Cultural influences on informal information sharing in Chinese and Anglo-American organizations: an exploratory study

Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

www.elsevier.com/locate/aos

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 c a San Diego State University, USA Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia c National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan

b

Abstract This study examines cultural factors which may facilitate or impede the sharing of informal information in the context 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 di€erences, 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 compared 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 * Corresponding author. Tel: +61-2-9850-8515; fax: +61-29850-8497. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.L. Harrison)

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 organizational 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 di€erent parts of an organization, and ``manipulate, aggregate and distribute'' that information, typically in report format (Emmanuel, 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. PII: S0361-3682(99)00022-7

562

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

text of meetings and conversations, direct observation 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 di€erent departments and functions 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 diculty for a participant in a face-to-face meeting. In such a meeting, a participant may be an information provider or seeker, and the information may have di€erent attributes and connotations 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 challenging view. Similarly, some information may enhance the provider's standing in the view of others (for example, information about the participant'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 confront, may expose a past mistake, or may expose lack of knowledge. We do this because it is information 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 dicult 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-stigmatize failure so as not to deter innovation and creativity. 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 Chinese-based culture, typically regarded as characterising 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 di€erent nations often di€er in how they react to given jobrelated conditions (see, for example, Chow, Kato & Merchant, 1996; Chow, Kato & Shields, 1994; Chow, Shields & Chan, 1991; Birnberg & Snodgrass, 1988; Harrison, 1992, 1993; Harrison, McKinnon, Panchapakesan & Leung, 1994; Merchant, Chow & Wu, 1995; O'Connor, 1995). The Anglo-American and Chinese-based cultures are chosen for study because of their general economic and political signi®cance globally, and 1

It is acknowledged that these are just three examples of a number of possible incidents of information sharing in interpersonal interactions and communications. However, pilot tests in the design stages of the study involving interviews with selected managers in both Australia and Taiwan showed these examples to be common occurrences, and ones which did have the potential to produce diculties in the information sharing process. The pilot interviews also showed that managers in both countries saw the issue of open exchange of information in face-to-face meetings as being important to their organizations. (Feeding forward for a moment, so too did the interviewees from both Taiwan and Australia in the main sample.) This is important because, as pointed out by the reviewers, it is not necessarily the case that theories, issues and concerns relevant to western nations are also relevant in Chinese nations. In this case, however, it appears that information sharing in face-to-face meetings is relevant to both Western and Chinese organizations.

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

because they encompass a number of substantive di€erences observed to exist in Western and Eastern 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 variables identi®ed in the literature as relevant to the need for, or ecacy of, informal integrative liaison devices generally. Such other variables include, for example, the degree of interdependent coordination requirements of the organization (Macintosh, 1994, p. 61) arising from exigencies of structural di€erentiation 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, experimentation 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 e€ective, 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 a€ect the intrinsic propensity of individuals in organizations to share information in the speci®c context under study. Because of this restricted focus, the study does not seek to measure the e€ectiveness 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 di€erent cultures operate in that context has yet been conducted. Such research is important, however, for several reasons and audiences. First, it adds to the growing body of research literature 2

The scope of the study is partial also in that it does not take account of the multiple circumstances where, as the reviewers accurately pointed out, information might be compartmentalized to reduce information overload, or for legal reasons, as in the defence industry.

563

directed at understanding how people in organizations in di€erent cultures may respond di€erently to work-related practices and conditions, and, hence, is intrinsically important for cross-cultural research development generally. Second, the research has pragmatic importance to managers and management accountants in organizations operating either in a sole Anglo-American or Chinese cultural context, or across such cultural contexts. In both contexts, the research may enable managers to understand when (and how) national cultural 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 management 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 literature or established theory to develop de®nitive and directional hypotheses which might then support empirical testing using standard statistical methods. 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 di€erent between Anglo-American and Chinese-based

