Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Organizational values and procedures as antecedents for goal interdependence and collaborative effectiveness

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Organizational values of people and respect and interdependent structures of team procedures and task interdependence may help departments believe their goals are cooperative and thereby coordinate effectively. CEOs in China completed measures of their organization’s values and interdependent structures and their Vice-Presidents completed measures of the department’s goal interdependence (cooperative, competitive, and independent) and collaborative effectiveness. Structural equation analysis suggested that values and interdependent structures promote cooperative, but not competitive or independent, goals that in turn results in collaborative effectiveness. These results, coupled with previous research, were interpreted as suggesting that people and respect values, team procedures, task interdependence, and cooperative goals are complementary foundations for synergy in China and perhaps other countries as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, S. A. 1998. Interdependence and controversy in group decision making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74: 33–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. 1991. Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69(3): 99–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. 1996. Organizational learning II. New York: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Collins, B. J., & Richey, R. G. 2006. Effects of task interdependence on the relationship between helping behavior and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1396–1405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badaracco, J. L., & Webb, A. 1995. Business ethics: A view from the trenches. California Management Review, 37: 8–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain, P. G., Mann, L., & Pirola-Merlo, A. 2001. The innovation imperative: The relationships between team climate, innovation, and performance in research and development teams. Small Group Research, 32: 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. 2001. Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26: 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, B. M. 1997. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52: 130–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. 1995. EQS for Macintosh user’s guide. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boisot, M., & Child, J. 1996. From fiefs to clans and network capitalism: Explaining China’s emerging economic order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 600–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, M. H., & Lee, P. W. H. 1981. Face saving in Chinese culture: A discussion and experimental study of Hong Kong students. In A. Y. C. King, & R. P. L. Lee (Eds.), Social life and development in Hong Kong. Chapter 15 (pp. 289–303). Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouty, I. 2000. Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between RandD researchers across organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 50–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. W. 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1: 185–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A., & Starkey, K. 1994. The effect of organizational culture on communication and information. Journal of Management Studies, 31: 807–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, J. A., & Wang, Y. 1988. Chinese negotiation and the concept of face. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 1: 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrd, J., & Brown, P. 2003. The innovation equation: Building creativity and risk-taking in your organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, W. T. 1963. A source book in Chinese philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. C., Chen, X., & Meindl, J. R. 1998. How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism-collectivism. Academy of Management Review, 23: 285–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. C., Peng, M. W., & Saparito, P. A. 2002. Individualism, collectivism, and opportunism: A cultural perspective on transaction cost economics. Journal of Management, 28: 567–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., & Tjosvold, D. 2002. Conflict management and team effectiveness in China: The mediating role of justice. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19: 557–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. F., & Tjosvold, D. (2007). Guanxi and leader member relationships between American managers and Chinese employees: Open-minded dialogue as mediator. Asia Pacific Journal of Management (in press).

  • Ciulla, J. B. 1999. The importance of leadership in shaping business values. Long Range Planning, 32: 166–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. 1994. The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment. Human Relations, 47: 13–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, T. G. 1978. Self-regulating work groups: A socio-technical analysis. Academy of Management Review, 3: 625–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. 1982. Corporate culture: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. 1949. An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon group processes. Human Relations, 2: 199–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. 1973. The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earley, P. C. 1997. Face, harmony, and social structure: An analysis of organizational behavior across cultures. Oxford University Press.

  • Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, P. S., Devadas, R., & Griffith-Hughson, T. L. 1988. Groups and productivity: Analyzing the effectiveness of self-managing teams. In J. P. Campbell, & R. J. Campbell (Eds.), Productivity in organizations: New perspectives from industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 295–327). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gundry, L. K., & Rousseau, D. M. 1994. Critical incidents in communicating culture to newcomers: The meaning is the message. Human Relations, 47: 1063–1088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. 1987. The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. 1994. Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the ‘team’ label. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 171–214). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanlon, S. C., Meyer, D. C., & Taylor, R. R. 1994. Consequences of gainshairing: A field experiment revisited. Group and Organizational Management, 19: 87–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennessy, J., & West, M. A. 1999. Intergroup behavior in organizations: A field test of social identity theory. Small Group Research, 30: 361–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Lee, H. U., & Yucel, E. 2002. The importance of social capital to the management of multinational enterprises: Relational networks among Asian and western firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19: 353–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. 1993. Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7: 81–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, H. C. 1944. The Chinese concept of “face.” American Anthropologist, 46: 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, L. L. 1996. Conflict and interpersonal harmony among Chinese people: Theoretical constructs and empirical studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan University. (In Chinese).

  • Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. I. 2003. Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29: 801–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jassawalla, A. R., & Sashittal, H. C. 1999. Building collaborative cross-functional new product teams. Academy of Management Executive, 13: 50–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. 1989. Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R. T., Nelson, D., & Skon, S. 1981. Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89: 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, R. T. 2001. Cross functional project groups in research and new product development: Diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 547–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelloway, E. K. 1998. Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S., & Yoon, G. 1994. Introduction. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism theory, method, and applications, vol. 18, Cross-Cultural Research and Methodology Series (pp. 1–16). London: Sage.

  • Kirkbride, P. S., Tang, S. F. Y., & Westwood, R. I. 1991. Chinese conflict preferences and negotiating behavior: Cultural and psychological influences. Organization Studies, 12: 365–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. 2000. Understanding why team members won’t share: Facilitating the transition to team-based rewards. Small Group Research, 31(2): 175–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. 1995. The leadership challenge: How to keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. 1996. Whither trust? In R. M. Kramer, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 1–15). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, R. 1996. Research methodology: A step by step guide for beginners. Melbourne: Longman.

  • Leung, K. 1997. Negotiation and reward allocations across cultures. In P. C. Earley, & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 640–675). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. 1998. Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23: 438–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., & Wiethoff, C. 2000. Trust, trust development, and trust repair. In M. Deutsch, & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 86–107). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., Xin, K. R., Tsui, A., & Hambrick, D. C. 1999. Building effective international joint venture leadership teams in China. Journal of World Business, 34: 52–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A., & Bennett, N. 2004. Social loafing: A field investigation. Journal of Management, 30: 285–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S. 2003. Unity and diversity of two generations of employees in state-owned enterprises. Human Relations, 56: 387–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, S., Simmons, L. C., & Kali, R. 1999. Guanxi versus the market: Ethics and efficiency. Journal of International Business Studies, 30: 231–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M. 1995. Designing team-based organizations: New forms for knowledge work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, R. J. 1997. Towards understanding joint venture performance and survival: A bargaining and influence approach to transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 22: 203–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelled, L. H., & Adler, P. S. 1994. Antecedents of intergroup conflict in multifunctional product development teams: A conceptual model. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 41: 21–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, T., & Waterman, R. 1982. In pursuit of excellence. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. 1994. Competitive advantage through people. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, D. 1992. Organizational productivity. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 3 (pp. 443–471). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redding, S. G., & Ng, M. 1982. The role of ‘Face’ in the organizational perceptions of Chinese managers. Organizational Studies, 3: 201–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. 1998. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23: 393–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shalley, C. E., & Zhou, J. 2004. The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30: 933–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snell, R. S., Tjosvold, D., & Su, F. S. 2006. Resolving ethical conflicts at work through cooperative goals and constructive controversy in the People’s Republic of China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23: 319–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E. 1992. Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 438–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. 1995. The nature and effects of method variance in organizational research. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 249–274). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanne, M. B., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. 1999. Does competition enhance or inhibit motor performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125: 133–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, G. L. 2006. A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32: 29–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susman, G. 1976. Autonomy at work: A sociotechnical analysis of participative management. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ting-Toomey, S. 1988. A face negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim, & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theory and intercultural communication (pp. 47–92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold, D. 1998. Employee involvement in support of corporate values in successful organizations: Groups, cooperative interaction, and influence. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 11: 35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold, D., Cho, Y. H., Park, H. H., Liu, C., Liu, W. C., & Sasaki, S. 2001. Interdependence and managing conflict with sub-contractors in the construction industry in East Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 18: 295–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., & Sun, H. 2000. Building Social face and open-mindedness: Constructive conflict in Asia. In C. M. Lau, K. S. Law, D. K. Tse, & C. S. Wong (Eds.), Asian management matters: Regional relevance and global impact (pp. 4–16). London: Imperial College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold, D., & Huston, T. L. 1978. Social face and resistance to compromise in bargaining. Journal of Social Psychology, 104: 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold, D., & Tjosvold, M. M. 1995. Cooperation theory, constructive controversy, and effectiveness: Learning from crises. In R. A. Guzzo, & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making inorganizations (pp. 79–112). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold, D., & Tsao, Y. 1989. Productive organizational collaboration: The role of values and cooperative goals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10: 189–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. 1990. Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. Berman (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1989 (pp. 41–133). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. 1995. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. 1990. Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 1006–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. 2000. Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A., Delbecq, R., & Koenig, R., Jr. 1976. Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41: 322–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Berg, P. T., & Wilderom, C. P. M. 2004. Defining, measuring, and comparing organizational cultures. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53: 570–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Vegt, G., & Bunderson, J. S. 2005. Learning and performance in multi-disciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 532–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & Van de Vliert, E. 1998. Motivating effects of task and outcome interdependence in work teams. Group and Organization Management, 23: 12–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & Van de Vliert, E., 2000. Team members’ affective responses to patterns of intragroup interdependence and job complexity. Journal of Management, 26: 633–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Knippenberg, D. 2003. Intergroup relations in organizations. In M. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.) International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wageman, R., & Baker, G. 1997. Incentives and cooperation: The joint effects of task and reward interdependence on group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. 1969. The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Welsey.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A. 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51: 355–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, A. S. H., Tjosvold, D., & Zhang, P. 2005. Supply chain relationships for customer satisfaction in China: Leadership, interdependence, and cooperative goals. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22: 179–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

