Methodology

---

Interpretive field study methodology is used for this research. The interpretive methods employed draw on the model first proposed by Miles and Huberman (1984) and demonstrated in a cross-cultural setting by Hasan and Ditsa (1999), and explicitly follow the guidelines set forth by Klein and Myers (1999). As explained by Hasan and Ditsa (1999), the Miles and Huberman (1984) model incorporates the four phases of data collection, data reduction, data display, and the verification and drawing of conclusions. Analogous to these four phases are the seven principles presented by Klein and Myers (1999): The Fundamental Principle of the Hermeneutic Circle, Contextualization, Interaction between the Researchers and the Subjects, Abstraction and Generalization, Dialogical Reasoning, Multiple Interpretations, and Suspicion. An abbreviated version of Klein and Myers' (1999) summary explanation of each of these principles is presented in Table 2. The remainder of this paper is organized around these seven principles.

Table 2: Klein and Myers' (1999, p. 72) Summary of Principles for Interpretive Field Research.

Principle	Explanation (Klein & Myers, 1999, p. 72)
The Fundamental Principle of the Hermeneutic Circle	"This principle suggests that all human understanding is achieved by iterating between considering the interdependent meaning of parts and the whole that they form. This principle of human understanding is fundamental to all the other principles."
Contextualization	"Requires critical refection of the social and historical background of the research setting, so that the intended audience can see how the current situation under investigation emerged."
Interaction between the Researchers and the Subjects	"Requires critical reflection on how the research materials (or "data") were socially constructed through the interaction between the researchers and participants."
Abstraction and Generalization	"Requires relating the idiographic details revealed by the data interpretation through the application of principles one and two to theoretical, general concepts that describe the nature of human understanding and social action."
Dialogical Reasoning	"Requires sensitivity to possible contractions between the theoretical preconceptions guiding the research design and actual findings ("the story which the data tell") with subsequent cycles of revision."
Multiple Interpretations	"Requires sensitivity to possible difference in interpretations among the participants as are typically expressed in multiple narratives or stories of the same sequence of events under study."
Suspicion	"Requires sensitivity to possible "biases" and systematic "distortions" in the narratives collected from participants."

The Fundamental Principle of the Hermeneutic Circle

To allow for an iterative exploration of the association between micro and macro issues surrounding culture, IT, and empowerment, researchers were needed who were available for a long period of time, who were available for repeated interviewing and reflection sessions, and who had ample time to observe and participate in both cultures of interest. This unique opportunity is afforded by the Manufacturing Technology Fellowship ("MTF") Program. The US-Japan Manufacturing Technology Fellowship is a program that gives US engineering managers the opportunity to spend a year in Japan learning Japanese work techniques, culture and language. The US-Japan Manufacturing Fellowship is a joint project of the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) and the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). The duration of each fellowship is a minimum of 15 months. Approximately the first three months are spent in language and cultural training in the United States. This is followed by further training and orientation in Japan. The Fellows are then dispersed to their respective Japanese host companies. Twelve Fellows participated in the initial portion of this research. Six of the Fellows participated in the study for a full two-year period and helped the research reach its conclusion. The length of the time the Fellows were available for questioning and reflection was ideal for the iterative nature of interpretive research.

Contextualization

The Fellows come from American companies such as Delco Electronics, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, Northern Telecom, Texas Instruments and Xerox. These individuals were assigned to various Japanese companies for the fellowship. Participating Japanese companies include Hitachi, Okuma Corporation, Ricoh, Sony, Suzuki, Toyota and Yamaha. All companies in the study had mature manufacturing operations, with most processes in existence for at least five years.

As noted earlier, the cultural settings within the present study are Japanese and American. To effectively study the effect culture has on Information Technology choice in the pursuit of empowerment, it is desirable to select radically different cultural contexts (Watson, Ho, & Raman, 1994; Yin, 1989). Hofstede's index for each of the four cultural attributes is shown in Figure 2. Japan and the United States differ by at least 45 points out of a possible 100 on the attributes Individualism/Collectivism and Uncertainty Avoidance. Thus, comparing Japanese and American cultures seems useful. Note that a higher number in the Individualism/ Collectivism category implies a culture that is Individualistic, and a higher number in the Uncertainty Avoidance category implies a culture that is highly averse to uncertainty. In sum, it seems that Japanese and American culture vary widely across important dimensions of Hofstede's typology and are therefore suitable for examining potential differences in technology choice for the pursuit of empowerment. To educate Fellows in these cultural contexts, each American Fellow was given several months (averaging about three) of company-provided training in Japanese history and culture.