564

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

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'' orientation and an emphasis on the self in an individualist society, leading to a calculative involvement with the company, and to behaviour allowing for individual initiative, expression and assertion (Hofstede, 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 contracts 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, noting especially its emphasis on subjugating personal 3 As will be seen in the subsequent theory development in this section, these three attributes of culture are also of particular relevance to the phenomena at issue in this study.

interest to that of the collective (Hofstede, 1991; Leung & Bond, 1984), while individualism and the self-interest motive are frequently cited as typifying Anglo-American culture (Hofstede, 1991; Triandis, 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 collectivist 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 information sharing issue. One, arising from the collectivist 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 performance falls below the minimum level considered acceptable''. At this level, face is a human universal and, indeed, appeared in the Western sociological literature as long ago as Go€man (1955), who de®ned it in self-presentational terms as ``the positive social value a person e€ectively claims for himself'' (p. 213). However, there are two features which distinguish 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 selfpresentation. By contrast, no such choice exists for a person in Chinese collectivist cultures. Here, face is an automatic consequence of their belonging to, 4 Studies quantifying the degree of individualism/collectivism across countries, using Hofstede's (1980) original measurement instrument or variants thereof, have consistently supported these di€erences between Chinese and Anglo-American cultures. See, for example, Cragin (1986), Harrison (1992, 1993), Harrison et al. (1994), Hofstede (1980, 1991) and O'Connor (1995).

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

and their status in, the collective. Face is maintained or lost through compliance with or violation 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, criticality, 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 distinguish 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 collective Chinese societies, and reinforce the importance 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 structural 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 person'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 revealing a past failure and asking questions (which

565

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 company 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 complicates 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 di€erent statuses in the hierarchy, constitutes the third attribute frequently seen as particularly di€erent between Anglo-American and Chinese-based cultures. This attribute is commonly known as power distance. Power distance has been de®ned as the degree to which people accept interpersonal inequality in power and the organizational institutionalization of such inequality (Hofstede, 1991, p. 28). In high power distance societies, there is acceptance of a ``broad and unquestioned authority'' of the superior (Bond, 1991, p. 78), and a regard for the superior as the most knowledgeable and ``the most intelligent member of the group'' (Tse, Lee, Vertinsky & Wehrung, 1988, p. 83). Subordinates (i) believe that the opinions of their superiors are more important than their own; (ii) accord superiors a wide range of prerogatives, authority

566

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

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 making as a sign of poor leadership by the superior (Child, 1981; Hofstede, 1991, pp. 33±34). By contrast, 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 a€ecting them (Child, 1981; Hofstede, 1980). Observers of Chinese-based cultures have placed them among the highest in power distance (Chinese Cultural Connection, 1987; Hofstede, 1980, 1991), while members of the AngloAmerican 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 di€erence in information sharing behaviour in face-to-face meetings depending on whether a person's superior is present at the meeting or not. This di€erence 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 opinions, information and questions are less important, knowledgeable and intelligent than those of their superiors would tend to reduce the propensity that they would o€er 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 expectation 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) a€ected by the presence or absence of a superior. In sum, the cultural literature reviewed in this section does not allow directional hypotheses to be 5 Studies quantifying the degree of power distance across countries, using Hofstede's (1980) original measurement instrument or variants thereof, have consistently supported these di€erences. See Hofstede (1991), Chow et al. (1991), Harrison (1992, 1993), Harrison et al. (1994), Sondergaard (1994) and Cragin (1986).

formulated for di€erences 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 di€erent depending upon the presence or absence of superiors in the Chinese setting, but not in the Australian setting. Hence, we state the following interactive hypothesis as an exploratory hypothesis, 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) a€ecting 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 Chinese culture respectively). The interview instrument comprised three scenarios, each describing one of the three information sharing examples of asking questions, expressing a contrary or challenging 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 similar organizational positions and level to those in the main sample. The instrument was ®rst developed in English, translated into Chinese by a bilingual 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

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

research team. The English version was used in Australia and the Chinese version in Taiwan. Each scenario was accompanied by two questions asking the respondent to indicate, on a ninepoint scale, the likely behaviour of a ``typical person'' in his/her organization in the scenario context. 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 eliciting the factors that the respondents saw as in¯uencing 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. MacCrimmon & 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 ``conventional tools for studying executives' decisions, 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 diculty visualising the ``typical person'', 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 di€erent people might react in the scenario. 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.