    Guoquan Chen

  2. Department of Management, Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong

    Dean Tjosvold

Authors
  1. Guoquan Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dean Tjosvold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dean Tjosvold.

Additional information

This work has been supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (70625003, 70272007, 70572005,70321001) and Key Research Project Foundation for Humanity & Social Science of Chinese Education Committee (06JJD630013) to the first author, and the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, (Project No: LU3404/05H) to the second author.

Appendices

CEO Questionnaire

Respect values

  1. 1.

    The departments respect each other.

  2. 2.

    The departments see each other as competent.

  3. 3.

    The departments see each other as strong.

  4. 4.

    The departments see each other as effective.

People values

  1. 1.

    Our company cares for the people who work for it.

  2. 2.

    Our company encourages helping and sharing among employees.

  3. 3.

    Our company is interested in the problems and concerns of its employees.

  4. 4.

    Our company tries to develop good relationships among employees.

Team procedures

  1. 1.

    Our company uses interdepartmental groups to discuss how to improve productivity and work-life.

  2. 2.

    Our company uses interdepartmental groups to solve difficult problems.

Task interdependence

  1. 1.

    Departments have to obtain information and advice from other departments to complete their work

  2. 2.

    Departments depend on each other for the completion of their work.

  3. 3.

    Departments have their own job: They rarely have to check or work with others

  4. 4.

    Departments have to work closely with each other to do their work properly.

Vice President’s Questionnaire

Cooperative goals

  1. 1.

    Departments ‘swim or sink’ together.

  2. 2.

    Departments want each other to succeed.

  3. 3.

    Departments seek compatible goals.

  4. 4.

    The goals of departments go together.

  5. 5.

    When departments work together, they usually have common goals.

Competitive goals

  1. 1.

    Departments structure things in ways that favor their own goals rather than the goals of other team members.

  2. 2.

    Departments like to show that they are superior to each other.

  3. 3.

    Departments give high priority to the things they want to accomplish and low priority to the things other departments want to accomplish.

Independent goals

  1. 1.

    Each department “does his own thing.”

  2. 2.

    Departments like to be successful through their own individual work.

  3. 3.

    Departments work for our own independent goals.

  4. 4.

    The success of one department is unrelated to others success.

  5. 5.

    Departments are most concerned about what they accomplish when working by themselves.

Collaborative Effectiveness

  1. 1.

    Departments work together effectively.

  2. 2.

    Departments put considerable effort into their common work.

  3. 3.

    Departments are concerned about the quality of their collaborative work.

  4. 4.

    Departments meet or exceed their productivity requirements.

  5. 5.

    Departments do their part to ensure that organizational products will be delivered on time.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, G., Tjosvold, D. Organizational values and procedures as antecedents for goal interdependence and collaborative effectiveness. Asia Pacific J Manage 25, 93–112 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-007-9038-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-007-9038-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation