A CROSS-CULTURAL INVESTIGATION OF POLYCHRONICITY: A STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONS IN THREE COUNTRIES

Karen South Moustafa1 Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne moustafk@ipfw.edu Rabi S. Bhagat and Emin Babakus University of Memphis (TN)

The first author wishes to thank Dr. Allen Bluedorn of the University of Missouri -- Columbia for his extensive conversations assisting in the development of this paper, and Dr. Thomas Miller and Dr. Coy Jones of the University of Memphis and Dr. James Van Scotter of Louisiana State University for their assistance with this work.

Cross cultural investigation of polychronicity

INTRODUCTION
Time is central to human functioning; therefore, proper scheduling of time and its appropriate allocation to various competing tasks is an important part of organizational management (Benabou, 1999). Variations in time use are expected to influence performance and stress, as well as other outcomes (Conte, Rizzuto, & Steiner, 1999). It is a vital strategic element (e.g., Fortune, 1989) and a competitive advantage (Stalk & Hout, 1990). The large amount of management processes and methods developed to improve performance by managing time use attest to the importance placed on organizational time (Bluedorn & Denhardt, 1988). However, research on the meaning and significance of time has been largely ignored in organizational research until recently, and research into different uses of time generally reflects a Western view (Benabou, 1999). As diversity and globalization increase, it can no longer be assumed that Western management concepts are universal (Adler, 2002; Boyacigiller, & Adler, 1991; Hofstede, 1980b; Peng, Peterson, & Shyi, 1991; Singelis, Bhawuk, Triandis, & Gelfand, 1995; Thomas & Au, 2002; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). As a specific example, the meaning and significance of time may not be consistent across cultures. While Americans and Europeans consider time to be an asset that can be spent and saved, this is not a universal concept (Adler, 2002; Hall, 1959; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998; Hofstede, 2001). In particular, other cultures consider the importance of relationships and events to transcend the importance of deadlines (Hall, 1959; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). Conflicts occur when Europeans and Americans are insulted when those with a different view of time keep them waiting. For those where time does not end with death (e.g., India) or where time is more indefinite (e.g., Latin America and the Middle East), the Western obsession with time is confusing and insulting. The Middle Eastern view of time is more deliberate. In these cultures, important things take time, and deadlines or rushing means that the task is not important. McGrath (1988) notes that waiting time is a function of importance in Brazil; however, it is controlled by the will of God in the Middle East. This research focuses on the role of temporal orientation in the way it differentiates individuals from one another (McGrath, 1988). Organizational scholars have recognized that time plays a central role in organizations (e.g., Academy of Management Review special issue, 1999; Journal of Managerial Psychology special issue, 1999), specifically as a part of organizational culture (Schein, 1992; Bluedorn, Kalliath, Strube, & Martin, 1999). To further the assessment of temporal orientation, we need a conceptual and structural foundation. For this paper, we use research in the area of polychronicity, as defined by Bluedorn and his colleagues (1992). Bluedorn (2002) has completed significant research in the area of polychronicity, or how many things do you want to do at once, discussed later in this paper. This research was designed to investigate whether cultural dimensions of individualism and collectivism create and sustain differential emphases on multitasking. It should be noted that, although distinctive cultural contexts create different emphases on how people view and use time, temporal orientation also results from the idiosyncratic combination of societal, organizational, and individual level processes. By isolating the cultural variations of individualism and collectivism at both the societal and individual

