Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A q-ROF Based Intelligent Framework for Exploring the Interface Among the Variables of Culture Shock and Adoption Toward Organizational Effectiveness

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Computational Intelligence for Modern Business Systems

  • 276 Accesses

Abstract

Nowadays, Culture shock is very much common to work life and this is an important issue in identification of the variables to develop morale of the employees towards an aim to increase productivity. The term ‘cultural shock’ refers the emotional state of uncertainty, confusion, anxiety that people may experience when transforming to a new state of affairs or feeling a new work culture or social status. So, it happens when an individual is censored from acquainted surroundings and culture after transferring to a new environment. It brings the logic that Culture shock tends to mean a bustle of emotions, including excitement, emotional labor, job stress, and job satisfaction and helplessness. Social scientists are of the opinion that culture shock is treated as ‘mental illness’ as common men are suffering as they are distracted from the cultural environment. In this context, it is pertinent to identify the impact of cultural shock during the pandemic time especially in the service sector management as people are constrained to work from home and that is also to some extent detrimental to their mental health. In this present study, the researchers are trying to explore the possible attributes that are responsible for cultural shock and also try to measure the possible impact of the same. This study will provide a working model for the stakeholders to frame a strategy to get rid of the crisis and develop an employee retention policy with respect to stress coping behavior as well, in the days of New Normal. The study is essentially focused on tech-based gaming industry. The present chapter proposes a new q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy (qROF) based computational intelligence framework of psychological assessment. The procedural steps of forced field analysis (FFA) is followed in this chapter wherein Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) is applied for calculating the weights of the attributes. Further, it carries out stability analysis of the results obtained. Finally, it puts forth policy recommendations for formulating effective employee motivation and retention strategy.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Oberg K (1960) Cultural shock: adjustment to new cultural environments. Pract Anthropol 4:177–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Taft R (1977) Coping with unfamiliar cultures. In: Warren N (ed) Studies in cross-cultural psychology, vol 1. Academic Press, London, pp 121–153

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bochner S (2003) Culture shock due to contact with unfamiliar cultures. Online Read Psychol Cult 8(1):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  4. Poster GM (1973) Traditional societies and technological change, 2nd edn. Harper and Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ruben BD, Kealey DJ (1979) Behavioural assessment of communication competency the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. Int J Intercult Relat 4:15–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhou Y, Jindal-Snape D, Topping K, Todman J (2008) Theoretical models of culture shock and adaptation in international students in higher education. Stud High Educ 33(1):63–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kathirvel N, Febiula IC (2016) Understanding the aspects of cultural shock in international business arena. Int J Inf, Bus Manag 8(2):105

    Google Scholar 

  8. Spicer A (2020) Organizational culture and COVID-19. J Manage Stud 57(8):1737–1740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wijaya OYA (2021) Risk management mitigation in the new normal era. Bp Int Res Crit Inst-J (BIRCI-J) 4(1):1088–1097

    Google Scholar 

  10. Amankwah-Amoah J, Khan Z, Wood G (2021) COVID-19 and business failures: the paradoxes of experience, scale, and scope for theory and practice. Eur Manag J 39(2):179–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Shufutinsky A, Long B, Sibel JR, Burrell DN (2021) Shock leadership: leading amidst pandemics and other chaotic change. In: Global perspectives on change management and leadership in the post-COVID-19 era. IGI Global, pp 136–159

    Google Scholar 

  12. Yager RR (2016) Generalized orthopair fuzzy sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 25(5):1222–1230. https://doi.org/10.1109/Tfuzz.2016.2604005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20:87–96

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Yager RR (2013) Pythagorean fuzzy subsets. In: 2013 joint IFSA world congress and NAFIPS annual meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS), June. IEEE, pp 57–61

    Google Scholar 

  15. Shaheen T, Ali MI, Toor H (2021) Why do we need q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets? Some evidence established via mass assignment. Int J Intell Syst 36(10):5493–5505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Žižović M, Pamucar D (2019) New model for determining criteria weights: level based weight assessment (LBWA) model. Decis Mak: Appl Manag Eng 2(2):126–137

    Google Scholar 

  17. Evans A (2001) This virtual life: escapism and simulation in our media world. Fusion Press

    Google Scholar 

  18. Warmelink H, Harteveld C, Mayer I (2009) Press enter or escape to play deconstructing escapism in multiplayer gaming. In: Proceedings of the Digital Games Research Association international conference, Dundee, Scotland, UK