567

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; chemicals, 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 Ocer. Followup telephone calls were then made. We targeted wholly-owned companies within each nation to avoid contamination by a non-Chinese or nonAnglo-American culture.8 7 A diculty in cross-national research in countries with di€erent 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 ``inbasket'' scenario formats is particularly appropriate for crosscultural studies in that ``because executives representing di€erent 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 respective language versions of the instrument, the pilot test managers supported the authenticity of the scenarios and their terminology in capturing the essence of the decision contexts and meanings, as well as supporting the comparability and typicality of the scenarios in both countries. 8 Some of the targeted Australian companies chose not to participate and, given the low number of wholly-owned Australian companies in the size and industry classi®cations drawn from, some replacement companies in the ultimate sample were partially foreign owned. However, all companies in the sample had long-established operations in Australia, had major or substantive Australian ownership, and, where there were overseas ownership interests, these were vested in other AngloAmerican countries, speci®cally the UK or the USA.

568

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

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 behaviour (e.g. nature of task and occupational subculture). The managers in each company (we initially sought four in each company) were selected by the Chief Executive Ocer 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 interview, allowing the other managers to complete the (closed-ended) questionnaire only. Thus, the Australian data comprise both completed questionnaire (quantitative) and personal interview (qualitative) data for 42 respondents, and completed 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 di€erent points in time. First, all transcripts were read jointly and discussed, with the objective of identifying and classifying into categories 9

Mean comparisons of responses to the scenario questions between the eight who completed the questionnaire in noninterview format and the 42 who completed it in interview settings showed no di€erences. 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.

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 classi®cation, and (ii) applied those rules to obtain a count of the relative frequency with which categories 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 purposes of; (i) evaluating the categories and decision rules, and (ii) applying those rules to the transcripts to conduct a second and independent frequency 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 analysis is tailored to suit our study, and falls short in some ways of the reliability and validity criteria ideally associated with content analysis. In particular, the categories we developed were generated from the interviews themselves, rather than from an external referent. Hence, we cannot assure exhaustiveness of the categories or factors in¯uencing the 11 Our objective was to determine the relative frequency with which a factor category was raised among the respondents in each sample. We used words, phrases and sentences as the unit of analysis (or text unit), rather than paragraphs or pages, and we did not count repetitions within an interview (Weber, 1990, p. 70). The use of small text units carries the advantages of greater ease and reliability of coding (Gray et al., 1995, p. 84).

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

likely behavioural outcomes in the contexts at issue (Guthrie & Mathews, 1985, p. 260). Rather, we can only report and compare the relative frequency 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 identi®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 categories 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 reasonableness. 4. Results The three scenarios used were as follows. Scenario 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 managers 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 performance of the division. With the meeting not going well and the marketing and design managers each blaming the other, the assistant marketing 12 All subjects in the scenarios were males to avoid any potential gender e€ect. 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-American names in the English version used in Australia.

569

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-estimation, 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 scenario creates a situation where, unless the department manager openly discloses his previous misestimation, 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 (Scenario 2), or reveal a past mistake (Scenario 3). Respondents were asked this question twice, once assuming the superior were present in the context, and the other assuming his absence.13 A ninepoint 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. 13 The order of superior presence/absence was varied. In Scenario 1, the ®rst question assumed the superior was absent, while the second asked if there would be a di€erence in behaviour if the superior were present. In Scenarios 2 and 3, the ®rst question assumed the superior was present, with the second asking if there would be a di€erence in behaviour if the superior were absent. The variation was used simply to ensure that the respondent managers were thinking carefully about each scenario and question.

