Competition or Cooperation: Cultural Perspectives on N-Effect and Proximity-to-a-Standard M.A. Y.D. Madurapperuma, University o f Colombo, Sri Lanka Kim Kvung-min, Silla University, Korea Pradeep Dharmadasa, University o f Colombo, Sri Lanka With the escalating globalization of business activities, the issue of how business organizations adapt to cultural differences in host countries and deal with cross-cultural management prac­ tices becomes increasingly important for human resource and marketing managers. The failure to take cultural differences into account has been :he cause of many businesses’ lack of suc­ cess across national borders (Miroshnik, 2002; Ricks, 2006). Management practices, strate­ gies, structures, as well as technologies that are suitable in one culture may lead to undesirable consequences in another (Miroshnik, 2002). For example, task-driven managerial practices may deliver expected outcomes in countries where the culture promotes competitiveness, whereas it would not be the case in countries where a culture encourages cooperativeness. This study uses the theories of N-effect and proximity-to-astandard to capture the degree of competitiveness and cooperation among individuals of different cultural settings of the chosen countries. The Neffect is the discovery that increasing the number of competitors (N) can decrease competitive motivation (Garcia and Tor, 2009) meaning that individuals behave more competitively when the number of competitors is small. Proximity-to-astandard specifies that individuals behave more competitively when they perceive themselves to be close to a reference standard. An organization’s culture cannot be separated from the national culture of its country. Often, firms involved in international business (multina­ tional and transnational firms) attempt to adapt their operations in foreign lands to the local culture (Miroshnik, 2002). Most economic, man­ agement, and social theories provide insights into the ways in which firms sustain their com­ petitive advantage in culturally diverse business environments. They provide ways of promoting a competitive environment among businesses and departments as well as between co-workers of a same organization. Hofstede (1980) identi­ fied four variants to work and national cultures, namely individualism-collectivism(I-C), power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity/femininity. Fie also pointed out that national cultures demonstrate more work-related values and attitudes, so that work practices are differ­ ent. However, as economic and organizational practices evolve, the validity of cultural theories may no longer apply across time and places (Miroshnik, 2002). Social changes linked to economic development and urbanization, for example, bring about cultural changes that allow individuals not only to be free from traditional sources of social influence, but also to be more autonomous in their decision-making. This pro­ cess of modernization causes firms to confront many operational issues, even within their own country. It emphasizes the importance of vigi­ lance and staying abreast of cultural changes. As mentioned, the consequences of cultural relativity on management practices should be considered seriously by firms operating across cultures. Individuals from individualist or col­ lectivist work culture have different attitudes towards task-driven assumptions of competition. For instance, marketers may assume that the most effective way of increasing sales volume SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 47 is to encourage competition among co-workers rather than through cooperative efforts. This task-driven managerial assumption is more likely to work in individualistic work cultures, where competitiveness is highly regarded, than in col­ lectivist work cultures, where cooperation is valued. We conducted Study 1 to test the theories that explain competitive behavior of individuals (i.e., N-effect and proximity-to-a-standard) in individualistic and collectivist cultural settings. We obtained samples from the U.S., Korea, and China, three countries with diverse cultural orientations and stages of economic advance­ ment. Broadly speaking, much prior research (Hui, 1988; Kitayama et al., 2009; Triandis et al., 1986; Triandis and Gelfand, 1998; Uleman and Lee, 1996) suggests that the U.S. is char­ acterized by an individualistic culture whereas Korea and China are more collectivist. Based on cultural modernization theory (Hamamura, 2012), it could also be said that the collectiv­ ist orientations of Korean and Chinese cultures differ from each other. To extend the cultural and economic diversity of this study, we added Sri Lanka. However, without reference to prior country classification of cultural orientation, we investigated the cultural orientation of four se­ lected countries to better understand the cultural bases of business decision-making. This study had three objectives. First, we wished to reinvestigate the cultural orientations of the U.S., Korea, and China while unveiling Sri Lanka’s cultural orientation. Second, we were interested in investigating the relationship between individualism-collectivism and competitiveness across the sample at a national level. Finally, we sought to ascertain how individuals from individualist and collectivist cultures respond to competitive events when rivals are influenced by proximity-to-a-standard (Garcia, Tor, and Richard, 2006; Garcia and Tor, 2007) and the number of competitors is small or large (N-effect) (Garcia and Tor. 2009). In the remainder of this paper we first review and discuss the literature pertaining to cross-cultural management, individualismcollectivism, and individual competitive efforts and cooperative efforts. We then develop hypotheses. Next, we present two studies designed to test our hypotheses before reporting on their results and findings. Finally, the paper concludes with a theoretical discussion about contribution, practical implications, and directions for further research. 48 Literature Review and Theoretical Back­ ground Cultural diversity and management practices Businesses that operate across national boundaries may be confronted with more legal, economic, and political issues linked to cultural diversity than those operating solely in one country. In spite of high local responsiveness, the analysis of problems and failures of multinationals’ operations abroad reveals that culture is a critical factor in failure (Miroshnik, 2002). This phenomenon emphasizes the need for a close and continuous look at local cultural practices irrespective of businesses’ levels of operations (international, global, multinational or transnational). Broadly speaking, culture can be defined as common patterns of beliefs, assumptions, values, and norms of behavior of groups represented by societies, institutions, and organizations (Aycan et al., 2000). Much prior research has showed how the culture of a country influences business operations and management practices. Accord­ ing to Aycan et al.’s (1999) model of culture fit, socio-cultural environments affect internal work cultures, including both employee-related and task-driven assumptions. Specifically, human resource management (HRM) practices are affected by socio-cultural factors (e.g., paternal­ ism, power distance, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, loyalty toward commu­ nity, and self-reliance) and are associated with employee-related assumptions. Nevertheless, the influence of workplace cultures on HRM prac­ tices that derived from competitive orientation (task-driven assumption) cannot be discounted. Vadi and Vereshagin (2006) concluded that Russian business organizations had not been able to reap the expected benefits from Western HRM strategies because their organizational culture was influenced by the collectivist Rus­ sian national culture. Hence, national culture, to a greater extent, influences the human behavior of business firms, which, in turn, challenges the way employees are managed. With regard to marketing management, Miro­ shnik (2002) reported that problems arose when marketing staff implement campaigns devel­ oped in another country without adopting it to the local culture. For instance, Arabic people are unlikely to purchase food packaged with an image of a naked woman or an animal even if it is a reproduction of renowned art. Also, Japa­ nese people tend to buy shampoo advertised by young beautiful Japanese women rather than SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 brands with ads using young beautiful Euro­ pean wcmen. Indeed, cultural dimensions, such as individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity-feminin­ ity, affect international relationship marketing management. Samaha et al. (2014) found that the magnitude of the individualism effect was 75% greater on relationship marketing than were other dimensions, and masculinity had no ef­ fect on relationship marketing. Kale and Barnes (1992) emphasized the need to take national and organization cultures and personality factors into consideration, proposing a general framework for cross-national personal selling. In a similar fashion, Steenkamp (2001) stated that failing to take cultural relativity between countries into account was the reason for many business fail­ ures, and that marketing research needed to pay better attention to understanding cross-cultural environments. Much cross-cultural research has attempted to identify management issues and problems pertaining to national and work cultures and to determine generic practices to be followed or avoided by expatriates in performing their tasks. This body of research found no single criterion for managerial effectiveness. Expatriates work­ ing in a competitive business environment tend to apply competitive oriented HRM and market­ ing practices wherever they are. For example, top sales agents are provided with more train­ ing and more back-office resources (Farrell and Hakstian, 2001) and are allowed to use forced ranking (i.e., ranking to scale employee per­ formance relative to their peers) (Garcia and Tor, 2007). As expected, positive outcomes are achieved if managerial and task-related assump­ tions comply with employee-related assump­ tions. Conversely, if managerial and task-related assumptions do not fit employee-related as­ sumptions, work-related outcomes will not be optimum. For instance, increasing sales volume by promoting competition between sales repre­ sentatives will be challenging in a work culture where employees value cooperative efforts. In that context, employees’ attitudes towards competitiveness at work is a decisive factor in determining the success of human resources and marketing practices. There is, however, a paucity of research examining the competitive behavior of individuals across cultures. The outcomes of such research would help address managerial issues pertaining to individual performance. The study presented here sought to bridge this gap by investigating the effects of individualist and col­ lectivist work cultures on employees’ responses to competition or cooperation in four different countries. Cross-cultural research in social sciences, business, and management has identified several key dimensions that capture the complexity and diversity of cultures. Steenkamp (2001) reported that the four cultural dimensions of autonomy vs. collectivism, egalitarians vs. hierarchy, mastery vs. nurturance, and uncertainty avoidance adequately captured the complexity of cultures. In the same vein, Hofstede (1980) looked to national culture to explain workrelated values and attitudes, arguing that employees’ attitudes varied according to the following factors: individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity. A closer look at different measurements of cultural dimensions reveals that measurements are more convergent than