    Google Scholar 

  19. Brislin RW, Pedersen P (1976) Cross cultural orientation programs. Gardner Press Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Byrnes FC (1966) Role shock: an occupational hazard of American technical assistants abroad. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 368(1):95–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Harris PR, Moran RT (1979) Managing cultural differences. Gulf Publishing Co, Houston

    Google Scholar 

  22. Higbee H (1969) Role shock—a new concept. Int Educ Cult Exch 4(4):71–81

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kocak MAREK (2014) Management of culture shock. CRIS-Bull Cent Res Interdiscip Study 2014(2):63–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lazarus RS (1999) Stress and emotion: a new synthesis. New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  25. Eschbach DM, Parker GE, Stoeberl PA (2001) American repatriate employees’ retrospective assessments of the effects of cross-cultural training on their adaptation to international assignments. Int J Hum Resour Manag 12(2):270–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mio JS (1999) Key words in multicultural interventions: a dictionary. Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  27. Searle W, Ward C (1990) The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions. Int J Intercult Relat 14(4):449–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Harrison JK, Brower HH (2011) The impact of cultural intelligence and psychological hardiness on homesickness among study abroad students. Front: Interdiscip J Study Abroad 21(1):41–62

    Google Scholar 

  29. Shi L, Wang L (2014) The culture shock and cross-cultural adaptation of Chinese expatriates in international business contexts. Int Bus Res 7(1):23–33

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mundeza RS (2021) Process of student adaptation of culture shock. J Soc 2(2):26–31

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lafreniere KD, Cramer KM (2005) Applying social psychology to health. In: Schneider FW, Gruman JA, Coutts LM (eds) Applying social psychology: understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hamid D, Durmaz O (2021) Organizational culture impact on employee innovative behaviours in Kurdistan. Black Sea J Manag Mark 2(1):63–72

    Google Scholar 

  33. Brod C (1984) Technostress: the human cost of the computer revolution. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, USA

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tarafdar M, Tu Q, Ragu-Nathan TS (2010) Impact of technostress on end-user satisfaction and performance. J Manag Inf Syst 27(3):303–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Oksanen A, Oksa R, Savela N, Mantere E, Savolainen I, Kaakinen M (2021) COVID-19 crisis and digital stressors at work: a longitudinal study on the Finnish working population. Comput Hum Behav 122:106853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Chen ASY, Lin YC, Sawangpattanakul A (2011) The relationship between cultural intelligence and performance with the mediating effect of culture shock: a case from Philippine labourers in Taiwan. Int J Intercult Relat 35(2):246–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kamalakannan R (2021) Organization culture and its impact on work performance. Turk J Comput Math Educ (TURCOMAT) 12(7):61–67

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sengupta SK, Majumder S (2012) Challenge of emotional labor in present day work scenario. Parikalpana: KIIT J Manag 8(1&2):100–107

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lai HS, Hu HH, Chen ZYJ (2020) The effects of culture shock on foreign employees in the service industry. Serv Bus 14(3):361–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Xia J (2009) Analysis of impact of culture shock on individual psychology. Int J Psychol Stud 1(2):97–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pantelidou S, Craig TK (2006) Culture shock and social support. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 41(10):777–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-006-0096-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Cullen KL, Edwards BD, Casper W, Gue KR (2014) Employees’ adaptability and perceptions of change-related uncertainty: implications for perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, and performance. J Bus Psychol 29(2):269–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Bhowmik R, Debnath GC, Zafar RF, Lormon BL (2021) Creative industry in terms of covid-2019 pandemic: European countries responsive measures. Press Econ Rev 1(1):9–18

    Google Scholar 

  44. Tubadji A (2021) Culture and mental health resilience in times of COVID-19. J Popul Econ 34(4):1219–1259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Garg H (2021) A new possibility degree measure for interval-valued q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets in decision-making. Int J Intell Syst 36(1):526–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Khan MJ, Kumam P, Shutaywi M (2021) Knowledge measure for the q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 36(2):628–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Garg H, Ali Z, Mahmood T (2021) Algorithms for complex interval-valued q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets in decision making based on aggregation operators, AHP, and TOPSIS. Expert Syst 38(1):e12609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Khan MJ, Alcantud JCR, Kumam P, Kumam W, Al-Kenani AN (2021) An axiomatically supported divergence measures for q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 36(10):6133–6155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Riaz M, Hamid MT, Afzal D, Pamucar D, Chu YM (2021) Multi-criteria decision making in robotic agri-farming with q-rung orthopair m-polar fuzzy sets. PLoS ONE 16(2):e0246485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Cheng S, Jianfu S, Alrasheedi M, Saeidi P, Mishra AR, Rani P (2021) A new extended VIKOR approach using q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets for sustainable enterprise risk management assessment in manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises. Int J Fuzzy Syst 23(5):1347–1369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Liu P, Wang P (2018) Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications to multiple-attribute decision making. Int J Intell Syst 33(2):259–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–356