570

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for scenario responsesa Scenario 1. Asking clarifying questions: with superior absent with superior present 2. Speaking up and expressing a contrary or challenging opinion: with divisional manager absent with divisional manager present 3. Revealing a past mistake: with superior absent with superior present a

Country

Observed range

Mean (SD)

Taiwan Australia Taiwan Australia

6±9 2±9 3±9 1±9

7.72 (0.72) 6.84 (1.74) 6.25 (1.43) 6.07 (2.29)

Taiwan Australia Taiwan Australia

3±9 2±9 3±9 2±9

6.48 (1.78) 7.51 (1.54) 6.54 (1.50) 6.81 (1.76)

Taiwan Australia Taiwan Australia

3±9 2±9 2±8 1±9

6.94 (1.24) 7.08 (1.66) 5.87 (1.59) 6.12 (1.94)

Response scale: 1=low, 9=high.

Table 2 Results of estimating interaction model for scenario responses Variable

Coecent

Value

SE

t

p

6.840 0.872 ÿ0.770 ÿ0.692

0.231 0.324 0.327 0.458

29.595 2.693 ÿ2.356 ÿ1.511

0.000 0.007 0.019 0.132

Panel b: speaking up and expressing a contrary or challenging opinion (Scenario 2)b Intercept b0 7.510 0.233 Nation b1 ÿ1.029 0.327 Superior b2 ÿ0.700 0.330 Interaction b3 0.758 0.462

32.196 ÿ3.150 ÿ2.122 1.640

0.000 0.002 0.035 0.103

Panel C: reveal a past mistake (Scenario 3)c Intercept b0 Nation b1 Superior b2 Interaction b3

30.875 ÿ0.429 ÿ2.960 ÿ0.257

0.000 0.669 0.003 0.797

Panel A: asking clarifying questions (Scenario 1)a Intercept b0 Nation b1 Superior b2 Interaction b3

a b c

7.080 ÿ0.138 ÿ0.960 ÿ0.117

R2=0.14; adjusted R2=0.12; F=10.54; Signif. 0.0000. R2=0.06; adjusted R2=0.04; F=4.15; Signif. 0.0070. R2=0.09; adjusted R2=0.08; F=6.99; Signif. 0.0002.

0.229 0.321 0.324 0.454

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

The hypothesis was tested using the following multiple linear regression model: Y ˆ b0 ‡ b1 X1 ‡ b2 X2 ‡ b3 X1 X2 ‡ e 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 e€ects 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 Australian 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 di€erence 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 e€ect 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 e€ect was found only in Scenario 2 (at p=0.10). This e€ect was contrary to expectation with the Australian respondents perceiving that the presence of a superior would have a greater e€ect on reducing the likelihood that a manager would express a contrary or challenging 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

571

the lack of prior theory, and the fact that the literature reviewed for the paper provided several relevant but potentially con¯icting cultural implications 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 Australian 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 (Scenarios 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 di€erences underlying the general propensity to share information. These di€erences are, in turn, consistent with the cultural characteristics 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 di€erently by the Taiwanese 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 one-o€ basis. Such factors are not shown in the tables for eciency reasons. This is not to say these factors are not important in speci®c contexts. As a reviewer pointed out, factors such as the nature of the superior's characteristics or the dyadic relationship between superior and subordinate may all be important in speci®c circumstances. This paper concentrates, however, on factors that were identi®ed with some frequency by interviewees.

Examples of text units

Personality; some outgoing/some introverted; shy/con®dent; that's the way they are

Problem can't be realized/solved without further explanation/understanding of problem/content/analysis; company decision would be a€ected; e€ect 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 a€ected/harmed; can't communicate e€ectively if no understanding 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 Company/corporate culture encourages/supports/allows questioning/asking questions; people expected to participate; culture of openness/maturity

Career risk Superior responsibility

Adverse opinion/perception by superior

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 Afraid that superior would doubt knowledge/consider him little talented and little learned; have bad impression; showing insucient knowledge Career risk; (potential) adverse e€ect on career/future Expect superior to ask question/make decision