Figure 2: Index for each of Hofstede's (1980) Cultural Dimensions.

Interaction Between the Researchers and the Subjects

The authors acted as coordinating investigators of the study. Each of the six participating MTF Fellows acted as individual case informants. Data was gathered from the case informants through surveys, written questionnaires and formal interviews. The case investigators used lengthy and detailed Participant Observer status (i.e., the investigators were working side-by-side with those they were studying, thus simultaneously participating and observing), and both formal and informal interviews to collect their data. Participant Observer status was maintained during the entire duration of each individual's fellowship. Electronic mail correspondence between the Fellows and the coordinating investigators took place during this time.

A pilot questionnaire was sent to Fellows immediately after they returned from their Japanese companies. This questionnaire was exploratory in nature, seeking to determine which technologies and cultural elements were affecting empowerment, thereby allowing the research to be refined. Based on the results of this questionnaire and comments made by the investigators during the entire process, a lengthy interview plan was constructed. Interviews were exhaustive and detailed, in some cases lasting more than one day.

While case informants (Fellows) were often requested to assign numerical values to Likert-style questions, for this interpretive study only responses consistently on an extreme side of the scale were considered meaningful. It was assumed that the cultural attributes of Comfort w/ Uncertainty and Collectivism were known, based on Hofstede's index: Japanese companies being low on Comfort w/ Uncertainty and high on Collectivism, and United States companies being high and low, respectively, on these two cultural attributes (see Figure 2). Nonetheless, questions concerning these attributes were posed to investigators for additional verification.

Case informants were asked which technologies were most helpful and most often used in gaining empowerment in the cultures they were participating in and observing. Observations about the state of empowerment at an organization were guided using The Employee Empowerment Questionnaire (EEQ) (Hayes, 1994). Additionally, informants were requested to react to scenarios based on the Bowen and Lawler (1992) definition of empowerment presented previously. In particular, the following scenarios were presented:

• You want to obtain information about your organization's performance. Can you? Are there any aspects of the culture that allow or inhibit this? Which communication technologies would you use to accomplish this?

• You need to perform a job or task that you have never done before. Will you be able to obtain the knowledge and/or skills necessary? Any aspects of the culture that allow or inhibit this? Which communication technologies would you use to accomplish this?

• You want to organize a small group of employees to suggest and implement changes to your job tasks and general organizational direction. Is this realistic? Any aspects of the culture that allow or inhibit this? Which communication technologies would you use to accomplish this? What other factors besides culture and technology might influence the three scenarios?

• Are you rewarded for contributing to organizational performance (e.g., formal ways are profit sharing or stock ownership)?

Informants were asked if cultural aspects aided or inhibited the level of empowerment, and also which information technologies were typically chosen as a remedy for these aspects. Responses to all questions were detailed and investigated in-depth.

Abstraction and Generalization

The first pilot survey and corresponding interviews yielded interesting results. The survey asked if various technologies were "valuable/used extensively in helping employees to perform their jobs." Several notable observations were gained from this survey:

• Information-based technologies seem to be the class of technologies that facilitate empowerment. Several manufacturing technologies (e.g., CAD/CAM, Machine Control, etc.) were included in the pilot survey. Qualitative comments indicated that these technologies are viewed as invaluable tools and necessities in completing a job, but do not contribute to empowerment. As such, these technologies were not included in subsequent questions. Further, responses indicated that Japanese employees are using rich technologies (telephones in particular showed significant differences) to achieve empowerment at a much higher level than their American counterparts. Thus, additional rich "technologies" (e.g., face-to-face) are added for subsequent questions.

• There seems to be "cultural convergence" with respect to empowerment strategies and directives. Not surprisingly, both American and Japanese companies felt that empowering employees is a "positive endeavor", and both cultures demonstrate strikingly similar plans in place to achieve empowerment.

• Japan exhibits significantly inferior communications technologies (from the standpoint of "level of technical advancement"), and equal or better communication and empowerment. In some cases even an individual's exclusive use of a standard telephone, something taken for granted in American companies, is not a luxury enjoyed by Japanese employees. However, the state of communication and empowerment at the Japanese companies is at a comparable level to the American companies.