Cross cultural investigation of polychronicity

levels, it may be possible to examine their effects on the temporal perception of individuals in three distinctly different national contexts. The next section focuses on the role of individualism versus collectivism as the major dimension of cultural variation fostering different types of temporal orientation. CULTURAL VARIATION Culture has been described as the software of the mind (Hofstede, 1981). Trompenaars (1994) suggests that culture is the result of finding solutions to problems with the environment, time, and relationships with others. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1960) considered the way in which individuals cope with time and temporal orientations to be a cultural dimension in itself. In fact, Jones (1988) concluded that: to talk about differences in time perspective is more fundamental than talking about cultural or individual idiosyncrasies (p. 21). There are different cultural variations in temporal orientation. In some cultures such as France, the past is more important than the future, but in others such as the United States, the future is overwhelmingly more important (Hofstede, 2002; Trompenaars, 1994). In another sense, Americans see time as linear, divisible and not connected to the past (Trompenaars, 1994). However, this view is not universal. Other cultures view time as a circular flow, with the past, future, and present adding together to form a cohesive whole (Hofstede, 2002; Trompenaars, 1994). It is easy to see that cultural variation and temporal orientation are closely intertwined. In the next section, we will discuss the cultural variation of individualism and collectivism, and later, the way that this specific cultural variation influences temporal orientation. INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS COLLECTIVISM Individualism versus collectivism is an important cultural variation to use in explaining various organizationally relevant outcomes, as either a societal or individual level construct. The need to understand cultural differences is crucial as the world becomes smaller and business becomes less Western-oriented (Kagitcibasi & Berry, 1989). Individualism versus collectivism is not the sole measure of cultural differences, but it has been highly significant in the delineation of individual and group behavior, goal achievement, and relationship importance (Earley & Gibson, 1998; Triandis, 2002a, 2002b). The dimension of individualism versus collectivism has been found to account for a significant amount of variance in the social behavior of individuals across cultures (Triandis, 1995). People generally do not fit at the extremes of behavior, as defined in the concept of individualism or collectivism; people are always gray never black or white (Singelis, et.al., 1995: 243). Individualism, taken to its extreme, is selfishness; extreme collectivism is tyranny (Hofstede 1991). Within the United States, minorities are an increasing percentage of the population, and many within these minorities tend to be collectivists, particularly the largest minority, Hispanics (Marin & Triandis, 1985), as well as Asians (Triandis, et.al., 1989). Over one third of the worlds population lives in China and India, both of which have been

Cross cultural investigation of polychronicity

determined to be primarily collectivistic (Hofstede, 1980a, 1991, 2001; Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995). Awareness of these and similar statistics has driven the study of the cultural dimension of individualism versus collectivism at the social and individual levels over the past two decades. The individualism versus collectivism dimension is first discussed below as a societal level construct and then as an individual level construct. Societal Level Construct. Hofstede (1980a) first proposed specific country rankings on an individualismcollectivism continuum (the Individualism Index), and these rankings have been widely used to group countries in terms of similar and dissimilar cultures. In brief, individualists tend to prefer working alone, with personal goals of primary importance, while collectivists tend to prefer working in groups, with group goals of primary importance. Hofstede (1991) defined individualism versus collectivism in broad terms: individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive ingroups, which throughout peoples lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty (p. 51). There are several defining attributes of individualism and collectivism (Triandis, 1995) that are important when identifying differences in temporal orientation among cultures: 1. Individualists generally view the self as independent of others, while collectivists view the self as interdependent with others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). This is reflected in the differences in the way group membership is viewed. In general, individualists will have more, but less cohesive, group memberships than collectivists. Collectivists generally identify themselves as part of fewer, more cohesive groups, such as their family and workgroup. 2. Individualists generally have personal goals that are more important than the goals that their in-group pursues, while collectivists subordinate individual goals to pursue those deemed important by their in-group (Schwartz, 1990). 3. Individualists and collectivists have different views of relationships. Individualists move in and out of groups easily. When the costs exceed the benefits, the relationship is often dropped (Singelis, et.al., 1995: 244). Collectivists consider relationships to be essential, and tend to maintain a relationship even if the costs of maintaining it are greater than the benefits. (Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, & Yoon, 1994). Individualism and collectivism were conceived by Hofstede (1991, 2001) as opposite ends of a continuum, rather than as absolutes, as shown in Figure 1.

Cross cultural investigation of polychronicity

Australia 90 US 91 INDIVIDUALISM

Sweden Columbia 13 Italy 76 71 Israel 54 Turkey 37 Thailand 20 Finland 63 India 48 Portugal 27 Venezuela 12 COLLECTIVISM