Panel B: impact of superior presence on likelihood of asking questions

Contingent factors Individual di€erences

Company culture

Individual assertiveness

Reasons for asking The good of the company

Panel A: factors in¯uencing likelihood of asking questions

Category

Table 3 Asking clarifying questions (Scenario 1)

1 3

5

39

0

3

0

47

Number

Taiwan

2 6

10

75

0

6

0

90

%

7 0

4

0

6

9

26

1

Number

Australia

17 0

10

0

14

21

62

2

%

572 C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

Examples of text units

Depends on person; people di€er on personality/con®dence/characteristics; extroverts vs introverts

Maintain/preserve/emphasize harmony/human relations/friendship; have to cooperate with colleagues afterward; avoid people blaming each other and cause future trouble Face; problem about face; self-protection; save others face Respect superior's opinion/viewpoint; speaking has no e€ectiveness because of junior status; lower level would be taken lightly/considered unimportant; afraid of giving di€erent ideas from superior; lack of status

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 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 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

Face Statement of no di€erence

For good of company Less likely to speak up Reduced e€ectiveness

More likely to speak up Less concern with face Less felt pressure from superior

Speaking up is useless/ine€ective/loses e€ectiveness/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 Save others' face; avoid o€ense No/not much/marginal di€erence/impact; no change; not a€ected; not an issue

No/less concern/about problem about face; face not as serious; individual and boss 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 Emphasize cause of/solution to problem

Panel B: impact of superior absence on likelihood of speaking up

Contingent factors Individual di€erences

Face Heirarchy and status

Reasons against speaking up Maintenance of harmony

Company culture

Individual assertiveness

Reasons for speaking up The good of the company

Panel A: factors in¯uencing likelihood of speaking up

Category

Table 4 Speaking up and expressing a contrary or challenging opinion (Scenario 2)

4 19

35

18

2 10

8

8 37

2

13 13

13

10

0

65

%

4

4 19

1

7 7

7

5

0

34

Number

Taiwan

0 23

0

0

0 6

16

0 3

0

16

14

0

Number

Australia

0 55

0

0

0 14

38

0 7

0

38

33

0

%

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582 573

Examples of text units

Depends on individual/personality/style; some would, some wouldn't Friendship; (terms of) personal relationships; spirit of solidarity

Afraid/fear of a€ecting/in¯uencing career/future/promotion/interests/development; career risk; harmful Save/protect face of individual/superior/plant; avoid domestic shame made public 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

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 Company culture/philosophy of openness; support/tolerate mistakes/errors; do not crucify/punish/go on witchhunt (in order to facilitate) innovation/proactivity

More likely to admit mistake Less concern with face Less felt pressure from superior Less career concern Statement of no di€erence

No/less concern/reduction in problem about face; problem with face not as serious No/less/reduction in pressure; fear less; more courage/easier to admit

Panel B: impact of superior absence on likelihood of revealing mistake

Contingent factors Individual di€erences Relations with others

Face Admit indirectly

Reasons for not revealing Adverse career implications

Company culture

Reasons for revealing mistake The good of the company

Panel A: factors in¯uencing likelihood of revealing a past mistake

Category

Table 5 Revealing a past mistake (Scenario 3)

27 35 0 12

1 11

12 11

8

2

33

Number

Taiwan

52 67 0 23

2 21

23 21

15

4

63

%

0 4 4 19

12 0

0 15

6

16

6

Number

Australia

0 10 10 45

29 0

0 36

14

38

14

%

574 C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

the tendency to share information in the Taiwanese sample was the good of the company, with this reason being stated overtly by 47 of the 52 Taiwanese managers (90%). The Taiwanese sample almost universally noted the need to understand (IVA) in order that the problem could be understood and, consequently, that a better decision would be made for the company. Comments such as ``the problem can't be solved without further explanation'', and ``because the analysis would a€ect 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 interviewees (14%) noted individual di€erence factors including personality (``some people are introverted, 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 managers to corporate culture were descriptions of existing cultures or ones being instituted to promote openness in contexts such as this scenario: I hope that the culture of support should prevail 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 (corporate) 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 Taiwanese and Australian samples when the person's