divergent. Samaha et al.’s (2014) four cultural dimensions for meta-analysis indicates that most prior research has used at least one of those dimensions to evaluate how ingrained cultural differences influence the effectiveness of relationship marketing strategies. Their work as well as that of Triandis et al. (1986) also highlighted that a substantial body of research has frequently used individualism-collectivism (IC) as a variable in identifying cultural differences and measuring and comparing different cultural groups. Based on measurements developed in various disciplines (Chen and West, 2008; Singelis, et al., 1995; Triandis and Gelfand, 1998), countries — and the individuals of that country — can be classified, in a broader sense, as either individualistic or collectivistic societies. Kitayama et al. (2009) measured IC against five elements (dispositional bias, focused vs. holistic attention, experience of disengaging vs. engaging emotions, personal vs. social happiness, and relative self-size), identifying cross-cultural differences among four countries (the U.S., the U.K., Germany, and Japan). Their results revealed that Americans are mostly individualistic whereas Japanese are mostly collectivistic. British and Germans are also individualistic, but to a lesser extent than Americans. Triandis et al. (1986) concluded that European countries and the U.S. were highly individualistic —with the Netherlands scoring the highest of all nine countries studied— whereas Asian countries, like India and Indonesia, were the least individualistic. SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 49 In addition, India was classified as a vertical collectivist culture with high power distance (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1995). Numerous other cross-cultural studies have also found the U.S. to be an individualistic country whereas Korea and China were found to be collectivist (Hofstede, 1980; Hui, 1988; Triandis and Gelfand, 1998; Uleman and Lee, 1996). At an individual level, individualist and col­ lectivist attitudes are not mutually exclusive (Triandis et al., 1986). Some of the studies suggest that individuals may hold a combination of IC attitudes. Further, individualist and col­ lectivist attitudes can be activated as a function of social context and social relations (Hui 1988). Hui and Triandis (2011) and others (Moor­ man and Blakely 1995) argue that IC measures compare individual differences and not cultural differences. Variation of individualism and collectivism There are different kinds of IC, and variation among individualist and collectivist (Green et al., 2005; Singelis et al., 1995), which can be typified as horizontal or vertical depending on the level of inequality or equality among members of cultural groups (Singelis et al., 1995) or selves - “horizontal patterns assuming that one self is more or less like every other self. By contrast, vertical patterns consist of hierarchies, and one self is different from other selves.” (Triandis and Gelfand, 1998). These two relative patterns combine with IC to create four types of patterns or individual characteristics of a given society, defined by Triandis and Gelfand (1998) as: Horizontal individualism (HI) refers to people who want to be unique and distinct from groups and are highly self-reliant. However, such people are not interested in becoming ‘distinguished’ or acquiring a high social sta­ tus. Vertical individualism (VI) refers to people who often want to become ‘distinguished’ and acquire high status. For this purpose, they en­ gage in individual competition with others. Horizontal collectivism (HC) refers to people who tend not to exercise authority, because they perceive themselves as equal to others and emphasize common goals. In addition, they are sociable and dependent. Vertical collectivism (VC) refers to people who are willing to sacri­ fice their personal goals for the sake of in-group goals, emphasizing the integrity of the in-group. They support the competition of their in-group with out-groups and submit to the will of the 50 in-group authorities for the betterment of their group. Having said that, although cultures consist of static elements (i.e., cultural heritage theory), they are mostly dynamic (i.e., modernization theory) (Hamamura, 2012). According to modernization theory, individualism is a trend that can be ex­ pected to occur across societies, as it is seen as a consequence of economic growth. With growth, increasing cross-cultural contacts, through mass and social media (e.g., flow of events, images, and other information from one culture to other), tour­ ism, traveling, and immigration, provide evidence of an emerging global culture characterized by modernity, technology, freedom, and individual choice. In that context, the remarkable economic growth recorded by the Korean and Chinese econ­ omies during the past three decades or so suggests that we can expect those countries to start exhibit­ ing individualistic characteristics. This is a slow process however, as evidenced by Cha’s (as cited in Uleman and Lee, 1996) work showing that even though individualism is growing in Korea, it remains a collectivist country. This finding is consistent with the cultural heritage theory that emphasizes the role of cultural heritage in shaping the course of a society’s cross-temporal change. On that basis, we can expect China and Korea to have dominant collectivist characteristics, com­ pared with the U.S. Sri Lanka is a South Asian country that has been under the Indian cultural influence for several centuries due to their geographical prox­ imity. Because of this, and based on the argu­ ment of modernization theory, we can expect Sri Lankan culture to demonstrate high col­ lectivist features—even higher than Korean and Chinese—placing Sri Lanka at one end of the spectrum, the U.S. at the other, and Korean and Chinese cultures in the middle. In this context, we draw attention first to the nature of the U.S., China, and Korea’s cultural orientations and unveil that of Sri Lanka. We postulate that Americans demonstrate relatively higher vertical and horizontal individualistic characteristics than individuals in Korea and China. We also argue that Sri Lankans demonstrate more vertical and horizontal collectivist characteristics than Koreans and Chinese. Accordingly, we hypothesized that: HI a: Americans demonstrate more individualistic (vertical and horizontal) characteristics than Koreans, Chinese and Sri Lankans. SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 Sri Lankans demonstrate more collectivist characteristics (vertical and horizontal) than Americans, Koreans and Chinese. H lb : Individual characteristic and competition T h o u g h c o m p e titiv e n e s s is a n im p o r ta n t p e r s o n a li ty tr a i t th a t in flu e n c e s a r a n g e o f s o c ia l b e h a v io r , n o t e v e ry s o c ie ty o r n a tiv e o f a g iv e n c u ltu r e p o s s e s s e s th e s a m e le v e l o f a ttitu d e to w a r d s c o m p e titiv e n e s s (H o u s t o n e t a l., 2 0 1 2 ). A n in d i v id u a l’s d e g r e e o f c o m p e tit iv e n e s s is s h a p e d b y p e r s o n a li ty a n d s o c io - c u ltu r a l f a c to r s . T h a t is, h o w p e o p le w a n t to fe e l ( “ id e a l e f f e c t” ) is in f lu e n c e d b y c u ltu r e th r o u g h c h ild r e a r in g , c h i ld r e n ’s lite ra tu re , in te r p e r s o n a l c o m m u n ic a tio n , a n d re li g io n (T a s i, 2 0 0 7 ). C u lt u r e a n d s o c ia l p s y c h o lo g y lite r a tu r e re v e a l th a t s o m e c u ltu r e s a re m o r e c o m p e titiv e th a n o th e rs . F o r in s ta n c e , A m e r ic a n s tu d e n ts a re m o re c o m p e titiv e th a n B a lin e s e , J a p a n e s e , o r C h in e s e s tu d e n ts (H o u s t o n e t a l., 2 0 1 2 ) . In g e n e r a l, m e n a re m o r e c o m p e titiv e th a n w o m e n in A m e r ic a n , J a p a n e s e , a n d C h in e s e c u ltu r e s (H o u s to n e t a l., 2 0 0 5 ), e s p e c ia ll y in a to u r n a m e n t o r w h e n in p r o x im ity - to - a - s ta n d a r d (V a n d e g rift a n d H o la d a v , 2 0 1 2 ). I n a c o lle c tiv is t- o r ie n te d c u ltu r e , te a m p e r f o r m a n c e is e m p h a s iz e d o v e r in d iv id u a l p e r f o r m a n c e . In o th e r w o rd s , in d iv id u a l is m is e x p e c te d to r e d u c e p ro d u c ti v it y m o r e th a n c o lle c tiv is m ( K ir k m a n a n d S h a p iro , 2 0 0 1 ). C o n s id e r in g IC a s s e p a r a t e v a ria b le s , H o u s to n e t al. ( 2 0 1 2 ) f o u n d th a t w h e r e a s in d i v id u a l is m w a s p o s itiv e ly c o r r e la te d w ith c o m p e titio n (g e n e ra l, h y p e r a n d h e a lth y ) , c o lle c tiv is m w a s n e g a tiv e ly a n d p a r ti a ll y c o r r e la te d w ith c o m p e titio n . D e s p ite th is e v id e n c e s u p p o r tin g th e c o n s tr u c tio n o f th re e s e p a r a te c o m p o n e n ts o f in d iv id u a lis m a n d c o lle c tiv is m , C h e n a n d W e s t c o n c lu d e d th a t C h in e s e p e o p le w e r e o n th e w h o le le s s u n iq u e b u t m o r e in d e p e n d e n t a n d c o m p e titiv e th a n A m e r ic a n s . S u c h d iv e rg e n t fin d in g s s tre s s th e n e e d to f u r th e r in v e s tig a te c u ltu r a l re la tiv ity a n d c o m p e titiv e n e s s . W e e x p e c t in d iv id u a ls f r o m r e la tiv e ly h ig h in d i v id u a l is tic c o u n tr ie s to d e m o n s t r a te m o r e c o m p e titiv e b e h a v io r th a n th o s e fr o m c o lle c t iv is t c o u n t rie s . M o r e o v e r, r e g a r d le s s o f th e d e g r e e o f c u ltu r a l o r ie n ta ti o n o f in d iv id u a l c o u n tr ie s (th e U .S ., K o re a , C h in a , a n d S ri L a n k a ) , v e rtic a l a n d h o r iz o n ta l in d iv id u a l is m c o r r e la te s m o re p o s itiv e ly w ith c o m p e titiv e b e h a v io r th a n d o e s v e r tic a l a n d h o riz o n ta l c o lle c tiv is m . T h e r e fo re , w e h y p o th e s iz e d th a t: SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 Vertical and horizontal individualism correlates more positively with competitive behavior than does vertical and horizontal collectivism, irrespective o f country. H 2: O v e r tim e , c o m p e titiv e b e h a v io r h a s b e e n an a ttra c tiv e s u b je c t f o r e c o n o m ic s s c h o la rs . E v e n th o u g h th e ir m a jo r c o n c e rn h a s b e e n to in v e s tig a te th e c o m p e titiv e b e h a v io r o f c o n s u m e rs , firm s, in d u s trie s , a n d c o u n trie s , n o rm a tiv e th e o rie s (e.g ., g a m e th e o ry , c o n te s t th e o ry , a n d to u rn a m e n t th e o ry ) h a v e fo c u s e d o n in v e stig a tin g th e c o m ­ p e titiv e b e h a v io r o f e m p lo y e e s . C o n c o m ita n tly , in th e d o m a in o f s o c ia l re s e a rc h , th e c o m p e titiv e b e h a v io r o f in d iv id u a ls h a s b e e n e x p la in e d b y s o c ia l c o m p a ra tiv e th e o ry . M o re o v e r, s o c ia l c o m ­ p a ra tiv e th e o ris ts c la im th a t p e o p l e w h o c o m p a r e th e m s e lv e s to o th e rs in d ic a te s w h e th e r s o m e o n e b e h a v e s c o m p e titiv e ly to w a rd s o th e rs (G a rc ia a n d T or, 2 0 0 7 ). T h is n o tio n p a v e s th e w a y to o th e r d e s c rip tiv e th e o rie s , lik e p ro x im ity -to - a -s ta n d a rd a n d N -e ffe c t, th a t f o c u s n a rro w ly o n in d iv id u a l c o m p e titiv e n e s s . In th is s tu d y , c o m p e titio n is u n d e rs to o d as th e b e h a v io r o f in d iv id u a ls a n d e m p lo y e e s v y in g f o r lim ite d s u p p o rt, re s o u rc e s , o r p ro m o tio n (R id lo n a n d S h in , 2 0 1 3 ) w ith o u t c o o p e ra tio n (G a rc ia e t al., 2 0 0 6 ). Proximity-to-a-standard and completion R a n k in g in d iv id u a ls a g a in s t c e