Pedagogical Recommendations
Author(s): Alvin Hwang, Eric H. Kessler, Anne Marie Francesco
Source: Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Jun., 2004), pp. 139-150
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40214244 .
Accessed: 04/03/2011 17:33
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aom. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Academy of
Management Learning & Education.
http://www.jstor.org
®Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 2004, Vol. 3, No. 2, 139-150.
StudentNetworkingBehavior,
Culture,and Grade
Performance:An Empirical
Studyand Pedagogical
Recommendations
ALVIN HWANG
ERIC H. KESSLER
Pace University
ANNE MARIE FRANCESCO
HongKongBaptistUniversity
STDALONE
y/B ^S^^
yyy^ 1 \ ^*^. nt
horizontal
GRPPREF
,S y( GRADE
V /X X^ jf
^^SS. / NT /
VERTICAL
^ 2
^cj INDIVTHK^^^^^^^
FIGURE 1
Hypothesized Hong Kong, Singapore, and U.S. NetworkLearning Model. STDALONE = Stand Alone;
WINALL = Win Above All; GRPPREF = Group Preference; SACRIF = Sacrifice; INDIVTHK = Individual
Thinking;HORIZONTAL NT = Horizontal Networking;VERTICAL NT = Vertical Networking;GRADE =
Previous Semester Grades.
2004 Hwang,Kesslei,andFrancesco 141
and StudentLearning
Individualism-Collectivism clinationto win in competitive situations. Group
collectivism is a keyconceptinthe Preference shows a preference to work with others
Individualism- in groups. Sacrifice recognizes that individuals
studyofculturaldifferences. Researchers in man-
have to make sacrificesin groupsitua-
personal
agement,education,and psychology have found
tions,and Individual reflects a need for
IC tobe usefulin explaininga widerangeofbe- Thinking
individual beliefs to be sublimated in groupsitu-
haviorsincluding thosethatcouldaffect personal ations.Thesefivedimensions were used totestfor
networking (cf.,Earley,1989;Greenfield, Raeff,& IC differences across the threecountriesin this
Quiroz,1996;Hofstede, 1980;Triandis,1995;Wag-
ner,1995). MarkusandKitayama(1991)arguedthat study.
Ournextquestionwas howa person'sIC orien-
an independent construalof self has generally tation
beenfoundinWestern cultures, suchas theUnited mightinfluencepersonalnetworking. An
important finding from Earley's (1989) work showed
States,wheresocietalnormspromotevalues of
autonomy, uniqueness,self-sufficiency, and self- that personswitha moreindividualistic orienta-
tion were more likely to engage in social loafing
actualization. Bycontrast, in non- Westernsociet- behaviorswhen
placed in interpersonal situations
ies,theinterdependent construal oftheselfis dom- in
a learningenvironment. A latercross-cultural
inant,and personalrelationships are morehighly
valued.Triandis'(1995)definitive worksuggests manceresults.Whilecollectivistsdistinctperfor-
study by Earley (1993) produced
worked better in
thatIC has fourimportant attributes: thatis, thosewheremembersshared
in-groups,
1. Definition ofselfvaries,withemphasis on in- similartraitsand background characteristics, in-
dependenceand personalaspects forindivid- dividualistsperformed betterwhen theywere
ualists versusinterdependence and groupas- workingalone. Further, collectivistssee them-
pects forcollectivists. selves as mosteffective when workingwithan
2. Goal priority varies such thatpersonal goals
are moreimportant forindividualists, whereas in-group as reflected in higher group-and self-
groupgoals take precedence forcollectivists. efficacy scores.This was in contrast toindividual-
3. Determinantsforsocial behavior vary such ists who had higherself-efficacy expectations
thatindividualisticbehavioris dominatedby whentheywere workingalone. These findings
self-focusedattitudes,personal rights,and
contracts,whereas collectivisticbehavior is
supportOlson's(1971)and Wagner's(1995)argu-
ment thatindividualists' self-interest motivation
guided by norms,obligations,and duties.
4. The natureof relationshipsvaries such that made themless cooperativein interactive work.
individualists rationally consider the ex- Theresultsofthesestudiessuggestthatcollectiv-
change, whereas collectivistsemphasize the ists ratherthanindividualists are morelikelyto
communalityof the relationship,even when findnetworking usefulin informal student groups
thisrepresentsa disadvantage.
wherelearningand gradesare unifying goals.In
Apartfromtheimportant worksofMarkusand fact,within thelearning environment, Earley(1994)
Kitayama(1991),and Triandis(1995),a rangeof foundthatindividualists' self-efficacy and perfor-
perspectives on bothconceptualizations and mea- manceweremoreinfluenced by self-focused train-
-
suresof IC exists a reflection of IC's complex ingwhereascollectivists' and
self-efficacy perfor-
nature(cf.,Hui,1988;Triandis, 1995;Wagner,1995). mance were more affectedby interpersonally
Forexample,whileresearchers suchas Triandis focusedtraining. Apartfromperformance differ-
(1995)and Chen,Yu, and Miner(1997)advocate al.
ences,Baileyet (1997)argued that collectivists,
verticaland horizontal IC orientations, thereare possiblyas a resultoftheirinterdependent viewof
others,such as Wagner(1995)and Earley(1993) self, preferred failure feedback, that is, they
whohavenotadoptedthisperspective becausethe wantedto knowabout theirmistakesforgroup
addedhorizontal and verticaldimensions seemto improvement, whereasindividualists, in contrast,
be verysimilartoHofstede's (1980)powerdistance weremore interested in success feedback, possi-
dimension. In ordertorevealpossibleunderlying blyreflecting a desireto enhancepersonalrepu-
IC dimensions acrossa widerangeofdifferent IC tationand self-image.
conceptualizations, Wagner(1995)developed a IC has also beena subjectofdiscussionforthose
composite measureon whichhe conducted an ex- inelementary and secondary education. Intheed-
ploratory factor analysistoproducethreeindivid- ucationsystems ofindividualist societies, children
ualisticfactors, StandAlone,WinAboveAll,and are handledon an individualbasis, whereasin
Individual Thinking, and twocollectivistic factors, collectivist societies,teachersdeal withchildren
GroupPreference and Sacrifice.StandAlonefo- ona groupbasis (Hofstede, 2001).Sometimes these
cuses on individualindependenceand self-reli- twoorientations mayconflict. For example,one
ance.WinAboveAllreflects an all-consuming in- studyshowedHispanicstudentsin the United
142 AcademyofManagementLearningand Education June
TABLE1
FactorLoadings ofVariables
IC Factors (n = 630; r2 = 0.548) Individualism-Collectivism Factor Loadings
StandAlone(alpha = 0.79) 12 3 4 5
11. Onlythosewho depend on themselvesget ahead in life .15 .04 .67 .01 .07
12.To be superiora personmuststandalone .25 -.06 .61 -.08 .11
13.Ifyouwantsomethingdone right,you'vegotto do it yourself .17 .11 .65 -.05 .03
14.Whathappens to me is myown doing .08 .11 .58 -.04 -.08
15. In thelongrun,theonlypersonyou can counton is yourself .20 .07 .69 -.12 .03
WinAboveAll (alpha = .83)
16.Winningis everything .75 -.04 .28 -.07 .02
17. I feelthatwinningis important in bothworkand games .69 .05 .14 -.07 -.05
18. Success is themostimportant thingin life .64 .03 .21 -.01 .09
19.It annoysme whenotherpeople perform betterthanI do .62 -.04 .12 -.06 .12
110.Doingyourbest isn'tenough;it is important to win .76 .02 .13 -.05 .09
GroupPreference (alpha = .84)
111.I preferto workwithothersin a groupratherthanworkingalone -.03 .01 -.05 .86 .10
112.Giventhechoice,I wouldratherdo a job whereI can work -.14 -.12 -.10 .70 -.10
alone ratherthandoinga job whereI have to workwithothers
in a group(reverse-scored)
113.Workingwitha groupis betterthanworkingalone -.05 .09 -.09 .86 .08
Sacrificein Group(alpha = .83)
114.People shouldbe made aware thatiftheyare goingto be partof .02 .70 .04 -.06 -.04
a group,thentheyare sometimesgoingto have to do things
theydon'twantto do
115.People who belongto a groupshouldrealize thatthey'renot .03 .78 .06 -.03 -.08
always goingto get whattheypersonallywant
116.People in a groupshouldrealize thattheysometimesare going -.06 .86 .10 .01 -.13
to have to make sacrificesforthesake ofthegroupas a whole
117.People in a groupshouldbe willingto make sacrificesforthe .02 .68 .07 .05 -.10
sake ofthegroup'swell-being
IndividualThinking(alpha = .77)
118.A groupis moreproductivewhenits membersdo whatthey .03 -.08 .06 .01 .77
want to do rather than what the group wants them to do
119. A group is most efficientwhen its members do what they think .07 -.08 .04 .00 .71
is best rather than doing what the group wants them to do
120. A group is more productive when its members follow their own .13 -.16 .00 .06 .67
interests
andconcerns
Nofe.Maximumlikelihoodextraction
and varimaxrotation.
2004 Hwang,Kesslei,and Francesco 145
TABLE2
Means and StandardDeviationsofVariables
Mean (HK) Mean (Sg) Mean (U.S.)
Variables (n = 266) (n = 131) (n = 250) SD (HK) SD (Sg) SD (U.S.)
yyj STDALONE>^^ 6Q
/f(l\ J[ WINALL
I \ \ .32
GRPPREF \ GRADE
V /X'57/^
SACRIF V / .54
NCX^^I 1
\SSs/^ 71 *
I VERTICALNT
^« INDIVTHK
FIGURE2
HongKong,Singapore,and U.S. NetworkLearningModel. Goodness ofFit Index = 0.91;NormedFit
Index = .92;Chi-Square (88 df)= 281.27,(p < 0.01).All bolded lines t > 1.96(Tau-Equivalence
Stacked Model).