575

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 di€erence 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, compared to just half the Australian sample. Additionally, almost all the remainder (46%) of the Australian sample stated overtly that the presence of the superior would have no e€ect on the subordinate'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 intensi®cation in the presence of hierarchical status di€erences. 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 following 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, indicating a speci®c culture in those companies which was serving to reduce the implications of hierarchical status di€erences. If those two companies are removed from the analysis, then only three of 44 respondents across 11 Taiwanese companies said that there would be no e€ect on subordinate behaviour resulting from the superior's presence, compared to 23 respondents distributed across all 14 Australian companies.

576

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

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 explanation 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 e€ect 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, comments were generally unequivocal. Most people would ask and there would be no di€erence if the superior was there. It doesn't matter who is there. He (the subordinate) 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 di€erences in the factors underlying information sharing behaviour in the two national samples. Similarly, those di€erences 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 differences and individual assertiveness) and reference 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 Scenario 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 statements 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 punches. It's very open and you've got to be prepared to take it back Ð to take as good as you give. If you've got the facts, present them.

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

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 di€erences and individual assertiveness is consistent with an individualist society, where a person's unique characteristics are seen as more important determinants of behaviour than in a collectivist society, and where people can come into overt confrontation 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 relationship between those parties, was frequently expressed by Taiwanese respondents. Illustrative quotes were: ``he wants to avoid the scene in which speakers blame each other and cause future trouble'', 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 a€ecting 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 relations, including the strength of ongoing friendship, as an important determinant of information sharing behaviour. The second theme in both Scenarios 2 and 3 arising in the Australian responses was the importance of developing an organizational culture of openness wherein people who, by personality or other individual characteristics, might not otherwise speak up and express a contrary or challenging view, or reveal a past mistake, are encouraged and supported in doing so. In an

577

individualist society, and in the absence of a perceived collective responsibility to act for the good of the company, the creation of an organizational culture which aligns individual interests with corporate 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 scenario (Tables 4 and 5, Panel A), with those respondents representing eight of the 14 Australian 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. However, 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 encouraged to share information freely. The remaining three companies were instances of organizations seeking, through restructuring and cultural change mechanisms, to overcome problems of interfunctional 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 competitiveness in the contemporary global environment. Mistakes will be made if we are going to be innovative. We have to be tolerant of our failures. We are supportive of mistakes. We would rather have people doing things and making mistakes than not have them doing things.

578

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

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 Taiwanese 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 Scenarios 2 and 3 respectively) (Tables 4 and 5, Panel A). By contrast, there was no mention of this factor 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 individual's face is more important. The impact of face and of power distance differentials between the two societies was most visible 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 e€ect on reducing the likelihood that a subordinate manager would speak up and o€er a contrary or challenging opinion in the Australian sample. It was expected that the e€ect would have been greater in the Taiwanese sample. The reason for the quantitative

results was, as shown in Table 1, that the Taiwanese mean response for likelihood to speak up remained virtually una€ected by the absence or presence of the superior, while the Australian mean response changed between the two conditions. While the quantitative data suggested the absence of the cultural e€ects 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 conclusive, and would instead only cause the meeting to focus on blaming people. The following two quotes are representative. Because the person who has the real power is not present, it is useless for him (the subordinate) to speak up. Besides the meeting is ine€ective without the superior at the meeting and he is afraid that he may o€end his colleagues so he would speak less.