r ta in s ta n d a r d s is o n e w a y o f m e a s u r in g a n d c o m p a r in g c o m p e titiv e n e s s . A c c o r d in g to G a r c ia e t al. (2 0 0 6 ), r a n k in g s th a t a l ig n w ith s ta n d a r d s (e .g ., u b iq u ito u s n u m b e r 1 ra n k in g o r q u a lita tiv e th r e s h o ld ) in te n s ifie s o f s o c ia l c o m p a r is o n s to a g r e a te r e x te n t th a n r a n k in g s th a t d o n o t, r e s u ltin g in g r e a te r c o m p e titio n a m o n g riv a ls. T h e y a rg u e th a t th e re is a g r e a te r te n d e n c y to w a rd c o m p e titio n n o t o n ly a m o n g th e to p fe w b u t a ls o a m o n g th e b o tt o m fe w m e a n in g f u l s ta n d a r d s ( G a r c ia a n d T or, 2 0 0 7 ). I n e s s e n c e , c o m p e titiv e b e h a v io r o c c u r s m o re fr e q u e n tly w h e n riv a ls a re in p r o x im ity - to - a - s t a n d a r d . T h is w a s c o n f irm e d in a r e c e n t s tu d y b y V a n d e g rift a n d H o la d a y (2 0 1 2 ). H o w e v e r, th e y e m p h a s i z e th a t h ig h c o m p e titiv e b e h a v io r in d u c e d b y p r o x im ity - to a -s ta n d a rd is m e re ly b e c a u s e o f c h a n g e in th e b e h a v io r o f m e n . L ite r a tu r e h a s a s s e r te d th a t p r o x im ity - to - a - s ta n d a r d h a s n o in flu e n c e o n c o m p e tit iv e b e h a v io r o f w o m e n . N-effect and competition N - e f f e c t s h o w s th e r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n th e n u m b e r o f c o m p e tito r s a n d th e ir m o tiv a tio n to c o m p e te . In a n u ts h e ll, G a r c ia a n d T o r (2 0 0 9 ) argue that when the num ber of competitors increases, motivation to compete can decrease. W hen competitors are aware of how many people will partake in a competition, they will assume that the fewer the competitors, the higher the probability of winning. In other words, fewer numbers lead to high social comparison, which results in high competition, while higher num­ bers lead to the reverse (Garcia and Tor, 2009). On the other hand, Vandegrift and Holaday (2012) argue that the number of competitors has no impact on competition, while individuals’ competitive behavior affects each other or in the absence of fair rule condition. Based on their findings, Vandegrift and Holaday (2012) gener­ alized the application of the N-effect to market situations. Again, these divergent results justify testing the robustness of the theories in different cultural contexts, where people have different attitudes toward competition. Therefore, we propose that individualists demonstrate high motivation to compete (Hous­ ton et al., 2012) through social comparison when they are in proxim ity-to-a-standard and there are few competitors, compared with collectiv­ ists. This is because, individualists generally seek to be unique and distinct from others or groups whereas collectivists mostly pursue com­ mon rather than individual goals. From this, we hypothesized that: uals from the U.S., Korea, China and Sri Lanka. The initial questionnaire was developed in English and translated into Korean, Chinese, and Sinhalese by bilingual translators. The methods of double translation and pre-testing were used to ensure consistency and practical usage (Brislin, 1980). The questionnaire had three parts (A, B, and C). Part A was designed to gather general information about respondents. Part B captured respondents’ cultural orientation, and attitude of individuals toward competitiveness was cap­ tured in part C with a series of scenario-based questions. The questions were designed to test whether competitive attitudes differed according to the number of competitors and their com peti­ tive position (top or low rank). For this, different questions were asked from the same scenario and questionnaires were administered separately for both few-number competition samples and large-number competition samples. The majority of respondents were university students of sim i­ lar cohorts. Approximately half of the Chinese respondents resided in Korea. Measurements This cross-sectional study applied convenience sampling technique to collect data from individ­ Because IC was an attractive field of study for a few decades, many IC measurements can be found in literature with their own pros and cons. Triandis and Gelfand (1998) argue that a distinction between VI and HI is apparent not only in individualist cultures, like the U.S., but also in collective cultures, like Korea. They came up with a 16-item scale that can be used to identify four types of cultural patterns, on the basis of a 32-item scale introduced by Singelis et al. (1995) for the same cultural patterns. Later, Cozm a (2011) critically analysed those widely used two measurements, taking psychometrical strengths and weakness into account, and, ultimately, concluded that neither one was superior to the other. For our study, we used the reliable 16-item scale that covers VI (4-items), HI (4-items), VC (4-items) and HC (4-items). All items were measured using a seven-scale anchoring ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The scenario explained the selection process candidates had to go through— an exam ination as well as an interview on the same day. Based on the marks obtained in the exam ination, each candidate was then provided a rank (with rank #1 being the highest mark) before the interview (see A ppendix 1). The scenario was followed by three questions. In a betw een-subject design, the first question sought to m easure the degree 52 SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 H3a: Vertical and horizontal individualists (vs. collectivist) demonstrate high motivation to compete when there are few competitors (vs. relatively large). H3b: Vertical and horizontal individualists (vs. collectivist) demonstrate high motivation to compete when they are in proximity-to-astandard. S tu d y 1 With Study 1, we first sought to revisit and identify cultural orientations of the U.S., Korea, China, and Sri Lanka (Hypothesis 1). Second, we measured the level of competitiveness associated with individualistic and collectivistic cultural traits (Hypothesis 2). Finally, we tested the robustness o f proxim ity-to-a-standard and N-effect in different cultural settings (Hypothesis 3a and 3b). Method Table 1. Results of Factor Analysis Factors and items VI I w ould rath er depend on m y self than others I rely on m y self m ost o f the tim e, I rarely rely on others I often do m y ow n th ing HI VC HC .680 .791 .765 .611 .826 .752 W inning is everything C o m p etitio n is the law o f nature W hen an o th er person does better than I do, I get tense and and irritated .786 .571 .685 .585 If a co-v/orker gets a prize, I w ould feel proud T he w ell-being o f m y co-w orkers is im portant to m e To m e, pleasu re is spending tim e w ith others I feel g ood w hen I cooperate w ith others Parents and children m ust stay to g eth er as m uch as possible It is m y duty to take care o f m y fam ily, even w hen I have to sacrifice w hat I w ant F am ily m em bers should stick together, no m atter w hat sacrifices are required It is im p o rtan t to m e th at I respect the decision, m ade by groups o f w hich I am a m em ber .725 .782 .775 .545 Eigenvalues 2.198 1.409 1.221 3.611 C um ulative variance explain (%) 32.579 46.858 60.277 17.623 AVE .557 .540 .439 .509 C ro n b ach ’s A lp ha .678 .637 .669 .731 Note: V I= vertical individualism , H I= horizontal individualism , V C = vertical collectivism , H C = horizontal co llectiv ism K aiser-M eyer-O lkin (K M O ) m easure o f sam pling adequacy is 0.723 o f co m p etitiv en ess tow ard o th e r p articip an ts: “I f a to tal o f 100 [for sm all n u m b er sam ple: 10] can d id ates h ad been invited to th e ex am in a­ tion, to w h at d eg ree w o uld you h o ld co m p eti­ tive feelin g s tow ard th e o th er ex am in ee s?” In a w ith in -su b ject d esig n , the n ex t tw o questio n s fo cu sed on in v estig atin g w h eth er co m petitiv e feelin g s d iffered acco rd in g to th e ran k held: “If y o u r ran k is #1 (#50), and a total o f 100 c an d i­ d ates [for sm all n u m b e r sam ple: If y o u r ran k is #1 (#5) and a total o f 10 can d id ates] h ad been in v ited to atten d an interview , to w h at degree w o u ld you have co m p etitiv e feelin g s tow ard th e o th e r in terv iew ees?” A ll th e q u estio n s w ere m easu red usin g a seven -scales an ch o rin g ran g ­ ing fro m 1 = n o t at all to 7 = very m uch. A total o f 263 responses (m ode age group = 20-24; 51% m ale) w as collected, distributed am ong the U .S. (N = 58; m ode age group = 2529; 61% m ale), K orea (N = 71; m ode age group = 20-24; 58% m ale), C hina (N = 74; m ode age group = 20-24; 39% m ale) and Sri L anka (N = 60; m ode age group = 20-24; 47% m ale). The study targeted at least 30 respondents from tw o sam ple groups (i.e., large num ber com pletion and few num ber com petition sam ple) from each country. However, w e only obtained 28 responses in the large num ber sam ple group from the U.S. SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 53 Analysis and results Before testing our three hypotheses, factor analy­ sis w as conducted to reconfirm the latent vari- Table 2. Significant Univariate Effect for Country (at P < .001) and Descriptive Statistics df error ------F------- Dependent variables HI 3 VI 3 HC 3 VC Note: 3 259 259 259 259 3 4 .9 3 0 1 2 .98 3 2 4 .8 6 0 1 6 .3 1 6 Country -------- N 6 .0 9 0 .7 8 9 71 5.01 0 .8 5 6 74 4 .2 5 1 .29 6 SL 60 4 .9 7 1 .023 US 58 K o re a C h in a US 58 5 .1 5 1 .4 8 0 K o re a 71 5 .1 3 0 .9 2 2 C h in a 74 4 .7 8 0 .8 5 9 SL 60 4 .0 1 1 .3 5 2 US 58 5 .7 3 0 .8 3 2 K o re a 71 5 .2 9 0 .7 8 6 C h in a 74 4 .8 3 0 .6 4 4 SL 60 5 .8 6 0 .8 0 9 US 58 5 .6 6 0 .9 4 7 K o re a 71 5 .5 7 0 .8 9 5 C h in a 74 5 .1 7 0 .9 1 1 SL 60 6 .2 3 0 .7 1 0 V I= v e rtic a l in d iv id u a lis m , H I= h o riz o n ta l in d iv id u a lism , V C = v e r tic a l c o lle c tiv is m , H C = h o riz o n ta l c o lle c tiv is m U S = U n ite d S ta te s, S L = S ri L a n k a A o n e -w a y b e tw e e n - g ro u p m u ltiv a ria te a n a ly ­ sis o f v a ria n c e (M A N O V A ) w a s p e r f o r m e d to in v e stig a te th e c u ltu ra l d iff e re n c e o f c o u n trie s (th e U .S ., K o re a , C h in a , a n d S ri L a n k a ), in te rm s o f f o u r c u ltu ra l p a tte rn s (V I, H I, V C , a n d H C ). T h e f o u r c u ltu ra l p a tte rn s w e r e c o n s id e re d as d e p e n d e n t v a ria b le s , w h e r e a s c o u n trie s (n a tio n a l c u ltu re s ) w e re tre a te d as in d e p e n d e n t v a ria b le s . T h e r e w a s a s ta tis tic a lly sig n ific a n t d if fe re n c e b e tw e e n fo u r c o u n trie s o n th e c o m b in e d d e p e n ­ d e n t v a ria b le s : F (1 2 , 7 7 4 ) = 1 7 .2 2 , p < 0 .0 0 1 ; P illa i’s T ra c e = 0 .6 3 ; p a r tia l e ta s q u a re d = 0 .2 1 1 . T h e lin e a r c o m b in a tio n o f th e d e p e n d e n t v a ri­ a b le s is re p o r te d u s in g P illa i’s T ra c e te c h n iq u e d u e to u n e q u a l N v a lu e s in th e s a m p le (P a lla n t, 2 0 0 7 ). W h e n re s u lts f o r d e p e n d e n t v a ria b le s w e r e c o n s id e re d se p a ra te ly , u s in g B o n fe r ro n i a d ­ ju s te d a lp h a o f .0 1 2 5 , fo u r c u ltu ra l p a tte rn s w e r e f o u n d to b e s ta tis tic a lly s ig n ific a n t (T ab le 2). P o s t- h o c c o m p a ris o n w a s e m p lo y e d u s in g T u k e y ’s h o n e s t sig n ific a n t d if fe r e n c e s (H S D ) te st. F irst, w e c o m p a re d in d iv id u a lis tic c u ltu ra l p a tte rn s a c ro ss c o u n trie s a n d th e n c o lle c tiv is t c u ltu ra l p a tte rn s. W ith re g a rd to th e H I p a tte rn , m e a n v a lu e s fo r th e U .S . (M = 6 .0 9 , S D = 0 .7 8 ) a n d C h in a (M = 4 .2 5 , SD = 1 .2 9 ) w e r e n o t o n ly s ig n ific a