Empowerment, National Culture, and it Choice

---

As illustrated in Figure 1, the central issue of this study is the interplay between national culture, empowerment, and technology choice. In essence, we seek to determine if choice of information technology in the pursuit of empowerment is influenced by cultural differences. In this section, we draw on relevant literature streams to develop a definitional domain for the factors of interest.

Empowerment

Empowerment is often cited as the common thread among the "best managed companies" (Alpander, 1991; Robert et al., 2000). Numerous studies recount positive changes and benefits achieved when empowerment initiatives are implemented in organizations (Gilhooly, 1996; Miller, 1995; Ripley & Ripley, 1992; Shrednick, Shutt, & Weiss, 1992; Starr, 1993). A useful definition of empowerment can be derived from the work of Waterman (1987), Ford and Fottler (1995), Bowen and Lawler (1992, 1995), as well as Hayes (1994). Waterman (1987) states that the process of empowerment is one of "directed autonomy", in which employees are given an overall direction, yet considerable leeway regarding how they go about following that direction. Ford and Fottler state: "In our view, empowerment assigns the manager or front-line employee decision responsibility for the entire job and for knowing how the performance of that job fits within the organizational purpose and mission" (1995, p. 22). Bowen and Lawler (1992) reason that employees are empowered if they (1) get information about organizational performance, (2) are rewarded for contributing to organizational performance, (3) have the knowledge and skills to understand and contribute to organizational performance, and (4) have the power to make decisions that influence organizational direction and performance.

From a more operational perspective, Hayes (1994) developed the Employee Empowerment Questionnaire (EEQ) as a means to measure empowerment. The item measures of the EEQ are:

1. I am allowed to do almost anything to do a high-quality job.

2. I have the authority to correct problems when they occur.

3. I am allowed to be creative when I deal with problems at work.

4. I do not have to go through a lot of red tape to change things.

5. I have a lot of control over how I do my job.

6. I do not need to get management's approval before I handle problems.

7. I am encouraged to handle job-related problems by myself.

8. I can make changes on my job whenever I want.

Consistent with the other perspectives outlined, this list implies that empowerment consists of the related notions of responsibility, authority, control, and autonomy. In sum, empowerment is the belief by employees that they work within an environment that encourages them to react and respond, as they deem necessary, to a variety of environmental, organizational, and individual contingencies.

A logical question that flows from the definition of empowerment is: "What creates empowerment?" or "What empowers?" Bowen and Lawler (1992) provide an interesting response to this question in the form of a "contingency approach to empowerment". Specifically, they list five contingencies that impact empowerment. These contingencies are basic business strategy, tie to customer, technology, business environment, and types of people. Among these, technology (in particular, Information Technology) and culture (a proxy for the combination of "business environment" and "types of people") have received significant attention in the literature as empowering forces (Alpander, 1991; Bowen & Lawler, 1992; Bowen & Lawler, 1995; Carlson et al., 1999; Couger, 1986; Elgin, 1995; Evans, Hau, & Sculli, 1989; Gilhooly, 1996; Knotts & Tomlin, 1994; Malone, 1997; Miller, 1995; Ripley & Ripley, 1992; Robert et al., 2000). Alpander (1991) as well as Knotts and Tomlin (1994) finds that similar empowerment strategies employed in different cultural contexts produce different results, thereby suggesting that culture plays a role in empowerment. Malone (1997) concludes that empowerment is "a response to fundamental changes in the economics of decision making enabled by new information technologies" (1997, p. 34). Evans et al. (1989) demonstrate that management style will strongly affect empowerment and that management style is a function of the level of technology. Further, they note that management style is tempered by cultural characteristics. In sum, it seems that both technology and culture play central roles in the achievement of empowerment. We now develop a definitional context for these important factors. Importantly, the Managers who are the informants and subjects of this study are reflective of Japanese and American cultural context. Therefore, the following discussion is cast within the context of differences between Japanese and American culture.