FIGURE 1: Individualism Values for Selected Countries, using Hofstedes (1991, 2001) Individualism Index It should be noted that, although not all research uses the terms individualism and collectivism, the basic underpinnings remain the same. Research results also vary. For example, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998), in their worldwide survey of 30,000 managers, prefer to use the term communitarianism instead of collectivism. They found the highest degree of individualism in Israel, Romania, Nigeria, Canada, and the United States, and the lowest (and thus collectivistic) in Egypt, Nepal, Mexico, India, and Japan. However, Hofstedes (1980a, 1991, 2001) findings are the most commonly used, and cross-cultural researchers continue to prefer the terms individualism and collectivism (Earley, 1993; Peterson, Smith, & colleagues, 1995; Singelis, et. al., 1995; Spector, Cooper, Sanchez, ODriscoll, Sparks, & colleagues, 2002; Thomas & Au, 2002). Individual Level Construct. Within each societal culture, whether individualistic or collectivistic, there is a range of people who are individualistic, called ideocentric, and who are collectivistic, called allocentric (Triandis, 1995). For example, there are those in the United States who prefer to work alone (ideocentric) and those who prefer to work in groups (allocentric). However, the overall cultural variation in the United States is individualistic, with the majority being ideocentric (Triandis, 1995; Hofstede, 2001). This is true for each society. This distinction is important, as people within different cultures may not fit the overall cultural profile. As shown in Figure 2, ideocentric individuals (a) view the self as independent of others, (b) individual goals as more important than ingroup goals, and (b) ingroups as relatively loose formations. On the other hand, allocentric individuals (a) view the self as interdependent within specific ingroups, (b) group goals as more important than individual goals, and (c) ingroups as tight formations (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

Cross cultural investigation of polychronicity

GROUP SELF SELF

GROUP

Interdependent View of the Self ALLOCENTRIC

Independent View of the Self IDEOCENTRIC

FIGURE 2: Schematic Representation of Allocentric and Ideocentric Individuals TEMPORAL ORIENTATION Temporal orientation is the way time is viewed by an individual. Time is a construction that people make in relation to once another through their interaction (Lauer, 1981); in other words, time is a social construction. Socialization processes, which create our values and other elements of culture, also create our temporal orientation. For example, when we are small, our parents instill the time to rise and to sleep. If the time to rise and sleep is based on the clock, we are socialized to clock time; if they are based on the rhythm of nature or of others in the social group, we are socialized to event time. Our promptness is first encouraged when we attend religious meetings and school, and later when we begin to work. If promptness is essential, we are socialized to clock time; if promptness is less crucial, we are socialized to event time. Research on time in organizations has dealt with time as a given variable, that is, it is not changeable and all members of an organization have the same view of time. Scheins (1992) inclusion of time as a part of organizational culture is an example. Organizational socialization can aid in creating a stable meaning of time, but the intricacies of time, in general, have not been well researched. For example, stress research (e.g., Latack, 1986; Latack & Havolic, 1992) and studies of Type A behaviors (e.g., Burnam, Pennebaker, & Glass, 1975; Conte, Schwenneker, Dew, & Romano, 2001; Gastorf, 1980; Jex, Adams, Elacqua, & Bachrach, 2002) have used temporal orientation as a factor, but organizational sciences research generally has not used time as a singular element. Exceptions to this include: Past influences on the present (e.g., El Sawy, 1983; Das, 1986, 1987), Entrainment (e.g., McGrath & Kelly, 1986; Ancona & Chong, 1996, 1999), Time boundaries and time allocations (e.g., Perlow, 1997, 1998, 1999), and Time and task allocations (e.g., Bluedorn, 2002; Bluedorn & Denhardt, 1988; Bluedorn, Kaufman, & Lane, 1992; Bluedorn, Kalliath, Strube, & Martin, 1999; Conte, Rizzuto, & Steiner, 1999; Cotte & Ratneshwar, 1999).