• Fellows noted on the comments section of the survey that Japanese companies that used information technologies high in richness (for example, face-to-face communication, fax, etc.) were high in empowerment. Additionally, Fellows noted that Japanese companies that heavily used information technologies that were low in richness (for example, e-mail) were low in empowerment. Fellows also noted that richness and collaborative capacity were attributes of information technology choice that seemed to synergistically combine with cultural attributes in the pursuit of empowerment.

These initial findings suggest that information technologies are in fact chosen and used to influence the state of empowerment. Therefore, the study was continued and expanded to further explore this idea. Twelve Fellows participated extensively in the survey process, and of those, six took part in the refined interview process throughout the subsequent year.

In the more detailed iterative subsequent phases of the study, two major findings emerged: Information technology that is high in information richness was more often chosen and used in Japanese versus American cultural contexts in support of empowerment, and information technology that is high in collaborative capacity was more often chosen and used in American versus Japanese cultural contexts in support of empowerment.

Selection of Information Rich Technologies in Japan

In five out of six of the Japanese companies studied, empowerment was high. Additionally, based on the observations of the Fellows, the Hofstede cultural indices were accurate; five out of the six Japanese companies were rated high on Uncertainty Avoidance and six out of six were rated high on Collectivism (low on Individualism). Yet the path to achievement of empowerment in this cultural setting was markedly different than that in the cultural setting of the United States companies. In particular, Fellows noted the use of information rich technologies in pursuing empowerment.

On the eight EEQ questions/scenarios, Fellows overwhelmingly reported that their Japanese counterparts utilized face-to-face, facsimile, and the telephone to complete the empowerment scenario. For example, for EEQ question number 8, "I can make changes on my job whenever I want," when asked how Japanese employees would inquire about, communicate, or suggest such changes, five out of six Fellows noted that face-to-face communication or the telephone would be chosen, helpful and accepted in that culture. Only one Fellow noted that e-mail would even be considered in this scenario. It was observed that the uncertainty avoidance in the Japanese culture necessitated that such a change be discussed in a very rich context; something as impersonal as e-mail would almost be considered inappropriate. In contrast, all six Fellows claimed that e-mail would be a technology chosen, helpful and accepted for this scenario in the culture of their United States companies.

Such findings were consistent for all eight EEQ scenarios as well as the four Bowen and Lawler scenarios. Empowerment often involved actions that were sensitive or involved risk and uncertainty, and as such the Japanese employees appeared to ground the circumstances with the assistance of information rich technologies. Tasks such as "obtaining information about your organization's performance," "obtaining the knowledge to perform a job or task which has never been done before," or "organizing a small group of employees to suggest and implement changes to your job tasks and general organizational direction" are all seen as uncertain and risky in the Japanese culture. Using information rich technologies which reduce uncertainty and add comfort, as reported by the Fellows, allowed the Japanese employees to still pursue these tasks and be empowered.

It was quite interesting that one Fellow reported a state of empowerment at his Japanese company which was low. The uncertainty avoidance in that Japanese culture, as expected, was reported as high. However, information rich technologies were not utilized nearly as often in assisting in the empowerment scenarios, an observation that suggests that this lack of usage could be a contributing factor to the low state of empowerment.

Selection of Collaborative Technologies in the United States

In the cultures of the United States companies, accomplishing tasks such as those outlined in the Bowen and Lawler scenarios was viewed as less intimidating. In these cultures which are relatively comfortable with uncertainty and risk, suggesting a change in a job task or organizing a group to change job tasks or organizational direction was not viewed with fear, and as such the technologies used to assist in accomplishing these tasks were chosen more with regard to efficiency than information richness. As such, e-mail, groupware, and intranets were used with great regularity in helping with these tasks. In fact, the Fellows observed that such technologies were essential in carrying out the empowerment scenarios, because of their collaborative capacity. The cultures in the United States companies, high on individualism, needed and desired the assistance of collaborative technologies. In fact, one Fellow commented that his American colleagues might never have the ability to make changes in job tasks or organizational direction, or otherwise be empowered, were it not for groupware-type technologies which facilitated group connectivity, communication and decision making. It seemed that the collaborative nature of these technologies synergistically combined with the individualistic nature of the culture to allow for empowerment.