146 Academy of Management Learning and Education June
TABLE3A
Post Hoc ComparisonofNetworkMeans by Country
95% Confidence
Interval
Mean
Difference Std. Lower Upper
Dependent Variable (I) Location (J)Location (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
HORIZONTAL NETWORKING BEHAVIOR Hong Kong Singapore 0.23 0.13 0.17 -0.07 0.53
Hong Kong U.S. 0.65 0.11 0.00 0.40 0.90
Singapore U.S. 0.42 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.72
VERTICAL NETWORKING BEHAVIOR Hong Kong Singapore 0.40 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.69
Hong Kong U.S. 0.00 0.10 1.00 -0.23 0.24
Singapore U.S. -0.40 0.12 0.00 -0.69 -0.11
TABLE3B
Post Hoc ComparisonofNetworkMeans WithinCountry
95% Confidence
Interval
Mean
Difference Lower Upper
Country (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Bound Bound
HORIZONTAL NETWORKING VERTICAL NETWORKING (I-J) Std. Error t value df Sig (2-tailed)
BEHAVIOR (I) BEHAVIOR (J)
Hong Kong (n = 266) 3.48 2.76 .72 .08 8.64 265 0.00
Singapore (n = 131) 3.25 2.36 .89 .12 7.39 130 0.00
U.S. (n = 249) 2.83 2.76 .07 .09 .77 248 .443
somesignificant differences.
First,horizontal net-
predictor of bothtypesof networking behaviors.
working behavior intheU.S.sample (M = was
2.36) Theseresultsindicatedthatpeoplewhovaluethis
significantlylower(F (2,643)= 19.37)thanin Sin-aspectofindividualism moreoftenseek outoth-
gapore(M = 3.25)orHongKong(M = 3.48).On the -
ers bothprofessors and students- forinforma-
otherhand,an examination ofverticalnetworkingtion.
behaviorshowedthattheSingaporesample(M = Although we had hypothesized thatcollectivism
2.36)was significantlylower(F (2,643)= 6.43)than
ratherthanindividualism wouldbe positively re-
HongKong(M 2.76)or theUnitedStates(M =
= lated to networking, the contrary resultsfound
2.76).Anotheranalysisofdifferences innetworkingheremakesense ifwe considerthedeepermean-
behaviorswithin thecountryshowedthathorizon- - one
factor
talnetworking behaviorsweresignificantly ingoftheStandAloneindividualism
higher
thathas factoritemsreflecting a sense of self-
thanverticalnetworking behaviorsin Singapore thathas beenshowntopow-
reliance,a dimension
(MeanDiff= .88;t > 7.39)and HongKong(Mean
Diff= .71;t > 8.65).Therewas no significant erfully
dif- shape theself-concept(Baileyet al., 1997).
ferencebetweenthese two typesof networking In particular,itemstatements suchas "Tobe su-
behaviorsin theUnitedStates. periora personmuststandalone"and "Whathap-
pens to me is myown doing"indicatethisself-
reliance focus in Stand Alone, and this is
DISCUSSION AND PEDAGOGICAL consistent withTriandis'(2002)viewthatindividu-
RECOMMENDATIONS alistsarepronetobe moreself-reliant thancollec-
The stabilityof the fiveIC and twonetworking tivists. Thisselfreliance,whichmapscloselywith
factors
acrossthethreecountries, with
together the a high internal couldbe thereason
locusofcontrol,
lack ofcountry differencesin theoverallmodel, fortherelationship betweenStandAloneand net-
indicatedsomedegreeofacross-country congru- workingbecause highlyindividualistic people
ence in the way IC was influencing networking have to depend onthemselvesrather than others to
behaviorsand gradeperformance. Unexpectedly, network fortheirown informationalneeds. Results
theStandAlonedimension ofIC was theonlyclear from thisstudyshowthatnetworking is important,
2004 Hwang,Kesslei,and Francesco 147
D. A. 2000.Learning-network
theory.ManagementLearn- In
Triandis,H. C. 2002.Genericindividualismand collectivism.
ing.31(1):25-49. M. J.Gannon,& K. L. Newman(Eds.),The Blackwellhand-
book of cross-culturalmanagement:16-45. Oxford,En-
Rangan, S. 2000.The problemof search and deliberationin
economic action: When social networksreally matter. gland: Blackwell.
AcademyofManagementReview,25(4):813-828. Trompenaars,F. 1993.Ridingthewaves ofculture:Understand-
F. K. 1990.The professional(and personal)profits
Sonnenberg, ing diversityin global business. London:The Economist
of networking.Trainingand DevelopmentJournal,44: Books.
55-60. Wagner,J.A., III. 1995.Studies of individualism-collectivism:
Treisman,U. 1992.Studyingstudentsstudyingcalculus: A look Effectson cooperationin groups.AcademyofManagement
at the lives of minority
mathematicsstudentsin college. Journal,38(1):152-172.
TheCollege Mathematics 23(5):362-372.
Journal, Webb,M. S., Mayer,K. R.,Pioche,V.,& Allen,L. C. 1999.Inter-
Triandis,H. C. 1995.Individualismand collectivism.Boulder, nationalizationofAmericanbusiness education.Manage-
CO: WestviewPress. mentInternational Review,39(4):379-397.