Cross cultural investigation of polychronicity

However, these have studies have been of individuals or organizations in the United States and Western Europe and, except for the work on time and task allocation, they have not addressed the perception of time itself. Much of the research on time orientation differences between Western and other societies has suggested that industrialization is at the root of differences. Benjamin Franklin is credited with publishing the phrase, remember that time is money, in the late 1700s (Bluedorn, 2002). However, consistent times and punctuality was a consequence of industrialization, primarily the railroad in the United States, which required time to be regulated by a clock (Zerubavel, 1985; Stephens & Smithsonian Institution, 2004). Before this, time had been largely event time, ruled by the seasons and agricultural requirements. Industrialization changed the face of time in America, as it did in England and the rest of Europe. Aveni (1989) suggests that, in the United States, we live by legalized time (p. 97), that is, standardization of time across the United States has become convenient and accepted. In fact, the parody of Western time was satirized in the film Modern Times by Charles Chaplin (1931) and in a famous I Love Lucy episode in the 1950s (conceived by Lucille Ball). In both, Western time and time is money are exemplified by the assembly line, arguably Henry Fords major contribution to industrialization. However, national histories of time and timekeeping differ throughout the world. For some countries, it is not essential that trains run on time or that meetings end at the scheduled hour. In some countries, time is not money. When times differ, there is conflict or, at the very least, culture shock. Jones (1988) posited that the ways individuals perceive, cope, experience, and behave in terms of time, e.g., their temporal orientation, could be considered the basis for individual or cultural differences. Levine and his colleagues (1980, 1984, 1985, 1999) have studied various temporal differences between countries. The observation of time (resulting from his culture shock during a visit to Brazil) was significant in showing that punctuality and the entire concept of time can vary significantly between countries (Levine, West, & Reis, 1980; Levine & Wolff, 1985). For example, punctuality was measured by determining the accuracy of the downtown bank clocks in the United States and Brazil. Brazilian bank clocks were less accurate, and so were individual timepieces. The shock to Levine was that, in Brazil, lack of accuracy in time keeping was not considered important (Levine & Wolff, 1985). Levines research continued with research comparing Taiwan, England, Italy, Indonesia, and Japan with the United States (Levine & Bartlett, 1984). He found that bank clock times did not differ significantly in these countries, except in Indonesia. In a large-scale study, Levine and Norenzayan (1999) sampled clocks in 31 countries and found that those in individualistic countries were significantly more accurate than those in collectivistic countries. As summarized in Levines (1999) book, A Geography of Time, these authors also found a correlation between accuracy of clocks and insistence of punctuality in the society as well as between economic productivity. The Chinese Culture Connection (1987) and Hofstede and Bond (1988) conducted research in Asia to determine whether there were cultural variations that differed from Hofstedes earlier (1980) works. They found that the focus on past, present, or future varies from culture to culture. Benford (1992) suggested that some cultures considered the past to be a connection, while others considered it irrelevant.

Cross cultural investigation of polychronicity

POLYCHRONICITY VERSUS MONOCHRONICITY Bluedorn (2002) has completed significant research in the area of polychronicity. Bluedorn, in his book, The Human Organization of Time (2002), discusses the broader implications of Halls (1959) definitions of polychronicity, but states that he has chosen a fraction of the definition for his research purposes. Hall implied in some of his work that polychronicity refers to a much larger set of phenomena (e.g. Hall, 1981, 1983; Hall & Hall, 1990). Nevertheless, most polychronicity scholars employ the more focused version of the concept, which is how the concept will be defined here. Following Bluedorn et al. (1999) and Hall (Bluedorn, 1998), polychronicity is the extent to which people (1) prefer to be engaged in two or more tasks or events simultaneously and are actually so engaged , and (2) believe their preference is the best way to do things (Bluedorn, 2002: p. 51). As previously discussed, temporal orientation is reflected in the allocation of time. In the work to date on polychronicity, the key question has been, How many things do you like to do at once? (Bluedorn, Kaufman, & Lane, 1992). Bluedorn (2002) stated that polychronicity is about how many activities and events people engage at once (p. 49). Polychronicity is, in essence, multitasking, in that more than one task is occurring within a single time frame. An example is driving and eating at the same time, or when two projects are being worked on within the same time frame. It can also involve relationships, such as when one talks on the phone and watches television simultaneously, but there is not the emphasis on relationships that pervades polychronicity in its original definition by Hall (1959). As discussed in the section on polychronicity, Bluedorn sees his view of polychronicity as being a continuum, with focus on one task at a time at one extreme, and focusing on several tasks at the other extreme. This focus on several tasks can be by switching back and forth or by engaging in these tasks simultaneously (Bluedorn, 2002), as when eating and driving. As discussed in his and his colleagues research (e.g., 1988, 1992, 1999, 2002), it is essential to understand the concept of polychronicity in organizations both in the United States and Europe as well as the rest of the world. Understanding the nature of the polychronic preference in an organization allows the appropriate scheduling of processes and functions, as well as improving employee selection. Control Variables. Age. Kaufman, Lane, & Lindquist (1991), Bluedorn (2002), and Bluedorn (2000) found no difference in preference for monochronicity and polychronicity in relation to ages tested in these studies (all were adults, but none were above age 65). Sex. Research on monochronicity and polychronicity in relation to gender (Bluedorn, 2000; Conte, Rizzuto, & Stener, 1999; Conte 2000; Kaufman, Lane, & Lindquist, 1991; Palmer and Shoorman, 1999; Bluedorn, 2002) is equivocal, but the majority indicates that there is no significant difference between men and women.

Cross cultural investigation of polychronicity

Educational achievement. There is some indication that level of educational achievement will influence the ability to multitask successfully (Kaufman, Lane, & Lindquist, 1991).

HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY

From the examination of the culture and temporal orientation literature, a research model and hypotheses were developed. As discussed, it is proposed that there will be individuals who have a monochronic (monotask) preference and those who have a polychronic (multitask) preference in each culture. We propose that this orientation is not a cultural preference, but rather a preference based on each individuals life experiences. Therefore, theoretically, there should be no difference in preference for multitasking across cultural variations. The hypothesis for this study reflects the idea that there will be individuals in each culture that prefer monochronicity and polychronicity as ways to complete organizational tasks, independent of the societal or individual level of cultural variation or level of individual polychronicity. Hypothesis: Task orientation (multitasking) will be related to cultural variation (individualism versus collectivism). For the project, managers and white-collar workers in hospitals in three different countries were surveyed. These countries reflect both individualist and collectivist tendencies. The first sample of 213 managers and white-collar workers is from the United States, the second sample of 250 is from India, and the third sample of 197 is from Venezuela. Demographic information about the sample is shown in Table 3. TABLE 1: Demographic Data for Sample Groups Sample Demographics United India Venezuela States Sex Male Female Age Mean Range Educational achievementa Citizenshipb
a b

15.5% 81.7%

47.6% 52.4%

43.7% 53.3%

41.8 years 34.8 years 36.9 years 21-73 years 23-58 years 18-68 years 61.2% 96.2% 97.6% 100% 60.8% 100%

Percentage reporting undergraduate degree or higher. Percentage reporting citizenship in sample country.

Cross cultural investigation of polychronicity

The samples are from countries that vary on the dimension of individualism as determined by Hofstede (2001), with the United States being the most individualistic and Venezuela being the least, as shown in Figure 10. The sample was taken from hospitals in each country, to attempt to reduce variations from technology, industry culture, and other external factors, as discussed in an earlier section.

US 91 INDIVIDUALISM

India 48 COLLECTIVISM

FIGURE 3: Individualism Values for Countries in Sample, using Hofstedes (1991, 2001) Individualism Index The rationale behind the sample selection is to focus on the role of individualism versus collectivism in fostering distinct differences in polychronic and monochronic behaviors. The questionnaire used was approved by the University of Memphis Institutional Research Review Board. Experienced cross-cultural collaborators were recruited, and other collaborators were those with prior working relationships with the two principal investigators. As suggested in Bhagat and McQuaid (1982) and Bhagat and Moustafa (2002), the questionnaire was translated into Spanish in Venezuela was accomplished under the direction of the country collaborator, with checks through backtranslation for fidelity to the original instrument. Reliabilities for all scales used were good, as shown in table both the combined data set and the individual countries. TABLE 2: Reliability Coefficients of Scales RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS (CRONBACH )

SCALE
Ideocentrism (individualism at the individual level) Allocentrism (collectivism at the individual level) Polychronicity

Combined Data Set .73 .81 .85

United States .77 .82 .81

India Venezuela .77 .78 .85 .59 .80 .86

10

Cross cultural investigation of polychronicity

Cultural Variations. Societal Culture Group. As discussed, societal level individualism and collectivism is measured using the Individualism Index, developed by Hofstede (1991, 2001). Individual Level Measure. The measure of the individualism-collectivism cultural variation was developed by Singelis, et. al. (1995). There are 32 items, and respondents are asked to indicate their disagreement/agreement with each on a scale of 1 to 7 (where 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree). This established scale was used to measure the individuals cultural orientation, i.e. ideocentric versus allocentric. It is quite possible that, despite a countrys inclination towards collectivism, the high levels of technological change and the urban nature of the sample may foster the development of an ideocentric (individualistic) orientation in individuals. As discussed earlier, those that respond strongly on the ideocentric scale tend to have an independent construal of self, while those that respond strongly on the allocentric scale tend to have an interdependent construal of self. Thus, this instrument enables me to separate individuals in terms of their mode of self-construal. Reliabilities for this scale range from .67 to .74 (Singelis, et. al., 1995). Polychronicity. The individual level Inventory of Polychronic Values (Bluedorn, et.al., 1999) was used, which is a measure of how many things people prefer to do at once, as discussed previously. Respondents were asked to indicate their disagreement/agreement with each statement on a scale of 1 to 7 (where 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree). Control Variables. Control variables were identified as factors that would likely represent groups with different views about cultural variation, temporal orientation or stress. The control variables were age, sex, and educational achievement. Information was self-reported as part of the survey. Age and educational achievement were measured as continuous variables.