Similar to the Japanese companies studied, empowerment was high in most of the United States companies observed (four out of six). Additionally, based on the observations of the Fellows, the Hofstede cultural indices were again accurate, with four out of the six United States companies being rated low on Uncertainty Avoidance and six out of six being rated high on Individualism (low on Collectivism). Again, however, the path to achievement of empowerment in this cultural setting was quite different than that in the cultural setting of the Japanese companies. For the United States companies, Fellows noted the use of collaborative technologies, in particular in the pursuit of empowerment.

In considering the EEQ questions/scenarios as well as the Bowen and Lawler scenarios for empowerment, the Fellows reported a one hundred percent usage of either e-mail, groupware, or an intranet in the United States companies. In stark contrast to their Japanese counterparts, the United States employees could hardly imagine "organizing a small group of employees to suggest and implement changes to your job tasks and general organizational direction" without the use of such technologies. Organizing groups, encouraging discussion and participation in decision making, and other empowerment activities seemed to require electronic assistance in the cultures of the United States companies studied. The Japanese companies in general saw these technologies as less necessary for the allowance of empowerment activities, and as such were much slower to adopt and/or use them. The one United States company studied which did not make extensive use of collaborative technologies was the only company which was low in empowerment. These findings are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary of Technology Usage and Empowerment State within Cultural Dimensions.

	HIGH UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE	LOW UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE	COLLECTIVIST	INDIVIDUALIST
INFORMATION RICH TECHNOLOGIES	Information Rich Technologies chosen to assist with uncertain and ambiguous tasks in achieving empowerment.	Information Rich Technologies seen as less necessary in achieving empowerment.	Information rich technologies chosen or not chosen due to other factors.	Information rich technologies often avoided and are subsequently chosen less often.
COLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOGIES	Collaborative technologies can add to uncertainty and are subsequently chosen less often.	Collaborative technologies chosen or not chosen due to other factors.	Collaborative Technologies seen as less necessary in achieving empowerment.	Collaborative Technologies chosen to assist with communication and organization tasks in achieving empowerment.

Dialogical Reasoning and Multiple Interpretations

It is important to be sensitive to the possibility of contradiction to the observations and findings in the previous section. In particular, in two of the United States companies studied, collaborative technologies were used extensively and yet the state of empowerment did not reveal itself to be high or low... the two Fellows had ambiguous observations and experiences concerning the various empowerment scenarios presented. Thus, it is of course possible that an individualistic culture which uses collaborative technologies will still not have members who feel empowered. There are many factors which can or do contribute to an empowered cultural setting, and this research has suggested that certain cultural dimensions, combined with certain technology choices, are in this set of factors. However, in the counter example case mentioned, the likelihood is that some other unknown factor(s) had enough strength to negate the relationships examined in this study.

Suspicion

While both the authors and the Fellows were careful to view the research setting objectively, there are several possibilities for bias which must be discussed. First, the Fellows were participant-observers in Japanese companies. Thus, their observations on how information technology empowered the workforce are subject to their own biases of what might be happening or should be happening. The Fellows discussed and questioned the Japanese employees about their IT usage at great length, yet a potential for bias certainly exists. The reports presented by the Fellows cannot be assumed to directly represent the perceptions and behaviors of their Japanese counterparts. Ideally, Japanese employees and United States employees would have been studied separately, but from a practical standpoint of longitudinal and lengthy access, the Fellows were chosen for this study. Thus, the Fellows were used as observers in Japan as a reliable measure of Japanese IT usage, empowerment, and culture, and then again to study their own American companies. Our hope is that the length and depth of the study can help to overcome this limitation.

Second, biases could exist in the sample itself. The Fellows could have had their perceptions skewed by their companies' or the researchers' preconceptions, and the companies themselves may not be exemplary of traditional Japanese and American corporate culture. And finally, global communications media such as television and the Internet, as well as increasingly affordable travel, may be mediating or lessening the cultural differences that Hofstede documented. In fact, if true, cultural differences might be stratified more along the lines of certain groups than national boundaries.

For all of these reasons, the results of this study must be considered cautiously. A larger sample size would be useful. Increasing the sample size would more than likely require separate sets of respondents based exclusively in each culture, yet any replication of results with a larger sample would be valuable. Additionally, parametric statistical testing could be employed on such a sample, adding further credibility to the findings.

---