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Wang H, Ju Y, Liu P (2019) Multi-attribute group decision-making methods based on q-rung orthopair fuzzy linguistic sets. Int J Intell Syst 34(6):1129–1157. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wang R, Li Y (2018) A novel approach for green supplier selection under a q-rung orthopair fuzzy environment. Symmetry 10(12):687. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10120687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wei G, Gao H, Wei Y (2018) Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy Heronian mean operators in multiple attribute decision making. Int J Intell Syst 33(7):1426–1458. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Peng X, Dai J, Garg H (2018) Exponential operation and aggregation operator for q-rung orthopair fuzzy set and their decision-making method with a new score function. Int J Intell Syst 33(11):2255–2282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Peng X, Dai J (2019) Research on the assessment of classroom teaching quality with q-rung orthopair fuzzy information based on multiparametric similarity measure and combinative distance-based assessment. Int J Intell Syst 34(7):1588–1630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Winkelman M (1994) Cultural shock and adaptation. J Couns Dev 73(2):121–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Holt JB (1940) Holiness religion: cultural shock and social reorganization. Am Sociol Rev 5(5):740–747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Carver CS (1997) You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: consider the brief COPE. Int J Behav Med 4(1):92–100

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  61. García FE, Barraza-Peña CG, Wlodarczyk A, Alvear-Carrasco M, Reyes-Reyes A (2018) Psychometric properties of the Brief-COPE for the evaluation of coping strategies in the Chilean population. Psicol: Reflexão e Crítica 31:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-018-0102-3

  62. https://novopsych.com.au/assessments/formulation/brief-cope/. Last accessed 17 Aug 2021

  63. Lewin K (1951) Field theory in social science. Harper Row, London

    Google Scholar 

  64. Baulcomb JS (2003) Management of change through force field analysis. J Nurs Manag 11(4):275–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Paquin JP, Koplyay T (2007) Force field analysis and strategic management: a dynamic approach. Eng Manag J 19(1):28–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Hlalele BM (2019) Application of the force-field technique to drought vulnerability analysis: a phenomenological approach. Jàmbá: J Disaster Risk Stud 11(1):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  67. Youssef AE, Mostafa AM (2019) Critical decision-making on cloud computing adoption in organizations based on augmented force field analysis. IEEE Access 7:167229–167239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Mak AH, Chang RC (2019) The driving and restraining forces for environmental strategy adoption in the hotel industry: a force field analysis approach. Tour Manage 73:48–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Jokić Ž, Božanić D, Pamučar D (2021) Selection of fire position of mortar units using LBWA and Fuzzy MABAC model. Oper Res Eng Sci: Theory Appl 4(1):115–135

    Google Scholar 

  70. Hristov N, Pamucar D, Amine MSME (2021) Application of a D number based LBWA model and an interval MABAC model in selection of an automatic cannon for integration into combat vehicles. Def Sci J 71(1):34–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Torkayesh AE, Pamucar D, Ecer F, Chatterjee P (2021) An integrated BWM-LBWA-CoCoSo framework for evaluation of healthcare sectors in Eastern Europe. Socio-Econ Plann Sci 78:101052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Yazdani M, Pamucar D, Chatterjee P, Torkayesh AE (2021) A multi-tier sustainable food supplier selection model under uncertainty. Oper Manag Res 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-021-00186-z

