultures?

14. Regression on Exit

15. Regression on Voice

16. Regression on Loyalty

17. Regression on Neglect

18. Findings

19. Findings 1. Uniqueness of the exit option: culture doesn’t matter! 2. Except ‘quitters,’ ‘stayers’ behave differently across culture 3. Three harmony culture values were supported in the Korean sample 4. The effect of three harmony culture values in the Korean sample vary depends on VLN options 5. Some predictors supported in the previous studies are not supported 6. Universal predictors were supported across cultures 7. No organization effect for each country on EVLN options

20. Conclusion

21. Contribution: theoretically 1. Addressed under-developed but promising subject for the future research: cross-cultural study of employee voice. 2. Answered in-depth critical question —why and how employees’ voice behaviors vary across cultures— , based on theoretical rationale, by illustrating the key values in certain culture. 3. Provide interdisciplinary approach by buying theoretical ground from conflict management 4. Suggesting uncovered values affecting employees employees’ response to negative workplace situations

22. Contribution: theoretically 5. Suggesting multiple cultural values affecting employees employees’ response to negative workplace situations across culture 6. Providing further understanding of dynamic of employees’ response to negative workplace situations, by testing diverse possible behavioral options, rather than narrowly focusing on the voice behavior itself. 7. Suggested overreaching perspective for more precise understanding of employees’ response to negative workplace situations, by comprehensively tested culture specific values as well as universal factors influencing employees’ voice behaviors across culture as well.

23. Contribution: methodologically 1. Attempted to overcome the limitations of methodology pervasive in previous research in cross-cultural research 2. Consider the selection of comparison countries is based on theoretical rationale: based on Kozan (1997)’s categorization of culture model. 3. Consider the selection of subgroup of each country compatible to each other as much as possible 4. Employee sample, not student sample since this dissertation focuses on employees’ certain behaviors at work

24. Contribution: empirically 1. Regression outcomes reveal three harmony culture values which rarely tested in employee voice literature 2. Uniqueness of the exit option 3. Differences of the non-exit options in the Korean vs. the U.S. sample 4. Some predictors supported in the previous studies are not supported in the non-Western culture 5. Universal predictors were supported across cultures

25. Contribution: practically 1. How to succeed in global business operation? 2. Values that originated in their home country will not be shared equally with their employees and managers from other national origins. 3. Put more efforts to better understanding of employees in other cultures: they are different! 4. Develop thorough manual of subsidiaries preparation program 5. Precise and continuous research on the targeted culture 6. Develop the customized HR policies for local employees 7. Need to train for both local employees and expatriate to understand cultural differences.

26. Limitations and Future Research 1. Generalizability of this study 2. The cross-sectional self-report 3. Only direct correlation between three harmony culture values and employees voice behaviors were tested 4. Did not measure ‘actual behavior’ of EVLN construct, rather it measures intention or propensity of these behaviors.

27. “Management is always about people, its essence is dealing with human nature… Assuming “business is business everywhere” and “employee is the same everywhere” is very dangerous (Hofstede, 1999)”.

28. Questions & Comments? Thank you!