RESULTS
Correlations among the variables in the study indicated that the demographic variables of age, sex and level of educational achievement were found to have no effect. Our hypothesis in this study proposes that polychronicity (multitasking) has a relationship to cultural variations. In the following tables (Table 3 through 5), results of means, analysis of variance, and Bonferroni pairwise comparisons are reported. In these results, we find that there was no relationship to cultural variations over these three countries.

11

Cross cultural investigation of polychronicity

TABLE 3: Results of Analysis of Variance for Hypothesis 7 Societal Culture Group on Multitasking Dependent Variable: Multitasking Societal Cultural Group Pairwise Comparisons Mean Std. Dev. (Individualism Score)a (Bonferroni) United States (91) 3.45 .911 United States vs Venezuelab India (48) 3.42 1.059 India vs United Statesb Venezuela (12) 3.47 1.318 Venezuela vs Indiab Overall Test of F: .154 (p = .858)
a b

Individualism score from Hofstede (2001) not significant at .05 level

Table 4: Results of Analysis of Variance for Hypothesis 7 Ideocentrism (individual level Individualism) on Multitasking Dependent Variable: Multitasking Pairwise Comparisons Mean Std. Dev. LEVEL OF IDEOCENTRISM (Bonferroni) Low 3.49 1.125 United States vs Venezuelaa Medium 3.44 1.045 India vs United Statesa High 3.40 1.130 Venezuela vs Indiaa Overall Test of F: .399 (p = .671 ) a not significant at .05 level Table 5: Results of Analysis of Variance for Hypothesis 7 Allocentrism (individual level Collectivism) on Multitasking Dependent Variable: Multitasking Pairwise Comparisons Level of Allocentrism Mean Std. Dev. (Bonferroni) Low 3.59 1.012 United States vs Venezuelaa Medium 3.37 1.092 India vs United Statesa High 3.37 1.159 Venezuela vs Indiaa Overall Test of F: 2.783 (p = .063 ) a not significant at .05 level In each, group means are not significantly different across (a) societal culture group, (b) individual level ideocentrism, or (c) individual level allocentrism. Therefore, our hypothesis is supported. 12

Cross cultural investigation of polychronicity

DISCUSSION
This study focused on the extent of differential emphases on temporal orientation in different cultures. In this study, we examined whether the concept of polychronicity as defined by Bluedorn and his colleagues (1992, 1999, 2002) is related to cultural variation. A model of these interactions was developed and tested in three countries that differ on Hofstedes (1991, 2001) Individualism Index. Study findings show that polychronicity, at least in the form of multitasking as described by Bluedorn, is not dependent on societal or individual levels of culture. From this, it appears that polychronicity (multitasking) is a valuable concept for organizational sciences, but it does not differ across societal cultures as proposed by Bluedorn (1999, 2002). Further research with other industry groups and other countries would be useful to determine whether this effect is limited to the healthcare industry and/or these three countries. Contributions of the Study. This study is the first to examine polychronicity across cultures that vary on the Individualism Index (Hofstede, 2001). It is also the first to use Bluedorn, et. al.s (1999) individual Inventory of Polychronicity Values in cultures other than the United States and the United Kingdom. It is hoped that further investigation of this scale will add to our knowledge of the usefulness and pitfalls of multitasking in organizations. It is hoped that this study is the first step toward designing a useful polychronicity scale and to examining organizational differences in temporal orientation that affect organizationally valuable outcomes, such as job satisfaction, psychological strain, and role overload. Limitations of the Study. The sample may limit the results. The three countries used in the study may be closer in cultural variation than indicated by Hofstedes (2001) index. Therefore, a study of more countries is underway . The samples were from healthcare managers and white-collar workers (including nursing staff). There may be a particular healthcare industry culture that might influence responses, over and above the effect of societal culture or self-construal. For this reason, work is ongoing both in other industries and in other countries. In addition, organizational cultures of the three hospitals in the study are likely to be somewhat different, which might also account for variations in responses. We are examining larger samples to determine whether this might be the case.