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

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 indicating that the focal manager would be more likely to speak up, and 23 making the overt statement that there would be no di€erence. 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 Scenario 3 reinforced the factors emerging from Scenario 2. Once again, although the responses to the quantitative scaled questions did not show a statistically signi®cant di€erence between the samples, the interviews suggested that the presence or absence of the superior was again of greater perceived importance to the Taiwanese than the Australian 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 respondents (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% compared to 35 or 67%). Hence, the contrast between the reasons given by the two national samples of respondents again provides support for the cultural dictates of greater (lower) emphasis on the

579

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 di€erences in the factors underlying information sharing behaviour in Taiwan and Australia; di€erences 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 concerned. This motivation accords with an intrinsic acceptance of a moral involvement with the company 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 di€erences (such as personality, style and skills), and to be related to individual assertiveness and personal expression and choice. These considerations are, again, consistent with the behavioural precepts of an individualist culture. Second, although the results show that sharing information which is potentially personally damaging is constrained by the presence of a superior in both Taiwan and Australia, the interview responses suggest that sensitivity to the hierarchy in Taiwan 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 Chinesebased culture. The study is acknowledged as exploratory; nonetheless the results suggest some implications for managers and others interested in informal information processes in organizations in Chinese and Anglo-American cultures. The study might

580

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

allow managers of organizations in those cultures to understand when (and which) cultural characteristics might facilitate information sharing, and when such characteristics might impede information sharing. Recognition of this latter circumstance may prompt the development of mechanisms to overcome such impediments. The current study revealed instances of this, particularly in the Australian 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 organizational culture conducive to cooperative, information sharing behaviour. It should be noted that the di€erences 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 differences 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 di€er between the circumstances where the superior was present and absent, resulting in the regression analysis showing no e€ect of the superior on the Taiwanese sample's behaviour. Further analysis from the interviews, however, revealed that there were, in fact, two e€ects, both important and consistent with national cultural characteristics but which were o€-setting in their e€ect on the quantitative analysis based on mean response comparisons. This circumstance highlights the importance of using qualitative, contextual 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 limitations. It studies only one instance of informal information exchange (face-to-face meetings) and one type of information (information which has a potentially damaging e€ect on the subject person). Additionally, although motivated by the impor-

tance of integrative liaison processes in contemporary business organizations, the study concentrates on just one input to such processes (cultural considerations in cross-national comparisons). The study does not address other inputs or di€ering organizational circumstances which may a€ect the need for, or e€ectiveness of, such processes. Finally, although the scenarios were generally seen by respondent managers as realistic and representative, and the qualitative data arising from interview discussion of those scenarios revealed much about perceived information sharing behaviour, it must be acknowledged that the scenarios are arti®cial manipulations which simplify complex situations and may also therefore simplify perceived behaviours. Similarly, the study relies on the value dimensional 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 control systems) and their cultural interplays'' (Harrison & 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 behaviours rather than perceptions of behaviours, and drawing on conceptions of culture other than those in the value dimensional mode, will be valuable. Such research will be valuable because, as organizational participants or researchers concerned with information and information ¯ows, accountants need to understand organizations' informal information processes as well their formal ones. To the extent that behavioural and cultural factors are likely to in¯uence informal information processes more than formal ones, we

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

hope that our study may help inform, albeit in a modest way, future cross-national research in this area. Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful comments of Anthony Hopwood, two anonymous reviewers, and participants at the Ninth AsianPaci®c Conference on International Accounting Issues, Bangkok, November 1997, the 1997 Annual Conference of the American Accounting Association, and the Fourth International Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute, Sydney, July 1997. The authors are indebted to the C.F. Koo Cultural and Educational Foundation for its ®nancial support, and to the managers of the sample ®rms for their participation and assistance. References Abernethy, M. A., & Lillis, A. M. (1995). The impact of manufacturing ¯exibility on management control system design. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 241±258. Birnberg, J., & Snodgrass, C. (1988). Culture and control: A ®eld study. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13, 447±464. Bond, M. H. (1991). Beyond the Chinese face: Insights from psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. (1986). The social psychology of Chinese people. In M. H. Bond, The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 213±266). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Bruns, W. J. Jr., & McKinnon, S. M. (1993). Information and managers: A ®eld study. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 5, 84±108. Chenhall, R. (1992). Contemporary performance measurement. Accounting Communique, No. 39, Australian Society of CPAs. Child, J. (1981). Culture, contingency and capitalism in the cross-national study of organizations. In L. Cummings, & B. Staw, Research in organization behavior (pp. 303±356). Greenwich: JAI Press. Chinese Cultural Connection (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143±164. Chow, C. W., Shields, M. D., & Chan, Y. K. (1991). The e€ects of management controls and national culture on manufacturing performance: An experimental investigation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16, 209±226. Chow, C. W., Kato, Y., & Shields, M. D. (1994). National culture and the preference for management controls: An