National Culture

Until recently, the existence of a relationship between management and national culture was far from obvious to many. A widely accepted belief was that sound management principles were somehow "universal"; that is, if national or local practice deviated from these established principles then it was time to change local practice. The logical outcome of what Hofstede (1983, 1983a) terms the "convergence hypothesis" is a set of universally accepted management practices which would in turn lead to societies becoming more and more alike. Obviously, observed reality has been far different from this prescribed theory. Supra-national organizations such as the European Common Market, European Community, and even the coalition of former Soviet States, which are very much founded on the convergence belief, have had to recognize and address the complexities of national differences (Hurwitz & Lequesne, 1991; Nugent, 1991). In addition, a great deal of psychological and international business literature has been devoted to, and successful in, uncovering organizational and managerial differences attributable to national character (Ajiferuke & Boddewyn, 1970; Kelley et al., 1987; Robert et al., 2000). As noted by Hofstede (1983): "The national and regional differences are not disappearing, they are here to stay. In fact, these differences may become one of the most crucial problems for management - in particular for the management of multinational, multicultural organizations both public and private." Culture can best be defined as collective mental programming. It is that part of our environmental conditioning that is shared with members of our nation, region, or group but not with members of other nations, regions, or groups (Hofstede, 1983, 1983a; Adler, Doktor, & Redding, 1986; Pettigrew, 1979).

Perhaps the first and best-known research in the area of objectively characterizing national culture is presented by Hofstede (1983, 1983a). Utilizing over 116,000 survey questionnaires from 40 countries, this author, through factor analysis, identified four distinct dimensions of national culture. These dimensions, in addition to their organizational influence and potential influence on IT use are summarized in Table 1. As shown, cultures can be differentiated based on degrees of: (1) collectivism (collectivist vs. individualist), (2) power distance (small or large), (3) disposition towards uncertainty (strong vs. weak), and (4) masculinity/femininity. In turn, these dimensions directly impact organizational culture through the experiences and beliefs of policy-making managers.

Table 1: Hofstede's (1983) Dimensions of National Culture and Their Potential Influence on Managerial and IT Practice.

Dimension	Organizational Influence	Potential Influence on Use of IT for Empowerment
Individualism vs. Collectivism	Leadership. In individualistic societies leadership theories are based on presumed needs of individuals who seek their ultimate self-interest. Collectivist societies rely on group motivation. The employer returns protection in the same manner as natural in-group.	Individualistic cultures may choose more collaborative technologies to facilitate information sharing and decision making. Technology augments lack of collectivist structure and empowers employees. Collectivist cultures may require less collaborative technologies due to existing tendencies to share information through social structures.
Large or Small Power Distance	Centralization of authority and autocratic leadership. Large power distance implies little participative leadership and greater centralization of authority. Conversely, smaller power distance is associated with more decentralized, participative, management practices.	Centralization of decision making may imply less need for collaborative technologies among cultures with large power distance. In contrast, collaborative technologies may be chosen in cultures of small power distance to facilitate shared decision making.
Strong vs. Weak Uncertainty Avoidance	Organizational structure and managerial risk disposition. Organizational forms and managerial policies are created in an effort to avoid uncertainty in "strong" societies. Managerial decision making may also exhibit centralized tendencies. Creation of formalized policies and operating procedures.	Cultures with strong uncertainty avoidance may choose rich communications medium to reduce the chance of miscommunication and poor decision making. Cultures low in uncertainty avoidance may choose less rich communication mediums.
Masculinity vs. Femininity	Motivation and Management Style. Performance, desire to achieve is motivation in masculine societies. Employees are challenged or jobs enriched in order to motivate. Individual versus group accomplishments are more emphasized.	Performance and reward systems may facilitate strong social structures in less masculine cultures. Therefore, collaborative technologies may not be chosen to enhance empowerment. Masculine cultures may choose more collaborative technologies to achieve better sources of communication and information.

Collectivism and Power Distance

As noted by Hofstede (1983), collectivism and power distance tend to be closely related. Within cultures characterized by high levels of power distance and low individualism, inequalities in power and wealth are more readily accepted and have become a part of the cultural fabric. Hence, the members of these societies are willing to follow those in charge with little desire to control or direct. In essence, it is part of their expectations that leaders lead autocratically. In the organizational profile of such cultures, these tendencies have been related to increased centralization of authority and autocratic leadership styles (Hofstede, 1983). These cultural characteristics and related organizational profiles are typical of Asian countries such as Korea, Hong Kong, and Japan. At the other end of the cultural spectrum, nations such as the United States, Great Britain, and Canada are characterized by levels of small power distance and low collectivism. Organizations within these countries are typically characterized by decentralized authority and participative decision making processes. Though few in number, some European countries such as France, Italy, and Spain exhibit levels of large power distance and high individualism, implying moderately-centralized decision making structure.