13

Cross cultural investigation of polychronicity

REFERENCES
Adler, N.J. 2002. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 4th ed. Cincinnati: South-Western. Aveni, A. 1989. Empires of Time: Calendars, Clock, and Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Benabou, C. 1999. Polychronicity and temporal dimensions of work in learning organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14 (3/4): 257-268. Benford, G. 1992. Timescape. New York: Bantam Books. Bhagat, R.S., & McQuaid, S.J. 1982. Role of subjective culture in organizations: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 67, 5, 653-685. Bhagat, R.S., & Moustafa, K.S. 2002. How non-Americans view American use of time: A cross-cultural perspective. In P. Boski, F.J.R. van de Vijver, & A.M. Chodynicka (eds.), New Directions in Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp. 183-191). Poland: Polish Psychological Association. Bluedorn, A.C. 1998. An interview with Anthropologist Edward T. Hall. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7: 109-115. Bluedorn, A.C. 2000. Polychronicity, change orientation, and organizational attractiveness. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans. Bluedorn, A.C. 2002. The Human Organization of Time: Temporal Realities and Experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bluedorn, A.C., & Denhardt, R.B. 1988. Time and organizations. Journal of Management, 14 (2): 299-320. Bluedorn, A.C., Kalliath, T.J., Strube, M.J., & Martin, G.D. 1999. Polychronicity and the Inventory of Polychronic Values (IPV): The development of an instrument to measure a fundamental dimension of organizational culture. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14 (3.4): 205-203. Bluedorn, A.C., Kaufman, C.F., & Lane, P.M. 1992. How many things do you like to do at once? An introduction to monochronic and polychronic time. Academy of Management Executive, 6 (4): 17-26. Boyacigiller, N.A., & Adler, N.J. 1991. The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in a global context. Academy of Management Journal, 16: 262-290.

14

Cross cultural investigation of polychronicity

Burnam, M., Pennebacker, J., & Glass, D. 1975. Time-consciousness, achievement striving, and the type A coronary-prone behavior pattern. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84: 76-79. Chinese Culture Connection. 1987. Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18: 143-174. Conte, J.M. 2000. Examining relationships among polychronicity, big five personality dimensions, absence, and lateness. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans. Conte, J.M., Rizzuto, T.E., & Steiner, D.D. 1999. A construct-oriented analysis of individual-level polychronicity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14: 269-87. Conte, J.M., Schwenneker, H.H., Dew, A.F., & Romano, D.M. Incremental validity of time urgency and other type A subcomponents in predicting behavioral and health criteria. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31 (8): 1727-1748. Cotte, J., & Ratneshwar, S. 1999. Juggling and hopping: What does it mean to work polychronically? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14: 184-204. Das, T.K. 1986. The Subjective Side of Strategy Making: Future Orientations and Perceptions of Executives. New York: Praeger. Das, T.K. 1987. Strategic planning and individual temporal orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 8: 203-209. Earley, P.C. 1993. East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (2): 319-348. Earley, P. C. & Gibson, C. B. 1998. Taking stock in our progress on individualismcollectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community. Journal of Management, 24: 265304. El Sawy, O.A. 1983. Temporal Perspective and Managerial Attention: A Study of Chief Executive Strategic Behavior. Dissertation, Stanford University. Fortune 1989. How managers can succeed through speed. Vol. 119 (13, February): 5474. Gastorf, J.W. 1980. Time urgency of the type A behavior pattern. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 48: 299. Hall, E.T. 1959. The Silent Language. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books/Doubleday. Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. 15

Cross cultural investigation of polychronicity

Hall, E.T. 1981. Beyond Culture (reissue of 1976 volume). New York: Anchor Books. Hall, E.T. 1983. The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension of Time. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books/Doubleday. Hall, E.T., & Hall, M.R. 1990. Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French, and Americans. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Hofstede, G. 1980a. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. 1980b. Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, Summer: 42-63. Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values (2nd ed). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. 1988. The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16 (4): 4-21. Jex, S.M., Adams, G.A., Elacqua, T.C., & Bachrach, D.G. 2002. Type A as a moderator of stressors and job complexity: A comparison of achievement strivings and impatienceirritability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32 (5): 977-296. Jones, J.M. 1988. Chapter 2: Cultural differences in temporal perspectives: Instrumental and expressive behaviors in time. In J.E. McGrath (ed.), The Social Psychology of Time: New Perspectives (pp. 21-38). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kagitcibasi, C., & Berry, J.W. 1989. Cross-cultural psychology: Current research and trends. Annual Review of Psychology, 40: 493-532. Kaufman, C.F., Lane, P.M., & Lindquist, J.D. 1991. Exploring more than 24 hours a day: A preliminary investigation of polychronic time use. Journal of Consumer Research, 18: 392-401. Kim, U., Triandis, H.C., Kagitcibasi, C., & Yoon, G. (eds.). 1994. Individualism and Collectivism: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kluckhohn, F., & Strodtbeck, F.L. 1960. Variations in Value Orientations. Boston: Greenwood Press.