n tly d if fe r e n t fr o m e a c h o th e r, b u t a lso d if fe re n t fr o m K o re a (M = 5 .0 1 , SD = 0 .8 5 ) a n d S ri L a n k a (A / = 4 .9 7 , SD = 1 .02 ) a t P < 0 .0 0 1 . O n ly o n e in s ig n if ic a n t m e a n v a lu e w a s o b s e rv e d b e tw e e n K o re a a n d S ri L a n k a (se e T a b le 2 ). T h e m e a n v a lu e fo r th e U .S . w a s sig n ific a n tly h ig h e r c o m p a re d to K o re a , C h in a a n d S ri L a n k a . F ro m th e p e r s p e c tiv e o f H I c u ltu ra l p a tte rn , h y p o th e sis H I a w a s str o n g ly su p p o r te d . M e a n v a lu e s o f V I p a tte rn s f o r th e U .S . (M = 5 .1 5 , SD = 1 .48 ), 54 SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 a b le s (i.e., v e rtic a l a n d h o riz o n ta l C -I). T w o ite m s w e re d isc a rd e d fro m th e in itia l 1 6 -item sca le o w in g to w e a k lo a d in g a n d lo a d in g u n d e r th e d iffe re n t c la ssific atio n s. T h e re m a in in g 1 4 -item s w e re u s e d to b u ild fo u r in d ic e s. A s sh o w n in T a b le 1, th e fa c to r lo a d in g v a lu e s ra n g e d fro m 0 .5 5 to 0 .8 3 . T h e re la tiv e ly h ig h a v e ra g e v a ria n ce e x tra c te d (A Y E ) in d ic a te s a d e q u a te c o n v e rg e n t v alid ity o f e a c h v aria b le. F u rth e r, th e re lia b ility o f th e c o n s tru c ts w a s te ste d c o m p u tin g C ro n b a c h ’s A lp h a . C ro n b a c h ’s A lp h a ’s v a lu es ra n g e d fr o m 0 .6 4 to 0 .7 3 , d e m o n str a tin g a sa tisfa c to ry lev el o f fa c to r reliab ility . Cultural orientation K orea (M = 5.13, SD - 0.92) and C hin a (M = 4.78, SD - 0.85) w ere significantly different only from Sri L anka (M = 4.01, SD = 1.35) at P < 0.001, but not significant fo r the U .S ., K orea, and C hin a respectively. E ven though, the m ean value for the U .S. w as relatively high com pared w ith that o f K orea, China, and Sri L anka, it w as only significant w ith Sri Lanka. So H la is slightly supported in relation to V I cultu ral patterns. W e can, therefore, conclude that the hypothesis th at A m ericans dem onstrate m ore individualistic (vertical and horizontal) characteristics over K oreans, C hinese, and Sri L ankans is partly supported. W ith respect to the H C pattern, the m ean value fo r C hin a (M = 4.83, SD = 0.64) w as significantly different from th at o f the U .S. (M = 5.73, S D =0.83), K orea (M = 5.29, SD = 0.78, p < .05), and Sri L anka (M = 5.86, SD = 0.80) at P < 0.001. Further, significant differences o f m ean values w ere observed betw een K orea and Sri L anka, as w ell as K orea and the U .S. Though, the m ean value o f Sri L anka lies above the other three countries, it w as not significant fo r the U.S. H ence, from a H C cultu ral p attern perspective, H 1b w as supported. Finally, the m ean value o f the V C pattern for Sri L anka (M = 6.23, SD = 0.71) differed significantly from K orea (M = 5.57, SD = 0.895), C hina (M = 5.17, SD = 0.91), and the U .S. (M = 5.66, SD = 0.94) p < 0.05. In addition, the m ean value fo r C hin a w as also significantly different from that o f the U .S. and K orea at P < 0.05. T he w ell-above-significant Sri L anka m ean value over oth er three countries supported H lb . Therefore, w e conclude that Sri L ankans dem onstrate m ore collectivist characteristics (vertical and horizontal) th an A m ericans, K oreans, and C hinese. In this section, w e first investigate the average com petitiveness o f individuals w ith respect to four cultural patterns, under three conditions: the average com petitiveness in response to both few and large num ber o f com petitors; the average com petitiveness o f top rankings and low rankings W e next investigated the relationship betw een fo u r cultural patterns and proxim ity-toa-standard and N -effect. T he relationships betw een cultural patterns and com petitiveness w ere investigated using P earson product-m om ent correlation coefficient (H 2). A m ong four cultu ral patterns only HI pattern w as significant and positively correlated (r = 0.15, n = 263, p < 0.05) w ith com petitive feelings tow ard others in the presence o f eith er few or large num ber o f exam inees w ith regard to ranking. W hereas, the com petitive feeling o f top rankers tow ards other interview ees w as p o si­ tively correlated w ith both H I (r = 0.13, n = 263, p < 0.05) and V I (r = 0.15, n = 263, p < 0.05), the com petitive feeling o f low rankers tow ard oth er interview ees w as only positively correlated (r = 0.13, n = 263, p < 0.05) w ith HI. C orrela­ tions betw een horizontal-vertical collectivism and com petitive feeling tow ard others w ere not significant. T herefore, hypoth esis 2 is accepted and w e can conclude th at vertical-horizontal individualism is m ore positively correlated w ith com petitive behavior, com pared w ith vertical and horizontal collectivism , irrespective o f coun­ try differences. T he relationship betw een four cultu ral p at­ terns and the m otiv atio n to com pete w hen the nu m b er o f com petitors is few (vs. relatively large) w as investigated usin g P earson productm om ent correlation coefficient (H 3a). B efore perform ing the correlation test, the data file was split into tw o— few nu m b er o f com petitors and large num ber o f com petitors— based on the fo l­ low ing question: “If a to tal o f 100 [few num ber o f com petitors; 10] candidates had been invited to the exam in atio n, to w hat degree w ould you hold com petitiv e feelin gs tow ard the other ex­ am inees?” In both cases participants had a 20% chance o f getting selected fo r the job. W hen the num ber o f com petitors w as sm all, neith er one o f four cultu ral patterns w as significantly cor­ related w ith the m otivation to com pete (H I, r = 0.09; V I, r = 0.00; H C, r = 0.12; V C, r = 0.10, p > 0.15, n=131). Ironically, in the p resence o f a large num ber o f com petitors, H I pattern and m otiv atio n to com pete w ere significantly co r­ related (r = 0.20, n = 132, p < 0.05). H ow ever, the rem aining cultu ral patterns w ere not signifi­ cant. A ll in all, hypoth esis 3a, w hich postu lated that vertical and horizontal individ ualists (vs. collectiv ist) dem onstrate high m otivation to com pete w hen the nu m b er o f com petitors is few (vs. relatively large), w as rejected. In ad­ ditio n, a one-w ay betw een-group A NO V A w as p erform ed to fu rth er explore w hether the p res­ ence o f a few or large num ber o f com petitors influenced com petitiv e behavior. Subjects w ere placed in sm all or large groups o f co m petitors. T here w as no significant difference betw een a few and a large num ber o f com petitors (F( 1, 261) = 0.043, p = 0.83). Further, w e observed sim ilar results at country level. O verall, results indicate that the presence o f different num bers SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 55 Competitiveness Table 3. Hierarchical Regression Analysis for High- and Low-Rank Completion L o w ra n k co m p e titio n T op ra n k co m p e titio n P re d ic to r AR2 S tep 1 .013 P F AR2 1.666 .009 P 1.232 HC .02 9 .0 5 0 VC .0 96 .063 S tep 2 .0 1 2 t 2.156* .013* 1.955 HC .00 2 .022 VC .0 8 4 .0 50 HI .114* .119* S tep 3 .0 15* 2 .6 7 6 * 1.478 .0 0 0 HC .005 .0 22 VC .083 .0 50 HI .07 4 .1 24 VI .130* -.0 1 7 T o tal R 2 .04 0 .022 N 263 2 63 F Note: V I = v ertica l in d iv id u alis m , H I = h o riz o n ta l in d iv id u alis m , V C = v ertica l co llec tiv ism , H C = h o riz o n ta l co lle c tiv is m * P < .1 0 , * p < . 0 5 o f c o m p e tito rs d o e s n o t in flu e n c e c a n d id a te s ’ c o m p e titiv e b eh av io r. In H 3 b , w e p ro p o s e d th a t w h en in d iv id u als are in a co m p e titiv e s itu a tio n , c o m p e titiv e fe e l­ in g s w o u ld d e p e n d o n th e ir rela tiv e c o m p etitiv e p o sitio n (ran k in g s ) an d th e e x te n t to w h ic h th ey p o sse ss in d iv id u a lis tic an d co lle c tiv is tic c h a ra c ­ te ris tic s. To m e a su re th e in d iv id u a l’s co m p etitiv e fe e lin g w ith re s p e c t to th e ir co m p etitiv e p o sitio n (i.e., ra n k o b ta in e d fro m th e ex a m in a tio n ), w e a sk e d re sp o n d e n ts : “I f y o u r ra n k is #1 (# 5 0 ), an d a to ta l o f 100 ca n d id a te s [fo r fe w -n u m b e r g ro u p : I f y o u r ra n k is #1 (# 5 ), a n d a to ta l o f 10 ca n d id ate s] h a d b e e n in v ited to an in terv iew , to w h a t d e g ree w o u ld y o u h o ld c o m p e titiv e fe e l­ in g s to w ard s th e o th e r in te rv ie w e e s ? ” R a n k 1 w as c o n s id e re d as to p ran k , w h ile ra n k s 5 an d 50 w e re re g a rd e d as low ran k s. H ie ra rc h ic a l m u l­ tip le re g re ssio n te c h n iq u e w as a p p lie d to te st h y ­ p o th e sis 3b. F o u r ty p e s o f c u ltu ra l p atte rn s w e re seq u en tially ad d ed to th e m o d e l in th ree steps, as in d e p e n d e n t v a ria b les , to te st th e ir im p a c t on in d iv id u a ls ’ c o m p e titiv e fe e lin g (d e p e n d e n t v a ri­ ab le) a n d o b serv e th e ex p la n a to ry p ow er. T h e se q u e n c e o f ad d in g ty p e s o f c u ltu ra l p a tte rn s to th e m o d el b eg an w ith co lle c tiv is m , b e c a u se it w as p o s tu la te d th a t reg ard le ss o f th e ir ra n k s c o l­ le ctiv is ts m ig h t h o ld less m o tiv atio n to co m p ete. A fte r c o n tro llin g fo r H C an d V C , in d iv id u alis tic p atte rn s H I an d V I w ere e n te re d in th e sec o n d an d th ird step s, resp ectiv ely . T h e se q u e n c e o f e n te rin g p re d ic to rs in to re g re s s io n w as id e n tic a l in b o th h ig h -ra n k an d lo w -ran k c o m p e titio n c o n ­ d itio n s. T h e m u ltic o llin e a rity m e a su re d b y th e v aria n ce in flatio n fa c to r (V IF ) fo r tw o co n d itio n s w ere w ith in th e a c c e p te d lim its an d in d ic a te d n o m u ltic o llin e a rity a m o n g in d e p e n d e n t v aria b le s. W ith reg ard to h ig h -ra n k c o m p etitio n , H C an d V C w e re en tered at first, e x p lain in g ju s t o n ly 1.3% v arian ce in co m p etitiv e n e ss. A fte r en te rin g H I in th e sec o n d step an d V I in th e th ird step, th e total v arian ce ex p la in ed b y th e m o d el as a w h o le in c re as ed to 4 % (F (4 ,2 5 8 ) = 2 .6 7 6 , P < 0 .0 5 ). H I (R 2 ch an g e = 0 .0 1 2 , F ch an g e = 3 .1 0 8 , P = 0 .0 7 9 ) an d V I (R 2 ch an g e = 0 .0 1 5 , F c h an g e = 4 .1 5 8 , P < 0 .0 5 ), ex p la in e d an ad d itio n al 2 .7 % o f v arian ce in c o m p etitiv e n e ss. In th e fin al m o d el, o n ly V I w as sta tistic ally sig n ifican t, /? = 0 .1 3 0 , t < 0 .0 5. In co n tra st, in lo w -ran k c o m p etitio n c o n ­ d itio n , alth o u g h th e m o d e l as a w h o le ex p la in ed 56 SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 Table 4. Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Few and Large Number of Competitors large number of competitors (100) few competitors (10) Predictor AR2 Step 1 .026 P F AR2 1.693 .018 P 1.155 HC .118 -.095 VC .069 .148 Step 2 1.634 .011 1.484 .016 HC .088 -.123 VC .078 .108 HI .110 .140 Step 3 .000 1.216 3.722** .071** HC .088 .107 VC .078 .102 HI .110 .063 VI .000 .277** Total R2 .037 .105 N 131 132 F Note: VI = Vertical individualism, HI = Horizontal individualism, VC = Vertical collectivism, HC = horizontal collectivism *p < .05, **P < .01 the total variance of 2.2%, none of the predictors explained the variance in competitiveness signifi­ cantly (Table 3). HI and VI together explained an additional 1.3% of variance in competitiveness. However, it was less than half than the variance explained by the two variables in the high-rank competition condition. This indicates that vertical and horizontal individualists who are in proximity-to-a-s:andard (top rankers: rank 1) demon­ strate high motivation to compete, compared with those who are away from the standard (low rank­ ers: rank 5 or 50), whereas vertical and horizontal collectivist maintained low and same degree of competitive feeling irrespective of their ranks. Therefore, we can accept H3b while concluding that proximity-to-a-standard is more pronounced among individualists than collectivists. Further, we analysed data to investigate wheth­ er competitive feelings in response to a proximi­ ty-to-a-standard was influenced by the number of competitors at an event. After splitting data files into groups of fewer (N = 131) and larger (N = 132) numbers of competitors, hierarchical regres­ sion was executed entering predictors similar to the above hierarchical model. Our analysis was, SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 however, restricted to high-rank completion, because the result of the previous hierarchical analysis was not significant for low-rank com­ petition. None of the predictors explained the variance in competitiveness significantly when the number of candidates being interviewed was 10 (i.e., fewer competitors) (see Table 4). In con­ trast, in the large number of competitors’ group, after controlling HC and VC, the total variance explained by the model as a whole increased to 10.5 % (F(4,127) = 3.722, P = 0.007). HI (R2 change = 0.016, F change = 2.212, P = 0 .148) and VI (R2 change = 0.071, F change = 10.121, P = 0.002) explained an additional 8.7% of vari­ ance in competitiveness. In the final model, only VI was statistically significant (J3 = 0.277, P = 0.002). It reveals that individualistic individuals are highly competitive when they are ranked 1 (vs. 5) and the number of candidate presence in the interview is 100 (vs. 10). Additional analysis We conducted two additional tests to investigate the composition of four cultural patterns at the country level and to explore the impact of c o u n tr y ( c u ltu r a l o rie n ta tio n ) a n d th e n u m b e r o f a m o r e c o lle c tiv is t- o r ie n te d c o u n try a n d , m o r e p a r tic ip a n t/N - e f f e c t (fe w a n d la rg e n u m b e r) o n s p e c ific a lly , a V C c o u n try . c o m p e titiv e n e s s . F in a lly , th e d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n th e fo u r I n th e f ir s t in s t a n c e , to e x p lo r e th e c u lt u r a l c u ltu ra l p a tte rn s w a s s ig n ific a n t (F (3 , 5 7 ) = p < .0 0 1 ; o r ie n ta tio n o f e a c h c o u n try , a o n e - w a y re p e a te d 4 1 .4 2 3 , A N O V A w a s c o n d u c te d s e p a r a te ly f o r e a c h S r i L a n k a . A ll d if f e r e n c e s w e r e s ig n if ic a n t c o u n tr y to c o m p a r e th e v a lu e o f th e f o u r c u ltu ra l a s p e r th e p a irw is e c o m p a ris o n . T h e m e a n W ilk s ’ L a m b d a = 0 .3 1 ) fo r SD = 0 . 8 0 , p SD = 0 . 7 1 , p < p a tte r n s ( H I , V I , H C , a n d V C ) . I n th e U .S ., th e r e v a lu e s f o r b o th H C (M = 5 .8 6 , w a s a s ta tis tic a lly s ig n ific a n t d if fe re n c e b e tw e e n < 0 .0 0 1 ) a n d V C (M = 6 .2 3 , th e f o u r c u ltu r a l p a t te r n s ( F ( 3 , 5 5 ) = 1 0 .7 3 6 , p < 0 .0 0 1 W i l k s ’ L a m b d a = 0 .6 3 ) . P a ir w is e c o m ­ p a r is o n in d ic a te s th a t th e m e a n v a lu e o f V I = 5 .1 5 , SD = 1 . 4 8 ) (M w a s s ig n ific a n tly d if fe re n t SD = 0 . 7 8 , p < 0 . 0 0 1 ) , H C 0 .8 3 , p < 0 .0 5 ) a n d V C ( M = p < 0 .0 5 ) . F u r th e r , th e r e w a s a f r o m H I ( M = 6 .0 9 , ( M = 5 .7 3 , SD = SD = 0 .9 4 , 5 .6 6 , .0 0 1 ) ( c o lle c tiv is t p a tte r n s ) w e r e s ig n if ic a n tly h ig h e r th a n b o th H I (M = 4 .9 7 , .0 0 1 ) a n d V I (M = 4 .0 1 , SD SD = 1 .3 5 , p < = 1 .0 2 , p < 0 .0 0 1 ) (in d iv id u a lis tic p a tte rn s ). T h e re fo re , w e c a n c o n c lu d e th a t S ri L a n k a n s a re m o re c o lle c ­ tiv is t-o rie n te d a n d p o s s e s s a h ig h e r V C {p - .0 3 4 ) p a tte r n th a n H C . s ig n ific a n t m e a n v a lu e d iff e r e n c e b e tw e e n H I T o s u m m a r i z e , t h e f o u r c o u n t r i e s d if f e r e d in a n d V C (s e e T a b le 5 ). D e s p ite th e h ig h m e a n o f c u ltu r a l o r ie n ta tio n . It is f a ir e n o u g h to c o n ­ H I c o m p a r e d w ith H C a n d V C , it is h a r d to s ta t e c l u d e th a t th e U .S . is a m o r e h o r iz o n t a l in d i- c le a r ly w h e th e r A m e r ic a n s w e r e m o r e in d iv id u ­ v id u a lis tic - o r ie n te d c o u n try , th o u g h in d iv id u a ls a lis tic d u e to th e f a c t th a t V I w a s b e lo w H C a n d p re s e n t a m ix o f in d iv id u a lis tic a n d c o lle c tiv is t V C a n d b e c a u s e th e d iff e r e n c e b e tw e e n H C a n d c h a r a c te r is tic s o n a v e r a g e ( s e e F ig u r e 1 ). K o ­ V C w a s in s ig n if ic a n t. S u b s e q u e n tly , n e ith e r r e a is a m o d e r a te l y lo w c o l l e c t iv is t- o r i e n te d in d iv id u a lis tic p a tte r n s n o r c o lle c tiv is tic p a tte rn s c o u n tr y , s h a r in g in d iv id u a lis tic c h a r a c te r is tic s , o v e r d id e a c h o th e r o n a v e ra g e . w h e r e a s C h in a is a m o d e r a te ly h ig h c o lle c tiv ­ F o r K o re a , th e d if f e r e n c e o f f o u r c u ltu r a l p a tte r n s w a s c o m p a r a tiv e ly le s s s ig n if ic a n t ( F ( 3 , 6 8 ) = 5 .7 0 1 , p < 0 .0 5 W i l k s ’ L a m b d a = 0 .7 9 ) . is t- o r ie n te d c o u n tr y . S ri L a n k a is a c o lle c tiv is to r ie n te d c o u n tr y w ith h ig h v e r tic a l c o lle c tiv is t c h a ra c te ris tic s . A c c o r d in g to th e p a ir w is e c o m p a r is o n o n ly V C (M = 5 .5 7 , SD = 0 .8 9 ) w a s s ig n if ic a n tly d if f e r ­ e n t f r o m H I ( M = 5 .0 1 , a n d V I ( M = 5 .1 3 , SD = SD = 0 .8 5 , 0 .9 2 , p p < 0 .0 0 1 ) < 0 .0 5 ) . E v e n F o r th e s e c o n d s ta g e o f th is a d d itio n a l a n a ly s is , w e p e r f o r m e d a tw o -w a y b e tw e e n g r o u p A N O V A to e x p lo r e th e im p a c t o f c u l tu r ­ a l o rie n ta tio n a n d th e n u m b e r o f p a rtic ip a n ts th o u g h th e m e a n v a lu e s o f b o th c o lle c tiv is t o n c o m p e titiv e n e s s . F o r th is , w e u s e d o n ly a p a tte r n s w e r e h ig h e r th a n th e in d iv id u a lis tic h ig h -ra n k c o m p le tio n m e a s u re m e n t a s a d e ­ p a tte r n s , th e m e a n v a lu e s b e tw e e n H I, V I, a n d p e n d e n t v a ria b le , b e c a u s e in d iv id u a l c u ltu ra l H C w e re in s ig n if ic a n t. F u r th e r , th e m e a n v a lu e p a tte rn s s ig n ific a n tly e x p la in e d th e v a ria tio n o f H C w a s n o t s ig n if ic a n tly d if f e r e n t f r o m V C . in c o m p e titiv e n e s s in th e f ir s t s ta g e o f th e a d ­ C o n s e q u e n tly , it is n o t p o s s ib le to id e n tif y K o r e ­ d itio n a l a n a ly s is . In d e p e n d e n t v a ria b le s w e re a n s a s h ig h ly c o lle c tiv is t. I n s te a d w e m ig h t b e c u ltu r a l o r ie n ta tio n ( th e U .S ., K o re a , C h in a , a b le to s ta te th a t th e y a re m ix e d in d iv id u a lis tic a n d S ri L a n k a ) a n d th e n u m b e r o f p a r tic ip a n ts a n d c o lle c tiv is tic . W ith r e g a r d to C h in a , th e d iff e r e n c e b e tw e e n th e f o u r c u ltu r a l p a tte r n s w a s s ig n ific a n t (F ( 3 , 7 1 ) = 1 1 .6 7 8 , p < .0 0 1 ; W i lk s ’ L a m b d a = 0 .6 7 ) a n d th e p a irw is e c o m p a r is o n re v e a le d th a t, (fe w a n d la rg e n u m b e rs ). T h e in te r a c tio n e f ­ fe c t b e tw e e n c o u n try a n d n u m b e r o f p a rtic i­ p a n ts w a s s ta tis tic a lly in s ig n ific a n t ( F ( 3 , 2 5 5 ) = 0 .5 8 1 , P = 0 .6 2 ). H o w e v e r, th e m a in e ffe c t fo r b o th c u ltu ra l o rie n ta tio n (F (3 , 2 5 5 ) = P- e x c e p t f o r th e m e a n v a lu e d iff e r e n c e b e tw e e n 3 .6 3 5 , V I a n d H C , a ll o th e r m e a n d if f e r e n c e s w e re th e n u m b e r o f p a rtic ip a n ts s ig n if ic a n t. T h e m e a n v a lu e f o r V C ( M = 5 .1 7 , P SD = tic a lly s ig n ific a n t. P o s t-h o c c o m p a ris o n s u s in g 0 .9 1 ) w a s s ig n if ic a n tly h ig h c o m p a r e d w ith 0 .0 1 p a r t i a l e t a s q u a r e d = 0 .0 4 ) a n d (F( 1 , 2 5 5 ) = 5 .7 6 8 , = 0 .0 1 p a r tia l e ta s q u a r e d = 0 .0 2 ) w a s s ta tis ­ (M = 4 . 8 3 , SD = 0 . 6 4 4 , p < 0 . 0 5 ) , H I ( M = 4 . 2 5 , SD = 1 . 2 9 , p < . 0 0 1 ) a n d V I ( M = 4 . 7 8 , SD = 0 . 8 5 , p < 0 . 0 5 ) . M o r e o v e r , a l t h o u g h 4 .9 5 , SD H C ’s m e a n v a l u e w a s a b o v e t w o i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c fro m K o re a p a tte r n s , th e d iff e r e n c e w a s s ig n ific a n t o n ly f o r a n d C h in a (A / = 5 .6 4 , H I. A s a r e s u lt, w e c a n c o n c lu d e th a t C h in a is A lth o u g h , th e m e a n v a lu e o f c o m p e titiv e n e s s 58 SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 th a t o f H C T u k e y ’s H S D t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m e a n v a lu e o f c o m p e titiv e n e s s f o r S ri L a n k a (M = = 1 .7 0 ) w a s s ig n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (M = 5 .8 , SD = 1 . 1 9 , p SD = 1 . 6 6 , p = 0 .0 0 8 ) = 0 .0 4 ), Table 5. Significant Multivariate Effect for Country (at P < .001) and Descriptive Statistics Wilks’ Lambda df d f error F Dependent variables N M SD US 0.63 3 55 10.736 HI VI HC VC 58 58 58 58 6.09 5.15 5.73 5.66 .789 1.480 .832 .947 Koreaa 0.79 3 68 5.701 HI VI HC VC 71 71 71 71 5.01 5.13 5.29 5.57 .856 .922 .786 .895 China 0.67 3 71 11.678 HI VI HC VC 74 74 74 74 4.25 4.78 4.83 5.17 1.296 .859 .644 .911 SL 0.31 3 57 41.423 HI VI HC VC 60 60 60 60 4.97 4.01 5.86 6.23 1.023 1.352 .809 .710 Country Note: VI = vertical individualism, HI = horizontal individualism, VC = vertical collectivism, HC = horizontal collectivism US = United States, SL = Sri Lanka ap < .05 Figure 1. Cultural Orientation of Countries Country ---- US — Korea —— China — SL SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 59 Figure 2. Cultural Orientation and Competitiveness $<D a > 0) a so u Country for the U.S. (M = 5.48, 5Z) = 1.53) was higher than Sri Lanka, it was not statistically signifi­ cant. The mean value differences between the U.S., Korea, and China were also not signifi­ cant (Figure 2). These results demonstrate that individuals’ competitiveness depends on the extent to which their respective country shares individualistic or collectivistic cultural dimensions. Coun­ tries with higher orientation of collectivism, like Sri Lanka, indicated lower competitive­ ness, whereas Korea, being a moderately low collectivist-oriented country sharing individu­ alistic characteristics, indicated higher levels of competitiveness. China’s levels of collectivism and competitiveness fell between Sri Lanka and Korea. However, though the U.S. was a more HI country, in our sample, competitive­ ness was lower than that of Korea and China. This provides evidence that ranking match with a standard (when they are closer to win the competition) influences even low collectivist countries (relatively high shared individualistic characteristics among collectivist countries) to stay highly competitive, while discouraging high collectivist to compete. In other terms, we can state that higher collectivists tend to work collaboratively even when they are in a highly competitive situation. Further, pairwise comparison indicated that the mean value for larger groups of competitors (M = 5.7, SD = 1.46, p = 0.01) is higher than for fewer numbers of competitors (M = 5.2, SD = 1.61). To further explore this phenomenon, we conducted one more analysis that investigated how proximity-to-a-standard effect differs be­ tween large and small groups of competitors. First, the data set was split into small and large competitive groups. Then, a one-way repeated ANOVA was conducted to compare competi­ tiveness between top-ranking and low-ranking competitors in both sets of groups. We found a significant effect for ranking in the large compet­ itive group (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.92, F(l,131) = 10.893, p = .001). The mean value for top rank­ ing (M = 5.7, SD - 1.46, p = 0.001, n = 132) was greater than that of low ranking (M - 5.2, SD = 1.7). In contrast, for competitors in the smaller group, the effect of ranking on competitive­ ness was insignificant (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.98, F(l,130) = 2.262, p = 0.13), though it was near the cut-off mark. The mean value for top ranking (M = 5.25, SD = 1. 