Uncertainty Avoidance and Masculinity/Femininity

Dimensions of uncertainty avoidance and masculinity refer to the risk-taking disposition and aggressiveness of cultural members. Countries with weak uncertainty avoidance and high levels of masculinity are characterized by firms more aggressive in their approach to competition and innovation. Performance within such organizations would typically be emphasized and measured in tangible terms. Countries characteristic of this profile include the US, Canada, and Great Britain. Conversely, countries with high levels of femininity and strong uncertainty avoidance are often characterized by firms with less aggressive competitive postures and more conservative dispositions toward innovation. Performance, in terms of tangible results, is not so heavily emphasized in these cultures. Such countries include Norway, Korea, and France.

Information Technology Choice

Tan et al. (1995) demonstrate how GSS technologies can affect power distance, and, if chosen carefully, can have positive synergies with the national culture. Tan et al. (1998) show that computer-mediated communication (CMC) can reduce status effects and interact with both individualist and collectivist cultures to enhance the quality of decisions in some situations. Further, as noted by Straub (1994), cultural factors seem to affect IT diffusion. Specifically, Straub's study finds that the strong discomfort with uncertainty present in Japanese culture tends to cause members of that culture to prefer communications media that are "information rich". Straub develops his theory by drawing on the work of Daft and Lengel (1984). These authors theorize that individuals choose information technology with a "richness" that corresponds to the ambiguity or uncertainty of the task they need to accomplish. These choices are also based on whether a culture is "high context" or "low context" (Kim et al., 1998). Richness is defined as "the interactive nature of the feedback, channel type (e.g., body language, facial expression, and tone of voice), the personal quality of the source, and the ability of the interface to express linguistic innuendos" (Straub, 1994, p. 26). While some authors have differing opinions on information richness theory (Ngwenyama & Lee, 1997; Suh, 1999), in general, the more ambiguous the task, the more rich the media that is required. Tan et al.'s and Straub's studies seem to demonstrate that IT can interact with certain cultural factors, and will be chosen accordingly.

In their contingency approach to empowerment, Bowen and Lawler (1992) reason that a business environment that is "predictable" with "few surprises" does not favor empowerment, whereas one that is "unpredictable" with "many surprises" does favor empowerment. Using Straub's line of reasoning, it follows that members of Japanese culture, who are uncomfortable with uncertainty, may choose rich information technologies (another contingency) to help achieve empowerment. In contrast, members of American (or US) culture, who are less uncomfortable with uncertainty, may not choose the same amount of richness in technologies to achieve empowerment. Bowen and Lawler also explain that people with low social needs inhibit empowerment, whereas people with high social needs enhance empowerment. Given that US culture is individualistic with low social needs, similar to the logic above, it follows that members of US culture may desire to use information technologies that are high in "collaborative capacity" to help achieve empowerment. In contrast, members of the Japanese culture may not choose highly collaborative information technologies to achieve empowerment due to their relatively collectivist culture with high social needs. Here, "collaborative capacity" of an information technology is simply the degree to which the technology aids end users in sharing resources, communicating ideas, and coordinating efforts as members of the many formal and informal work groups that make up organizations (O'Brien, 1996). Whether the technology is primarily used for (moving from least to most collaborative) one-to-one communication, one-to-many communication, or many-to-many communication affects its collaborative ability. It follows that such technologies would be quite useful for cultures that are high in individualism. Thus, within Japanese culture one would expect empowerment to be high if information technologies that are high in richness are employed interactively with the discomfort with uncertainty in the culture. However, given the collectivist nature of the Japanese culture, it is not necessarily important that collaborative information technologies are chosen if empowerment is to be achieved. We now develop the methodological approach for considering these relationships.

---