16

Cross cultural investigation of polychronicity

Latack, J.C. 1986. Coping with job stress: Measures and future directions for scale development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (3): 377-385. Latack, J.C., & Havolic, S.J. 1992. Coping with job stress: A conceptual evaluation framework for coping measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 479-508. Lauer, R.H. 1981. Temporal Man: The Meaning and Uses of Social Time. New York: Praeger. Levine, R. 1997. A Geography of Time: The Temporal Misadventures of a Social Psychologist, or How Every Culture Keeps Time Just a Little Bit Differently. New York: Basic Books. Levine, R.V., & Bartlett, K. 1984. Pace of life, punctuality, and coronary heart disease in six countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15: 233-255. Levine, R., & Norenzayan, A. 1999. The pace of life in 31 countries. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 30: 178-205. Levine, R.V., West, L., & Reis, H. 1980. Perceptions of time and punctuality in the US and Brazil. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38: 541-550. Levine R., & Wolff, E. 1985. Social time: The heartbeat of culture. Psychology Today, 19 (3): 28-35. Marin, G., & Triandis, H.C. 1985. Allocentrism as an important characteristic of the behavior of Lain Americans and Hispanics. In R. Diaz-Gurerrero (ed.), Cross-Cultural and National Studies of Social Psychology (pp. 85-114). Amsterdam: North Holland. Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. 1991. Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98: 224-253. McGrath, J.E. (ed.) 1988. The Social Psychology of Time: New Perspectives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McGrath, J.E., & Kelly, J.R. 1986. Time and Human Interaction: Toward a Social Psychology of Time. New York: Guilford Press. Peng, T.K., Peterson, M.F., & Shyi, Y.P. 1991. Quantitative methods in cross-national management research: Trends and equivalence issues. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12: 87-107. Perlow, L.A. 1997. Finding Time: How Corporations, Individuals, and Families Can Benefit from New Work Practices. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, ILR Press.

17

Cross cultural investigation of polychronicity

Perlow, L.A. 1998. Boundary control: The social ordering of work and family time in a high-tech corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 328-357. Perlow, L.A. 1999. The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 57-81. Peterson, M.F., Smith, P.B., & colleagues (country investigators). 1995. Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21-national study. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (2): 429-452. Schein, E.H. 1992. Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schwartz, S.H. 1990. Individualism-collectivism: Critique and proposed refinements. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21: 139-157. Singelis, T.M., Triandis, H.C., Bhawuk, D.P.S., & Gelfand, M. 1995. Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29: 240-275. Spector, P.E., Cooper, C.L., Sanchez, J.I., ODriscoll, M., Sparks, K., & colleagues (country investigators). 2002. Locus of control and well-being at work: How generalizable are Western findings? Academy of Management Journal, 45 (2): 453-466. Stalk, G. & Hout, T. 1990. Competing against Time. New York: The Free Press. Stephens, C.E., & The Smithsonian Institution. 2004. On Time: How America Has Learned to Live by the Clock. Washington, D.C.: Bulfinch Press. Thomas, D.C., & Au, K. 2002. The effect of cultural differences on behavioral responses to low job satisfaction. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (2): 309-326. Triandis, H.C. 1977. Interpersonal Behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: Brookscole. Triandis, H.C. 1989. The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96: 269-289. Triandis, H.C. 1990. Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. J. Berman (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, vol. 37 (pp. 41-133). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Triandis, H.C. 1994. Culture and Social Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. Triandis, H.C. 1995. Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

18

Cross cultural investigation of polychronicity

Triandis, H.C. 1998. Vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism: theory and research implications for international comparative management. In J.L. Cheng & R.B. Peterson (eds.), Advances in International Comparative Management, 12: 7-35. Triandis, H.C. 2002a. Motivation to work in cross-cultural perspective. In J.M. Brett & F. Drasgow (eds.) The Psychology of Work: Theoretically Based Empirical Research (pp. 101-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Triandis, H.C. 2002b. Generic individualism and collectivism. In M.J. Gannon & K.L. Newman (eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management (pp.16-45). Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Business. Trompenaars, F. 1994. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. Chicago: Irwin. Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. 1998. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business, 2nd ed. Chicago: Irwin.

19