581

exploratory study of the ®rm-labor market interface. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19, 381±400. Chow, C. W., Kato, Y., & Merchant, K. A. (1996). The use of organizational controls and their e€ects on data manipulation and management myopia: A Japan vs U. S. comparison. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21, 175±192. Cragin, J. P. (1986). Management technology absorption in China. In Clegg, S. R., Dunphy, D. C. and Redding, S. G., The enterprise and management in East Asia. Hong Kong: Centre for Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong. Emmanuel, C., Otley, D., & Merchant, K. (1990). Accounting for management control. London: Chapman and Hall. Fairtlough, G. (1994). Organizing for innovation: compartments, competencies and networks. Long Range Planning, 27, 88±97. Frederiksen, N., Saunders, D. R., & Wand, B. (1957). The inbasket test. Psychological Monographs, 76, 438. Go€man, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18, 213±231. Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 8, 78±101. Guthrie, J. E., & Mathews, M. R. (1985). Corporate social accounting in Australasia. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 7, 251±277. Harrison, G. L. (1992). The cross-cultural generalizability of the relation between participation, budget emphasis and job related attitudes. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 1±15. Harrison, G. L. (1993). Reliance on accounting performance measures in superior evaluative style Ð the in¯uence of national culture and personality. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18, 319±339. Harrison, G. L., & McKinnon, J. L. (1999). Cross-cultural research in management control systems design: A review of the current state. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24, 483±509. Harrison, G. L., McKinnon, J. L., Panchapakesan, S., & Leung, M. (1994). The in¯uence of culture on organizational design and planning and control in Australia and the United States compared with Singapore and Hong Kong. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 5, 242±261. Ho, D. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 867±884. Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture's consequences: International di€erences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. H. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. Academy of Management Review, 27, 389±398. Hofstede, G. H. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill. Krippendor€, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Leung, K., & Bond, M. (1984). The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 793±804.

582

C.W. Chow et al. / Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1999) 561±582

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95±112. MacCrimmon, K., & Wehrung, D. A. (1984). The risk in-basket. Journal of Business, 57, 367±387. Macintosh, N. B. (1994). Management accounting and control systems. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Merchant, K. A., Chow, C. W., & Wu, A. (1995). Measurement, evaluation and reward of pro®t centre managers: A cross-cultural ®eld study. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 619±638. Nanni, A. J. Jr., Dixon, J. R., & Vollman, T. E. (1992). Integrated performance measurement: Management accounting to support the new manufacturing realities. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 4, 1±19. O'Connor, N. G. (1995). The in¯uence of organizational culture on the usefulness of budget participation by SingaporeanChinese managers. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 383±403. Peters, T. (1994). The Tom Peters seminar: Crazy times call for crazy organizations. London: Macmillan. Redding, G., & Wong, G. Y. Y. (1986). The psychology of Chinese organizational behaviour. In M. H. Bond, The psy-

chology of the Chinese people (pp. 267±295). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Smith, M. (1994). New tools for management accountants. Melbourne: Longman Professional Publishing. Sondergaard, M. (1994). Research note: Hofstede's consequences: a study of reviews, citations and replications. Organization Studies, 15, 447±456. Stover, L. E. (1974). The cultural ecology of Chinese civilization. New York: New American Library. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323± 338. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Tse, D. K., Lee, K. H., Vertinsky, I., & Wehrung, D. A. (1988). Does culture matter? A cross-cultural study of executives' choices, decisiveness, and risk adjustment in international marketing. Journal of Marketing, 52, 81±95. Weber, R. D. (1990). Basic content analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.