  73. Chien LM, Tu KJ (2021) Establishing merger feasibility simulation model based on multiple-criteria decision-making method: case study of Taiwan’s property management industry. Sustainability 13(5):2448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Ryńca R, Ziaeian Y (2021) Applying the goal programming in the management of the 7P marketing mix model at universities-case study. PLoS ONE 16(11):e0260067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ecer F, Pamucar D, Mardani A, Alrasheedi M (2021) Assessment of renewable energy resources using new interval rough number extension of the level based weight assessment and combinative distance-based assessment. Renew Energy 170:1156–1177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Pinar A, Boran FE (2020) A q-rung orthopair fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making method for supplier selection based on a novel distance measure. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 11(8):1749–1780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. González-Rodríguez MR, Martín-Samper RC, Köseoglu MA, Okumus F (2019) Hotels’ corporate social responsibility practices, organizational culture, firm reputation, and performance. J Sustain Tour 27(3):398–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Lorsch JW, McTague E (2016) Culture is not the culprit. Harv Bus Rev 94(4):21

    Google Scholar 

  79. Azeem M, Ahmed M, Haider S, Sajjad M (2021) Expanding competitive advantage through organizational culture, knowledge sharing and organizational innovation. Technol Soc 66:101635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Szczepańska-Woszczyna K (2014) The importance of organizational culture for innovation in the company. In: Forum scientiae oeconomia, September, vol 2, no 3, pp 27–39

    Google Scholar 

  81. Bashkin O, Davidovitch N, Asna N, Schwartz D, Dopelt K (2021) The organizational atmosphere in israeli hospital during COVID-19: concerns, perceptions, and burnout. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(11):5544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Sapta I, Muafi M, Setini NM (2021) The role of technology, organizational culture, and job satisfaction in improving employee performance during the Covid-19 pandemic. J Asian Financ, Econ, Bus 8(1):495–505

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Decision Sciences and Operations Management Area, Calcutta Business School, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata, 743503, West Bengal, India

    Sanjib Biswas

  2. Faculty of Organizational Sciences, Department of Operations Research and Statistics, University of Belgrade, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia

    Dragan Pamucar

  3. Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, Kolkata Campus, Kolkata, 700107, West Bengal, India

    Poushali Dey

  4. HR and OB Area, Calcutta Business School, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata, 743503, West Bengal, India

    Shreya Chatterjee & Shuvendu Majumder

Authors
  1. Sanjib Biswas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dragan Pamucar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Poushali Dey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shreya Chatterjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shuvendu Majumder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanjib Biswas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. LBEF Campus, Kathmandu, Nepal

    Sandeep Kautish

  2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, MCKV Institute of Engineering, Howrah, West Bengal, India

    Prasenjit Chatterjee

  3. Faculty of Organizational Sciences, Department of Operations Research and Statistics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

    Dragan Pamucar

  4. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Bapuji Institute of Engineering and Technology, Davangere, India

    N. Pradeep

  5. Symbiosis Centre for Management Studies, Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune, India

    Deepmala Singh

Appendices

Appendix 1: Questionnaire

This questionnaire is part of a study on Workplace Behavior to confront with changing business environment in service sector management. Please fill-in the questionnaire and kindly respond to all the items mentioned in the questionnaire. Your cooperation is earnestly solicited in carrying out an effective research on the area. We solemnly affirm that the information collected from the questionnaire will be used for academic purpose only. The identity of the individual responding to the questionnaire and the name of the organization will not be disclosed in any form or manner.

Name: ……………………………………….

Gender: Male/Female: ………………………...

Qualification: ……………………………….

Past Experience: ………………………

Present Designation: …………………….…………..

Total Experience (in years): …………...………..

Section A. Assessment of Cultural Shock

Respondents are requested to select a specific option for each statements

Escapism

  1. (1)

    I tend to adjourn tasks to avoid facing new challenges

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  2. (2)

    I always feel like continue with my present assignment ©

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  3. (3)

    I feel happy to be relaxed instead of taking tension in every moment

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

Role Shock/Identity Crisis

  1. (4)

    I am feeling depressed if no task is assigned to me by immediate superior

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  2. (5)

    It is a state of great opportunity to work if I am performing individually ©

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  3. (6)

    I am confused in wishing on the birthday of colleague as I am not invited

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

Feeling of Helplessness/Acceptance, Anxiety/Stress

  1. (7)

    I feel uneasy when I worry about unfavourable outcomes

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  2. (8)

    I get utmost satisfaction when accepted by my critics ©

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  3. (9)

    During unforeseen situation, I get upset

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  4. (10)

    I feel confident in handling my personal problems ©

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

Adjustment

  1. (11)

    I am excited to receive support from my friends

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  2. (12)

    It is not wise to trust people without judging in every steps ©

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  3. (13)

    If I fall in trouble, seek help from my community

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  4. (14)