61, p = 0.13, n = 131) was lower than that of low ranking (M = 5.47, SD = 1.35). This additional analysis confirmed that proximity-to-a-standard is pronounced in the large competitive group, but less pronounced for the group with few competitors. 6C SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 Discussion Despite weak loading and loading under the different classifications of two items, the HI, VI, HC, and VC factors emerged in all four countries. This provides further confidence in the use of the 16-item scale of four cultural patterns for cross-cultural studies. Cultwal orientation: Americans demonstrated more individualistic characteristics than Kore­ ans, Chinese, and Sri Lankans. However, the HI pattern among Americans was predominant, whereas the VI pattern was not significantly different for Korea and China. Sri Lankans were more collectivistic, over and above the U.S., Korea, and China with respect with both HC and VC. Nevertheless, Americans showed high collectivist characteristics compared with Ko­ reans and Chinese. We can therefore argue that Americans were more collectivist than Koreans and Chinese. To address this issue, we need to explore how the four cultural characteristics are distributed within each country. Among Ameri­ cans, HI dominated over the collectivist pattern, while collectivist patterns dominated among Ko­ reans and Chinese to varying degrees. To a lesser extent, Koreans and Chinese were collectivistic compared to Sri Lankans. Further, Koreans were moderately low collectivistic, sharing relatively higher individualistic characteristics than Chi­ nese. Disregarding country differences, individualism was positively associated with higher degrees of competition. However, the positive correlation between horizontal-vertical individualism and degree of competitiveness varied depending on the competitive context. For instance, in the presence of different numbers of participants only horizontal individualism was positively correlated with competitiveness, whereas with top-ranking participants, irrespective of the number of competitors, both patterns of individualism were positively correlated. As for country levels, individuals’ competitiveness depended on the extent to which their country shared individualistic and collectivistic cultural dimensions. Nevertheless, Americans showed relatively low degrees of competitiveness. Prior research has suggested that the U.S. was an example of VI and selfreliance in terms of competition (Triandis, 1995; Triandis et al., 1988). In our sample, this shift in competitiveness can partially be understood as due to the high self-reported HI. Singelis et al. (1995) reported that horizontal-vertical individualism is varied in the U.S. and depends on social structures. In support of this, Snibbe and Markus (2005) reported that self-expression and the pursuit of uniqueness are more apparent among Americans with a high socioeconomic status relative to a low socioeconomic status. Our results showed diverging evidence from the notion of N-effect, which holds that fewer participants leads to higher competition. With our study, we could not find a significant differ­ ence of competitiveness between few and large competition groups. Furthermore, vertical-hori­ zontal individualists were not positively associ­ ated with competitiveness when the number of competitors was small or large. Similarly, Vandegrift, and Holaday (2012) found that changes in the number of competitors had no impact on competitive behavior under the condition where competitive behavior affects each other or there is no fair rule condition. Our study’s diverging results may reflect various reasons, including multiple contest situations where lower weight had been allocated to the examination (i.e., 20% for the first context) as opposed to higher weight for the interview (i.e., 80% for the second con­ test) in the overall evaluation of the selection process. This reduced emphasis on the exami­ nation might have induced competitors in the smaller group to scale-down their motivation (ratchet down effect) through social comparison process to compete with examinees. In contrast, despite this low importance, competitors of the large group appeared to maintain the same level of competitive attitude toward examinees, ow­ ing to the lack of social comparability. Also, multistage competition might have drawn par­ ticipants’ attention to the process of competition away from the number of competitors, attenuat­ ing the N-effect. With regard to proximity-to-a-standard, horizontal-vertical individualists, who obtained top ranking in the first selection stage, demonstrated high levels of motivation to compete in the next stage compared with those who were further away from the standard. In contrast, competitiveness of horizontal-vertical collectivists remained unchanged, irrespective of their ranks. Thus, proximity-to-a-standard is well supported among individualistic rather than collectivists. Moreover, we found that proximity-to-a-standard was evident only in large competitive groups. This is, contradictory to the findings of Vandegrift and Holaday (2012). This inconsistent result of N-effect may be due to the allocation of different weights, which might have caused proximity-to-a- SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 61 standard to disappear in the group of fewer competitors. Lower levels of motivation to compete when competitors in the small group received top ranking induces a tendency to maintain the same level of competition or less because of over-estimating their superiority or moral hazard (Ridlon and Shin, 2013). However, obtaining a low rank led participants to oe more competitive than before owing to the feeling that they had not been competitive in the first contest and were still not far from the standard (higher comparability). That is why the mean value for low ranking was greater than that of top ranking participants in our study. In contrast, those who received top-rankings in the large competition group may have maintained the same or even a higher level of motivation, whereas a low rank seemed to discourage participants to compete. This is because, though low-ranked participants extend considerable efforts to compete in the first contest, they found they were too far from the standard (i.e., low comparability makes them feel they are distant from the standard). Having said this, further testing is required, which is beyond the scope of this study. Overall, our findings reveal that individualists tend to put extensive effort in competing once they progress toward a competitive goal or their ranking coincides with a standard. This suggests that it is hard to expect individualists to work collectively as they come closer to a desired end. We can, however, expect such a cooperative effort from collectivists. We shed light on this notion in Study 2 while testing the robustness of our findings in Study 1. Proximity-to-a-standard and cooperative ef­ fort Study one illustrated that individualistic individuals were more competitive in the • advanced stage of competition than in the middle stage, whereas collectivists remained less competitive or uncompetitive across different rankings. Szu-Chi et al. (1996) explored how individualists and collectivists respond to cooperative efforts. They showed that even in a zero-sum game situation, individuals are likely to regard shared-pursuit peers as opponents and like to surpass them at the advanced stage of goal pursuit more than at the initial stage. In the same vein, Garcia et al., (2006) reported that ranking coincides with the standard influence of social behavior of individuals, which, in turn, motivates 62 high competition. Moreover, proximity-toa-standard stresses that ranking discourages cooperative efforts and negatively affects socializing with others. In other terms, ranking can affect the social behavior of individuals by preventing beneficial effects of cooperation. In contrast, Yang (1986) reported that people with different types of self-construal pursue different goals. Individuals from collectivist cultural backgrounds (e.g., China) tend to possess predominantly interdependent self-construal (i.e., stability and social relations), which motivates them to pursue the maintenance of goals. On the other hand, those from individualist cultural backgrounds (e.g., the U.S.) tend to possess independent self-construal (i.e., unique achievement and advancement-related activities), which motivates them to pursue the attainment of goals. Together with study 1 results, which showed that higher collectivism is likely to extend cooperative efforts even if individuals are in a highly competitive situation, we can argue that although individualism discourages cooperative efforts, collectivism encourages cooperative efforts, even when ranking agreed with standards in a competitive situation. In line with this notion, we propose that cultural differences moderate cooperative effort and result in individuals either focusing their effort on collaboration or on competition. H4: Although proximity-to-a-standard discourages cooperative efforts among individuals from individualist cultures, collectivism encourages cooperative efforts regardless o f such standard. Study 2 The primary objective of this study was to investigate whether cultural differences between the U.S., Korea, China, and Sri Lanka influenced cooperative efforts (hypothesis 4). The secondary objective was to test the robustness of the relationship between cultural orientation and levels of competitiveness. Method The tools used in Study 2 were the same as those in Study 1. However, the design of the questionnaire differed in having two parts (A and B). Part A was designed to gather general information from respondents and part B was designed to capture collaborative and competitive efforts. In part B, scenario-based SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 questions were directed to respondents to test whether cooperative efforts differed according to cultural orientation or competitive position (top or low rank) or both. Measurements The scenario presented situations to participants where sales representatives were assigned ranks each year and explained why such ranks were important to them. Fifty sales representatives were ranked from 1 (top) to 50 (bottom) based on their sales’ performance, such as volume, efficiency and service. This personal ranking was important to them to promote sales and increase their earnings. Further, sales representatives were chosen to compete individually or work collaboratively. However, earning capacity increased from 5% to 7% as a result of shifting from competitive to collaborative work, while collaborators increased their sales by 15% (see Appendix 2). The scenario was followed by two narratives and two sub-questions. In a within-subject design, two narratives provided a background about different ranking and sales: “In this scenario, imagine that your rank is #1. While you are searching for ways and means to further increase sales, another sales representative ranked #2 (second narrative; ranked #11) proposes that you work collaboratively.” Participants were first asked to select their preferred