In response to the growing concern for understanding how diverse people work together in teams, this study examines the relationship between self-construal and group effectiveness. A diverse sample (N = 535) completed a 62-item questionnaire. Factor analysis revealed five dimensions: (a) independent self-construal, (b) interdependent self-construal, (c) task effectiveness, (d) relational effectiveness, and (e) personal effectiveness. All three dimensions of group effectiveness were found to be significantly and positively associated with both independent and interdependent self-construal. Stepwise regression analysis found that task effectiveness was better explained by independent rather than interdependent, self-construal. Regression analysis also revealed that relational effectiveness was better explained by interdependent rather than independent, self-construal. Results are discussed in terms of practical and theoretical implications.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
Ellis, D. G. , & Fisher, B. A. (1994). Small group decision making: Communication and group processes (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
3.
Geertz, C. (1975). On the nature of anthropological understanding. American Scientist, 63, 47-53.
4.
Gudykunst, W. B. , Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S. Nishida, T., Kim, K. S., & Heyman, S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22, 510-543.
5.
Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work and those that don't. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Hersey, P. , & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7.
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1983). Group communication and problem-solving effectiveness: An investigation of group phases. Human Communication Research, 9, 291-305.
8.
Hirokawa, R. Y. , & Keyton, J. (1995). Perceived facilitators and inhibitors of effectiveness in organizational work teams. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 424-446.
9.
Hirokawa, R. Y. , & Salazar, A. J. (1991). The necessity of chimera hunting: Why group communication scholars should maintain a “bottom-line” focus in group decision-making research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.
10.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Maidenhead, England: McGraw-Hill.
11.
Hui, C. , & Triandis, H. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 225-248.
12.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Victims of groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
13.
Johnston, W. B. , & Packer, A. E. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and workers for the 21st century. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.
14.
Kashima, Y. (1989). Conceptions of person: Implications in individualism/collectivism research. In C. Kagitcibasi (Ed.), Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
15.
Kim, M. S. , Hunter, J. E., Miyahara, A., Horvath, A., Bresnahan, M., & Yoon, H. (1996). Individual- vs. cultural-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism: Effects on preferred conversational styles. Communication Monographs, 63, 28-49.
16.
Kim, M. S. , & Sharkey, W. F. (1995). Independent and interdependent construals of self: Explaining cultural patterns of interpersonal communication in multi-cultural organizational settings. Communication Quarterly, 43, 20-38.
17.
Larkey, L. K. (1996). The development and validation of the workforce diversity questionnaire: An instrument to assess interactions in diverse workgroups. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 296-337.
18.
Leung, K. (1989). Cross-cultural differences: Individual-level vs. culture-level analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 703-719.
19.
Markus, H. R. , & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implication for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
20.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
21.
McLeod, P. L. , Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups. Small Group Research, 27, 248-264.
22.
Oetzel, J. G. (1995). Intercultural small groups: An effective decision-making theory. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theories (pp. 247-270). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
Poole, M. S. (1981). Decision development in small groups I: A comparison of two models. Communication Monographs, 48, 1-24.
24.
Poole, M. S. (1983). Decision development in small groups II: A study of multiple sequences in decision making. Communication Monographs, 50, 206-232.
25.
Rencher, A. (1995). Methods of multivariate analysis. New York: Wiley.
26.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.
27.
Singelis, T. M. , & Brown, W. J. (1995). Culture, self, and collectivist communication: Linking culture to individual behavior. Human Communication Research, 21, 354-389.
28.
Thomas, R. R. (1990). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review, 68, 107-117.
29.
Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. Berry, J. Draguns, & M. Cole (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
30.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
31.
Watson, W. E. , Kumar, K., & Michaelson, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity's impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590-602.
32.
Watson, W. E. , & Michaelson, L. K. (1988). Group interaction behaviors that affect group performance on an intellective task. Group and Organization Studies, 13, 495-516.
