Constructs

Table 4.2 lists the constructs that were evaluated in this study and how they were measured. All non-cultural value constructs are identical to those used in paper 2. The cultural values constructs and measurements are taken from the GLOBE Form Beta (societal practices scale) (GLOBE 2006).

Table 4.2: Construct Categorization and Measurement Methodology

Construct Type How Measured Source of the

Items

Decision to Continue Current Course of Action

Dependent Variable One 8 point

semantic differential scale item. Same item as used in chapters 2 and 3. Perceived Relevance of the Bad News Reporter’s Message

Endogenous Independent

Four 7 point Likert scale items

Same items as used in chapter 3.

Credibility of the Bad News Reporter

Exogenous Independent

Five 7 point Likert scale items

Same items as used in chapter 3.

Risk Propensity of the Decision Maker

Exogenous Independent

Three 7 point Likert scale items Same items as used in chapter 3. Derived from Sitken and Weingart (1995). Perception of Risk by

the Decision Maker

Exogenous Independent

Four 7 point Likert scale items Same items as used in chapter 3. Derived from Sitken and Weingart (1995). Role Prescription of

the Bad News Reporter

Exogenous Independent

One 7 point Likert scale item Same item as used in chapters 2 and 3. Institutional Collectivism of the Ambient Society Exogenous Independent

Two 7 point Likert scale items Two 7 point semantic differential scale items GLOBE Framework In-Group Collectivism of the Ambient Society

Exogenous Independent

Four 7 point Likert scale items

GLOBE Framework Power Distance of the

Ambient Society

Exogenous Control Four 7 point

semantic differential items

One 7 point Likert scale item

GLOBE Framework

of the Ambient Society scale item One 7 point semantic differential item Framework Performance Orientation of the Ambient Society

Exogenous Control Two 7 point

semantic differential items

One 7 point Likert scale item

GLOBE Framework

Future Orientation of the Ambient Society

Exogenous Control Five 7 point

semantic differential items

GLOBE Framework

In addition to the studied cultural values constructs of Institutional Collectivism and In- Group Collectivism, the constructs of Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Future Orientation and Performance Orientation are entered as control variables on the decision to continue the current course of action.

Reflective/Formative Determination. I applied the same reflective/formative determinations from chapter 3 in this study. Relevance was treated as a reflective variable; Credibility as a formative construct. Below, I discuss the nature of the GLOBE constructs.

The GLOBE Consortium (House, et al. 2004) developed and treated their 9 constructs as reflective constructs. However, in examining the items used in these constructs, it appears that they are better treated as formative constructs.

Petter, Straub and Rai’s (2007) table 3 provides a set of decision rules for evaluation of the constructs. They describe four rules for evaluation of constructs to determine whether they are formative or reflective. First is the direction of causality. Reflective items are manifestations of the underlying construct and therefore causality flows from the construct to the measure. For formative constructs, the causality is in the opposite direction. The items interact to form the manifestation of the construct. Second,

measurement interchangeability asks whether the items are interchangeable with each other. For reflective measures, the items should be interchangeable with each other and elimination of one item does not affect the determination of the construct. For formative constructs on the other hand, the measures are not necessarily interchangeable as they cause formation of the construct, therefore they cannot be removed without damaging the measurement of the construct. Third, measure covariance asks whether the measures statistically co-vary with each other. In reflective constructs, the items must co-vary with each other. In formative constructs however, since they measure different parts of the construct, the items will not necessarily co-vary with each other. In fact, some items might vary in opposite directions if they represent countervailing forces on the construct. Finally, they ask whether the items have the same antecedents and consequences. Do the same causal factors motivate the answers to the items or are they different. Items for reflective constructs, since they reflect the same value, will have the same antecedents. Items for formative constructs will have different antecedents and consequences.

are reflective or formative. The third factor, measure co-variance, is assessed in the findings section.

Collectivism. The GLOBE consortium divides collectivism into two constructs: Institutional (IC) and In-Group (IG) Collectivism. The items that measure these are shown in the following table 4.3a:

Table 4.3a: Collectivism Items

IC – 1 In this society, leaders encourage group loyalty even if individual goals suffer.

IC – 2 The economic system is design to maximize individual interests. IC - 3 In this society being accepted by the other members of a group is

very important.

IC - 4 In this society individualism is more valued than group cohesion. IG - 1 In this society, children take pride in the individual

accomplishments of their parents.

IG - 2 In this society, parents take pride in the individual accomplishments of their children.

IG – 3 In this society, aging parents generally live at home with their children.

IG – 4 In this society, children generally live at home with their parents until they get married.

In these constructs, these items all tap into different facets of the construct each adding a different aspect. The four Institutional Collectivism items assess the respondents’ views of what leaders encourage, the goal of the economic system, how people are accepted and what is valued more in society. Similarly, the In-Group Collectivism questions assess what children and parents take pride in, how the aging are cared for and whether children live at home until marriage. They are thus not interchangeable and they all have different antecedents. From this qualitative analysis, they are therefore considered to be formative constructs.

Uncertainty Avoidance. The items used to measure uncertainty avoidance are listed in table 4.3b.

Table 4.3b: Uncertainty Avoidance Items

UA - 1 In this society, orderliness and consistency are stressed, even at the expense of experimentation and innovation.

UA - 2 In this society, people lead highly structured lives with few unexpected events.

UA - 3 In this society, societal requirements and instructions are spelled out in detail so citizens know what they are expected to do. UA - 4 This society has rules or laws to cover almost all situations.

In each of the items, different facets of the construct are being measured: orderliness, structure of the lives, and detail of instruction. Therefore I see that they are not

interchangeable and have different antecedents. I therefore consider the construct as formative.

Power Distance. The items used to measure power distance are listed in table 4.3c.

Table 4.3c: Power Distance Items

PD - 1 In this society, a person’s influence is based primarily on the authority of one’s position as opposed to their ability and contribution.

PD - 2 In this society, followers are expected to obey their leaders without question as opposed to questioning them when in disagreement.

PD - 3 In this society, people in position of power try to increase their social distance from less powerful people as opposed to decreasing it.

PD - 4 In this society, rank and position in the hierarchy have special privileges.

PD – 5 In this society, power is concentrated at the top

In each of the items, different facets of the construct are being measured: source of influence, obedience to leaders, activities of the powerful, privileges of the powerful, concentration of power. Therefore they are not interchangeable and have different antecedents. I therefore consider the construct as formative.

Future Orientation. The items used to measure future orientation are listed in table 4.3d.

Table 4.3d: Future Orientation Items

FO - 1 The way to be successful in this society is to plan ahead. FO - 2 In this society, the accepted norm is to plan for the future. FO - 3 In this society, social gatherings are usually planned well in

advance.

FO - 4 In this society, more people live for the future than live for the present.

FO – 5 In this society, people place more emphasis on planning for the future.

I see that in each of the items, different facets of the construct are being measured: path to success, and whether life is lived for the future or the past. I see that they are not

interchangeable and have different antecedents. I therefore consider the construct as formative.

Performance Orientation. Finally, the items used to measure performance orientation are listed in table 4.3e.

Table 4.3e: Performance Orientation Items

PO - 1 In this society, teen-aged students are encouraged to strive for continuously improved performance.

PO - 2 In this society, major rewards are based on only performance effectiveness (compared with other factors such as seniority etc.) PO - 3 In this society, being innovative to improve performance is

generally substantially rewarded vs. not rewarded.

In each of the items, different facets of the construct are being measured: what students are taught to do, how rewards are bestowed and how innovation is recognized. They are not interchangeable and have different antecedents. I therefore consider the construct as formative.

Summary. In the following table 4.4, I summarize the results of my assessment of the constructs. I did not include Decision or Role Prescription in the table, as they are single measure constructs. In the previous usage of these measures, those studies all reported the constructs to have high item covariance (Cuellar, et al. 2006; Hanges and Dickson 2004). Since I determined that the constructs are formative, I will establish formative construct processing within PLS by using the measure to construct connections instead of the construct to measure connections.

Table 4.4: Categorization of Constructs as Formative or Reflective Construct Direction of Causality Measure interchangability Nomological Net Construct Type Institutional Collectivism Measure to Construct Not interchangeable, measure different aspects of the construct Different Antecedents Formative In-Group Collectivism Measure to Construct Not interchangeable, measure different aspects of the construct Different Antecedents Formative

Uncertainty Avoidance Measure to Construct Not interchangeable, measure different aspects of the construct Different Antecedents Formative Power Distance Measure to Construct Not interchangeable, measure different aspects of the construct Different Antecedents Formative Future Orientation Measure to Construct Not interchangeable, measure different aspects of the construct Different Antecedents Formative Performance Orientation Measure to Construct Not interchangeable, measure different aspects of the construct Different Antecedents Formative

4.5

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Surveys were taken on paper, coded, and then keyed into spreadsheets and analyzed using SPSS for descriptive statistics and manipulation checks and SmartPLS (Ringle, et al. 2005) for measurement and structural model analysis.