option (collaborative or competitive) to increase their sales performance and then asked to indicate the extent to which they held competitive feelings toward the other sales representative (if they were supposed to compete on a seven-scale rating from 1 = not at all to 7 = very much). These same questions were also used with the second narrative. The total sample of 131 (highest mode age group = 20-24; 40% male) was distributed in the U.S. {N = 27; highest mode age group = 20-24; 70% male), Korea (N = 33; highest mode age group = 20-24; 48% male), China (N = 35; highest mode age group = 25-29; 39% male), and Sri Lanka (N = 36; highest mode age group = 25-29; 12% male). This study was designed to cover 30 respondents from each country, but it was only possible to obtain 27 responses from the U.S. Analysis and results A four-country (U.S., Korea, China, and Sri Lanka) X 2 (competitive option and collaborative option) chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 relationship between the cultural orientation of countries and cooperative effort (vs. competitive effort) when the ranking coincided with a standard (proximity-to-a-standard). We found a significant relationship between the cultural orientation of a country—as identified in study 1—and cooperative efforts when both sales representatives were ranked 1 and 2 respectively (A2 (3, n - 131) = 14.69, p = 0.002, Cramer’s v = 0.33). Collectivism was highly associated with cooperative efforts while individualism was associated with competitive efforts (see Figure 3). Thus, H4 was verified, and we can conclude that although proximityto-a-standard discourages cooperative efforts among individuals from individualistic cultures, collectivist cultures encourage cooperative efforts. Put simply, Americans are unlikely to accept an invitation from an immediate competitor to work collaboratively, whereas Sri Lankans, Chinese, and Koreans are likely to do so to various degrees. However, the relationship between a country’s cultural orientation and cooperative efforts (vs. competitive effort) was not significant (A2 (3, n = 130) = 5.35, p = .15) when ranking did not agree with a standard. In other terms, the identified relationship (i.e., invitation from an immediate competitor) disappeared once a distant competitor proposed to work (from rank 11 to 1) collaboratively. Individuals in all countries studied were willing to work cooperatively with distant competitors, as long as they felt that their position was squared. Even though this willingness was not statistically significant, the total percentage of individuals (34.6%) who chose the competitive option was analogue to the total percentage of individuals who selected to compete with an immediate competitor. This study provides further evidence to support H3b. Additionally, we performed a one-way between-group ANOVA to explore the impact of cultural orientation in the U.S., Korea, China, and Sri Lanka on competitiveness. We used the degree of competitive feelings toward immediate competitors (top rankings) as a dependent variable because, in Study 1, individual cultural patterns significantly explained the variation in competitiveness. There was a statistically significant difference at the p < .05 level in the degree of competitive feeling across the four countries (F(3, 127) = 5.308, P = .002, partial beta squared = .11). Post-hoc comparisons using Tukey’s HSD test indicated that the mean value of competitiveness for the U.S. {M = 4.07, SD 63 Figure 3. Relationship between Cultural Orientation and Competitiveness/Collaborative Effort Response I Competitive I Collaborative US Korea China SL Country = 2.48) was significantly different from China (M = 2.23 ,SD = 2.32, p = 0.01) and Sri Lanka (M = 1.89, SD = 1.93, p = 0.001). Nevertheless, the mean value for Korea (Af = 2.73, SD = 2.36) was not statistically different from the other three countries (see Figure 4). These results also follow the same pattern illustrated in Figure 2, except for the U.S. Discussion In Study 2, we demonstrated that although proximity-to-a-standard discourages cooperative efforts in individualist cultures, collectivist cuhures encourage cooperative efforts. Working cooperatively results in a marginal improvement of position while improving a competitor’s position more than two fold in terms of sales performance. In that context, collaborating with an immediate competitor would adversely affect future gain associated with ranking, more so than collaborating with a distant competitor. Hence, it seems that individualists were attracted to the competitive option to secure their position. To further support this point, competitors also chose to collaborate with distant competitors. This finding is consistent with the notion that ranking stimulates individuals to compete on scale rather than on task comparison, undermining rational choice strategy (Garcia and Tor, 2007). In contrast, collectivists accepted to work collectively not only with distant competitors, but also with immediate competitors, perhaps because they valued communal sharing more than competitive (market) sharing (Singelis, et al., 1995). Study 2 also provided evidence to support the robustness of proximity-to-a-standard only among individualists rather than collectivists. This study also highlighted a similar pattern, which emerged in Study 1, namely that there is a positive relationship between a country’s cultural orientation and competitiveness, though with a slight difference. The difference was that the competitiveness of Americans was recorded as highest out of the four countries in accordance with prior research (e.g., Houston et al., 2012). This convergence is, perhaps, due to relatively high representation of VI, more than HI, subjects in the Study 2 sample, despite the absence of individualism-collectivism measurement data. This issue does not appear in collectivism measurements because horizontal-vertical collectivism is not infinitely distinguishable (Singelis et al., 1995). In essence, individuals from individualist cultures like the U.S., and cultures in transition like Korea, were highly compeiitive compared with collectivist cultures like Sri Lanka. Results from Study 1 indicated that the U.S., Korea, and China were different in cultural orientation. To a greater extent Sri Lankans were collectivistic (horizontal and vertical) compared to Koreans and Chinese. Koreans were moderately low collectivistic, 64 SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 Figure 4. Cultural Orientation and Competitiveness whereas Chinese were moderately high collectivistic. Americans were individualistic, although, in our sample they were poor in VI. This provides convergent results to those exposed in modernization theory as well as cultural heritage theory. The World Economic Outlook (International Monetary Fund, 2015) has classified the U.S. and Korea as advanced economies, while classifying China and Sri Lanka as emerging and developing economies, respectively. Consistent with modernization theory, Sri Lanka, being a developing country, is associated with high levels of collectivism, while China, being an emerging country, is associating with moderately high collectiv­ ism. As an advanced country, the U.S. is aligned with individualism whereas Korea is moderately low in collectivism. This cultural asymmetry between Korea and the U.S. is congruent with cultural heritage theory, in the sense that in Korea, being an advanced coun­ try, collectivism is still apparent because of its resistance to change and strong connections to traditions and heritage. However, parallel to the rapid economic growth, the generation gap is not sufficient to confirm the role played by the cultural heritage. Meanwhile, our results indicate that the gap between individualistic and collectivistic dimensions was minimal in Korea compared with the other two collectiv­ ist countries. Congruent with this idea, VI appeared to emerge among individuals from China and Korea, highlighting the possibility that the next generation might be competitive. Yang (1986) also mentioned that, over the years, the personality profile of Chinese had been shifting toward individual orientation away from social orientation. Consistent with prior research findings (Houston et al., 2012) across the four countries, individualism was positively correlated with competition. At the country level, the competi­ tiveness of individuals depended on the extent to which each country shared individualistic and collectivistic cultural dimensions. With regard to the U.S., though Study 1 reported modest levels of competition associated with HI, study 2 de­ picted the highest competitiveness. This incon­ sistency may be the result of the clear divisibility of horizontal-vertical individualism in the U.S. (Singelis et al., 1995) which has been reflected in our two samples. Thus, our results are congru­ ent with prior findings—American students are more competitive than Balinese (Houston et al., 2012). Being a low collectivist country, Korea showed higher competitiveness, whereas China showed modest competitiveness. However, Sri Lanka, being a high collectivist country, present- SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 65 ed notably lower competitiveness. Moreover, the positive correlation between horizontal-vertical individualism and the degree of competitiveness varied depending on the competitive context— proximity-to-a-standard. Individualists who held top ranks appeared to be highly competitive compared with collectivists across both studies. The proximity-to-a-standard was robust only among individualists, imposing boundary condi­ tion for the theory. If IC is treated as individual differences (Cozma, 2011), the individualist and collectivist behavior is aligned with the social comparison model of completion (Garcia et al., 2013) in which situational factors (i.e., proximity-to-a-standard and N-effect) indirectly shape individual factors (i.e., individual difference; in­ dividualist vs. collectivist). In our study, perhaps the collectivist individual factor has dominated over the indirect influence of situational factor— proximity-to-a-standard— resulting in coopera­ tive behavior. In contrast to small competition groups, proximity-to-a-standard was evidenced in large competition group. The N-effect was neither found nor associated with individualism in our study because of the use of multi-contest competition, where insufficient weight seems to discourage competitive behavior in groups with fewer competitors. condition. We suggest that multi-contest competitions with different weights for each stage may lead to perceived different contests and competitions as a whole in accord with how each stage is weighted. Response to such contextual changes can be immediately observed in small groups more than in large groups; in effect, individuals are likely to ratchet their competitive behavior upward or downward. Such behavior may limit the N-effect. In our study, the cooperative behavior of competitors among top rankers results either from the dominant effect of task (vs. scale) comparison or individual factors (vs. situational factors) attributed from collectivist cultures. Otherwise, collectivist cultures may trigger task comparison over scale comparison. However, both studies (i.e., minimum task-oriented and high taskoriented) provide evidence that cooperative behavior is prevalent because of individual factors—individualist and collectivist - rather than task comparison. Therefore, we suggest that individual factors (personality), which are highly influenced by cultures, attenuate the effect of proximity-to-a-standard. Concluding Remarks Theoretical contribution Though our main focus was not to investigate cultural dynamism rigorously, this study contrib­ utes to the existing body of knowledge of cross­ culture in three ways. First, prior research has only compared one type of culture with another type, whereas this study has covered three col­ lectivist cultures and one individualistic culture wi;h vertical-horizontal and individualisticcollectivist cultural dimensions. Therefore, our findings advance our knowledge, especially, in relation to how the orientations of three col­ lectivist countries differ from each other (e.g., Sri Lanka’s cultural orientation is different from Korea’s and China’s) and differ according to the level of economic advancement. Second, prior researchers have stressed the importance of in­ vestigating whether existing cultural dimensions adequately describe the cultural complexity of less developed countries. The inclusion of Sri Lanka as a developing country in our study helps to fill this knowledge gap to some extent (e.g., classification of Sri Lanka as VC culture). Third, we contribute to proximity-to-astandard and N-effect by introducing boundary Implications of the study Managers who expect to work as expatriates in Asia can regard Korea and China (perhaps even Japan) as separate cultures from Sri Lanka with regard to collectivism. This study demonstrated that Western managerial assumptions about competition cannot be applied outside of these countries as it can be in countries or cultures that promote in-group cooperative efforts. Therefore, the promotion of out-group competition rather than in-group would be productive in VC cultures like Sri Lanka and India—for example, between departmental, product lines or branches. Further, though ranking motivated competition and efficiency in organizational contexts, Study 1 and authors such as Garcia and Tor (2007) highlight that top ranking precludes beneficial cooperative efforts, boosting organizational overall performance. On the other hand, such competitive behavior may hinder the sharing of beneficial information and organizational resources and not be suitable for organizations where managers expect to foster a learning culture. In contrast, the effects of ranking methodology seemed to be minimal in promoting competition in collectivist work cultures. Collectivists seemed to accept ranking as a relative position among colleagues rather than as a compare their scale with others, 66 SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 because pow er distance is also part o f the culture (G raf et al., 2012). N onetheless, group ranking m ethods (individuals are assig ned to a group on a rational basis to prom ote com petitio n betw een groups) w ould be m ore suitable fo r collectivist w ork cultures to m otivate com petitiveness. A ll in all, our findings provid e guidance for in creasin g overall organizational perform ance by optim izin g com petitive behavior in tw o different natio nal w ork cultures. A senior lecturer in the Department o f Business Economics, Mr. Madurapperuma is working toward a Ph.D. Dr. Kyung-min is a professor o f marketing, and Dr. Dharmadasa heads the Department o f International Business. REFERENCES A ycan, Z., R abin dra, K ., M anuel, M ., K aicheng, Y., Jurgen, D ., G unter, S., and A nw ar, K urshid. (2000). Im pact o f cultu re on hum an resource m anagem ent practices: A 10-C ountry com parison. Applied Psychology, 49(1), Limitations and future directions T he results presented here are subjected to few lim itations. E liciting decision-m aking m eth odolo gy from respondents based on hypoth etical scenarios is a w idely used and accepted m eth odolo gy in consum er behavior and psychology research. To rule out order effect, questions are p u t to respondents in half-reverse or random order. In our study, how ever, w e w ere not able to adhere to this m eth od ow ing to the difficulty o f ad m in istering questionnaires in four languages in fo u r countries. N evertheless, w e believe th at the effect o f the o rder d id not ham per the validity o f findings. Further, although w e have discussed w hy N -effect w as not found in our study, the m echanism th at brought about such results has not been explored. First, it is w orth investigating N -effect in a m ultistage com petitio n context w ith different w eights for each stage. Second, it is w orth investigating proxim ity-to-a-standard and N -effect in a context o f repeated contests (R idlon and Shin, 2013). O ur results show ed th at collectivists tend to w ork collaboratively w ith im m ediate com peti­ tors in the sam e group even w hen they are in proxim ity-to-a-standard. It can be expected that collectivists— especially V C — behave in a com petitive fashio n w hen they co m pete w ith outsid e groups. F utu re research is required to investigate this phenom enon by using a group rankin g m ethod. Finally, w e observed som e vertical-horizontal and individ ualism -collectiv ­ ism cultural patterns in relation to the level o f econom ic advancem ent. F o r instance, less devel­ oped countries appeared to be dom inated by V C, but w ith econom ic advancem ent this is likely to shift tow ards V I. F utu re research should focus on buildin g a m odel reflecting such cultu ral shifts relative to econom ic advancem ent. In this respect, cross-cultural as w ell as longitudinal research w ould be helpful. 192-221. A ycan, Z., R abin dra, N ., K anungo., and Jai, B. R S. (1999). O rganizational cultu re and h u m an resource m an ag em en t practices: T he m odel o f cultu re fit. Journal o f CrossCultural Psychology, 30(4), 501-526. B rislin , R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis o f oral and written material. B oston: A lly n & B acon. C hen, E , and S tephen G. W. (2008). M easurin g in d iv idualism an d collectivism : T h e im p o rtan ce o f consid erin g d ifferential co m ponents, reference groups, and m easu rem en t invariance. Journal o f Research in Personality, 42(2), 259-294. C ozm a, I. (2011). H ow are in d iv idualism and collectivism m easured? Romanian Journal o f Applied Psychology, 73(1), 11-17. Farrell, S., an d R alp h, A . H . (2001). Im pro ving salesforce perform ance: A m eta-analy tic in vestigation o f the effectiveness and u tility o f perso n n el selection procedures and trainin g interventions. Psychology and Marketing, 18(3), 281-316. G arcia, S. M ., and Tor, A. (2 009).T he N -E ffect: M ore com petito rs, less com petition. Psychological Science, 20(1), 871-877. G arcia, S. M ., and Tor, A. (2007). R ankin gs, standards, and com petition: Task vs. scale com parisons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 95-108. G arcia, S. M ., Tor, A ., and R ichard , G. (2006). R anks and rivals: A theory o f co m petition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(1), 970-982. G arcia, S. M ., Tor., and Tyrone M . S. (2 013).T he p sy cholo gy o f com petition: A social com parison persp ective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 634-650. G raf, A ., Sabin e, T., K oeszegi., an d E va-M aria , P. (2012). C ros-cultural n egotiatio ns and p ow er distan ce: S trategies applied b y A sian and E uro p ean b uyers and sellers in electro n ic negotiatio ns. Nankai Business Review International, 3(3), 242-256. G reen, E. G . T., Je an-C la ude, D ., and D ario , P. (2005). V ariation o f indiv idualism and co llectivism w ithin and betw een 20 countries: A typo lo g ical analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(3), 321-239. H am am ura, T. (2012). A re cultu res b ecom in g in div idualistic? A cross-te m poral co m p ariso n o f in d iv id u alism -co llectiv ism in th e U n ited S tates and Japan. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 3-24. H ofstede, G. (1980). M otivation, leadership, and SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 67 organization: D o A m erican theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42-63. H ouston, J. M ., H oyt, E., Libby, E. A., C okorda, B. J. L., and Luh, K. S. (2012). C om petitiveness and individualism -collectivism in B ab and the U .S. N orth American Journal o f Psychology, 14(1), 163-73. H ouston, J. M ., Paul, B. H., Robert, M ., R ebecca, B., and H ideki, K. (2005). C om petitiveness am ong Japanese, Chinese, and A m erican undergraduate students. Psychological Reports, 97(1), 205-212. H ui, C. H. (1988). M easurem ent o f individualism collectivism. Journal o f Research in Personality, 22(1), 17-36. International M onetary Fund. (2015). World economic outlook: Adjusting to lower commodity prices. W ashington: International M onetary Fund. Kale, S., and John, B. (1992). U nderstanding the dom ain of cross-national buyer-seller interactions. Journal o f International Business Studies, 23(1), 101-132. K irkm an, B. L., and D ebra, L. S. (2001). The im pact of cultural values on jo b satisfaction and organizational com m itm ent in self-m anaging work team s: The m ediating role o f em ployee resistance. The Academy o f Management Journal, 44(3), 557-569. K itayam a, S., H yekyung, P. A., Timur, S. M. K ., and Ayse, K. U. (2009). A cultural task analysis o f im plicit inde­ pendence: C om paring N orth A m erica, W estern Europe, and E ast Asia. Journal o f Personality and Social Psy­ chology, 97(2), 236-255. M iroshnik, V. (2002). C ulture and international m anagement: A review. Journal o f Management Development, 21(1), 521-544. PaLant, J. (2007). Survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS fo r Windows. Berkshire: M cGraw -H ill House. Ricks, D. A. (2006). Blunders in international business (4th ed.). O xford: Blackwell. Ridlon, R., and Jiw oong, S. (2013). Favoring the w inner or loser in repeated contests. Marketing Science, 32(5), 768-785. S a n a h a , S. A., Joshua, T. B., and Robert, W. P. (2014). The role o f culture in international relationship marketing. Journal o f Marketing, 78(5), 78-98. 68 Singelis, T. M ., Harry, C. T., Dharm , R. S. B., and M ichele, J. G. (1995). H orizontal and vertical dim ensions of individualism and collectivism : A theoretical and m easurem ent refinem ent. Cross-Cultural Research, 29(3), 240-275. Snibbe, A. C., and H azel, R. M. (2005). You can ’t alw ays get w hat you want: E ducational attainm ent, agency, and choice. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 703-720. Steenkam p, J. E. M. (2001). The role o f national culture in international m arketing research. International Marketing Review, 18(1), 30-44. Triandis, A. C., R obert, B., Hector, B., M ichael, B., K wok, L., A belando, B . , ... G erm aine, D. M. (1986). T he m easurem ent o f etic aspects o f individualism and collecticism across cultures. Australian Journal o f Psuchology, 38(3), 251-261. Triandis, H. C., Robert, B., and M arcelo, J. V. (1988). Individualism and collectivism : Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323-338. Triandis, H. C., and M ichele, J. G. (1998). Converging m easurem ent o f horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism . Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118-128 Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder: Westview. U lem an, E. R., and Jam es, S., and H oon, K. L. (1996). Variations in collectivism and individualism by ingroup and culture: C onfirm atory factor analyses. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5), 1037-1054. Vadi, M., and M ichael, V. (2006). T he deposit o f collectivism in organizational culture in R ussia: Som e consequences o f hum an resources m anagem ent. Baltic Journal o f Management, 7(2), 188-200. Vandegrift, D ., and B rian, H. (2012). C om petitive behavior: Tests o f the N -effect and proxim ity-to-a-standard. Journal o f Neuroscience, Psychology, & Economics, 5(3), 182-192. Yang, K. (1986). Chinese personality and its change. The social psychology o f Chinese people. M ichael H arris Bond, ed. H ong Kong: O xford U niversity Press. SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2016 Copyright of SAM Advanced Management Journal (07497075) is the property of Society for Advancement of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.