Literature Review

---

One of the fundamental issues in cross-cultural management in IS research is to determine the extent to which culture impacts on IS manager's behaviors, beliefs, attitudes, values, motivation, job satisfaction, and performances in the workplace (Adler, 1983a). The variables were being identified as frequently used ones in the cross-cultural studies research variables in the literature. However, "behaviors," "value," and "performance" variables were identified as the ones that were vital to measure and explain the cross-cultural impact on the managers (Hofstede, 1980, 1983, 1984). Thus, the three variables were utilized for this research to measure and explain the cultural influences on Korean IS expatriate and American IS managers in the banking industry.

Convergence Versus Divergence

Convergence (or universalist) hypothesis contends that managers are subject to follow industrial norms, attitudes and behaviors in order to comply with the trend of industrialization of the world (Kerr, Dunlop, Harbison, & Myers, 1954). On the other hand, divergence (or culturogist) hypothesis argues that managerial differences will remain continually around the world as long as differences in culture exist. Convergence perspective by Black and Porter (1991), Kerr, Dunlop, Harbison, and Myers (1954), Mendenhall and Oddou (1985), Miller and Doyle (1987), Negandhi and Prasad (1971) and Tung (1981) dominated international management thought during the 1950s in the U.S. These researchers believed that international differences in management practices would disappear as countries "converge" and become equally industrialized. On the other hand, culturogists (Bass & Berger, 1979; Emory, 1985; England & Lee, 1974; Griffeth, Hom, DeNiSi, & Kirchner, 1980; Haire, Ghiselli, & Poter, 1966; Hofstede, 1980, 1984; Hofstede, 1983; McClellnad, 1961; Munson & McIntyre, 1979; Redding & Casey, 1976; Ruben & Kealey, 1979; Whitley & England, 1977) were opposite to the universalists. They believed that managerial differences would be a permanent characteristic for different culture.

Cultural Variables

Cultural variables uniquely influence Korean IS expatriate and American IS managers. The commonly used cultural variables in the literature as follows: history (Haire, Ghiselli, & Poter, 1966; Malinowski, 1960), language (Hoebel, Frost, & Spencer, 1976; Worf, 1956), religion (Triandis, 1972; Webber, 1969), political system (Huntington, 1973), ethnicity (Katona, Strumpel, & Zahn, 1971), general economic level (Harbison & Myers, 1960), and geographical propinquity (Haire, Ghiselli, & Poter, 1966). Dymsza and Negandhi (1983) explained that the managerial behaviors of American managers in the U.S. compared to those in a foreign country and compared the relationship between managerial behaviors. Mendenhall and Oddou (1985) explained that even though managerial behavior is not the only determining factor of performance, it is an important variable. Lincoln and Gerald (1978) have researched cultural differences in the Asian nations' organizations. They found that Confucianism ethics in Korean managers favor vertical social structures, and the vertical differentiation of the organization's structure had positive effects on the personal ties and work satisfaction of the Korean managers. On the other hand, horizontal differentiation had negative effects on personal ties and work satisfaction for Korean managers.

Motivation and Job Satisfaction

Successful IS managers are depending on their performance. Performance of managers, then, is influenced by the rewards, which managers desire to have in their work situation and by their perceptions of the degree to which their job expectations are being satisfied. Thus IS managers' performances are influenced by the levels of their work attitude, motivation and job satisfaction (Kanungo & Wright, 1983). As shown in Figure 1, Korean IS expatriate-and American IS managers' motivation and job satisfaction are determined by the interaction between the attitude and value which the IS managers have toward their jobs, and values which they have in relation to job outcomes. The values of IS managers of two nations to job outcomes are culturally determined mainly with the relative importance of intrinsic versus extrinsic job outcomes. Kelley, Whatley, and Worthley (1987) developed the research design model that separates cultural effects from other variables. As shown in Figure 2, a research model was designed according to Kelley, Whatley, and Worthley's (1987) concept and modified to measure only cultural variables influencing both American and Korean IS managers in the organizations. American economic, political and legal environments were separated in measuring the managers' performances, value and job satisfaction. Non-cultural variables of American economic, political, and legal environment with dotted lines represent that they do not affect IS managers' performance, value and behaviors, but Korean and American cultural influences with solid arrow lines, each nation's IS managers will be affected and measured.

Figure 1: Performance of IS Managers.

Figure 2: Research Design for the Isolation of Cultural Influences from Other Variables.

Explanation for Differences of Managerial Behaviors

Researchers in the area of cross-cultural studies explained why managers show different behaviors in the different environment. Ajifuruku and Boddewyn (1970) explained similarities and differences by using cultural, economic, psychological and sociological variables. These researchers claimed that out of the four variables, cultural variables have substantial influences in managerial behaviors. Harbison and Myers (1960) divided managerial similarities and differences into three categories: economical, psychological, and sociological. Gudykunst, Yoon, and Nishida (1987) found that Korean managers have a collectivistic culture, and American managers have a very individualistic culture based on Hofstede's study (1983). Hofstede (1980, 1984) classified national culture into four dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, collectivism versus individualism and masculinity versus femininity (1983). Noburn, Birley, and Dunn (1990) classified it into four different perspectives: contextual (Negandhi, 1983, 1973, 1971), behavioral (Davis, 1971; Hofstede, 1980, 1984, 1983; Nath, 1986), environmental (Farmer & Richman, 1964, 1965), and situational (Boddewyn, 1966; Haire, Ghiselli, & Poter, 1966; Peterson, 1972). In contextual environment, Negandhi (1983; 1973) argued not the cultural specificity, but considered factors such as corporate size, location and market complexity to be at least equally important to a nation's culture. In environmental, Farmer and Richman (1964, 1965) suggested that there are constraints on managerial influence by socioeconomic, political, legal and technical factors. Nath (1986) also explained that the behavioral approach explains managerial behavioral patterns. Thus, in behavioral approach, attitudes, beliefs, value systems and need hierarchies are functions of a given culture of a society. On the contrary, some cross-cultural management researchers claim that there is increasing evidence to support the contention that managerial practices, behavior and effectiveness are as much, if not more, functions of such contextual and environmental variables as they are of socio-cultural variables (Boyd, Ralph, & Stanley, 1977; Negandhi, 1983, 1973).

Measurement of Values and Culture

In this research, values and culture are important variables in measuring performance and job satisfaction of the groups of two national IS managers. Individuals have their values and the values can be used to compare individuals. On the other hand, culture compares ethnic groups such as between American and Korean IS managers. Culture includes systems of values and values are among the building blocks of culture. Some cultural variables are closely related to specific behavior of managers (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1972, 1975). On the other hand, other cultural variables such as attitudes and values are not closely related to specific behaviors. Thus values are an attribute of individuals and collective people of a nation. On the other hand, culture assumes collective people of a nation or a country. Therefore, culture would be one of the main variables used in measuring the behaviors of IS managers.

---