    To me WFH has hindered performance at the work place ©

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

Culture Fatigue

  1. (15)

    I often feel stressed out due to lot of pressure

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  2. (16)

    I do not feel exhausted in traveling across cities even during pandemic ©

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  3. (17)

    I feel difficulty to start new initiatives without proper planning

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  4. (18)

    I prefer not to keep distance with others during group work ©

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

Technostress

  1. (19)

    My workload has increased due to intricacy of technology

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  2. (20)

    It is easier to adapt new technology related to our lifestyle ©

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  3. (21)

    I am worried as technology is changing life every day

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  4. (22)

    I have no inferiority when my peers can use technology better ©

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

Performance and Motivation

  1. (23)

    It is tough to complete daily task accurately on time ©

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  2. (24)

    I am unable to solve problems in a creative way ©

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  3. (25)

    I am able to submit assignments within deadline

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  4. (26)

    It is mandatory to contribute always in joint project

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  5. (27)

    I need not to express views in meetings as others are involved ©

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  6. (28)

    Continuous improvement is a lifetime challenge to perform

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

Emotional Labour

  1. (29)

    In case of refusal of promotion, behavioral pattern should not be modest ©

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

  2. (30)

    In case of misbehavior shown by juniors, your reaction would be very submissive

    (a) Strongly Disagree, (b) Disagree, (c) Moderately Agree, (d) Agree, (e) Strongly Agree

Section B. Assessment of Coping Behavior

The following questions ask how you have sought to cope with a hardship in your life. Read the statements and indicate how much you have been using each coping style. Respondents are requested to select a specific option for each statement. The options are:

  1. 1.

    I have not been doing this at all

  2. 2.

    A little bit

  3. 3.

    A medium amount

  4. 4.

    I have been doing this a lot.

Statements:

  1. 1.

    I’ve been turning to work or other activities to take my mind off things.

  2. 2.

    I’ve been concentrating my efforts on doing something about the situation I am in.

  3. 3.

    I’ve been saying to myself “this isn’t real”.

  4. 4.

    I’ve been using alcohol or other drugs to make myself feel better

  5. 5.

    I’ve been getting emotional support from others.

  6. 6.

    I’ve been giving up trying to deal with it.

  7. 7.

    I’ve been taking action to try to make the situation better.

  8. 8.

    I’ve been refusing to believe that it has happened.

  9. 9.

    I’ve been saying things to let my unpleasant feelings escape.

  10. 10.

    I’ve been getting help and advice from other people.

  11. 11.

    I’ve been using alcohol or other drugs to help me get through it.

  12. 12.

    I’ve been trying to see it in a different light, to make it seem more positive.

  13. 13.

    I’ve been criticizing myself.

  14. 14.

    I’ve been trying to come up with strategy about what to do.

  15. 15.

    I’ve been getting comfort and understanding from someone.

  16. 16.

    I’ve been giving up the attempt to cope.

  17. 17.

    I’ve been looking for something good in what is happening.

  18. 18.

    I’ve been making jokes about it.

  19. 19.

    I’ve been doing something to think about it less, such as going to movies, watching TV, reading, daydreaming, sleeping, or shopping.

  20. 20.

    I’ve been accepting the reality of the fact that it has happened.

  21. 21.

    I’ve been expressing my negative feelings.

  22. 22.

    I’ve been trying to find comfort in my religion or spiritual beliefs.

  23. 23.

    I’ve been trying to get advice or help from other people about what.

  24. 24.

    I’ve been learning to live with it.

  25. 25.

    I’ve been thinking hard about what steps to take.

  26. 26.

    I’ve been blaming myself for things that happened

  27. 27.

    I’ve been praying or meditating

  28. 28.

    I’ve been making fun of the situation.

Appendix 2: Response Sheet

See (Tables 17 and 18).

Table 17 Response for CS attributes
Full size table
Table 18 Response for CB attributes
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Biswas, S., Pamucar, D., Dey, P., Chatterjee, S., Majumder, S. (2024). A q-ROF Based Intelligent Framework for Exploring the Interface Among the Variables of Culture Shock and Adoption Toward Organizational Effectiveness. In: Kautish, S., Chatterjee, P., Pamucar, D., Pradeep, N., Singh, D. (eds) Computational Intelligence for Modern Business Systems . Disruptive Technologies and Digital Transformations for Society 5.0. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5354-7_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5354-7_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-99-5353-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-99-5354-7

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation