Is Established Knowledge About Cross-Cultural Differences in Individualism–Collectivism Not Applicable to the Military? A Multi-Method Study of Cross-Cultural Differences in Behavior

Preparing for international military collaboration includes raising knowledge about cultural differences. The differences in individualism–collectivism between countries are among the most central aspects likely to impact collaboration. However, are the differences in individualism–collectivism between countries as documented in a significant amount of civilian research (e.g., Hofstede, 2001a Hofstede, G. (2001a). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]) generalizable to a military context? Or are the differences not the same in a military context, as suggested by Soeters (1997) Soeters, J. L. (1997). Value orientations in military academies: A thirteen country study. Armed Forces and Society, 24, 7–32. 10.1177/0095327X9702400101[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] on the bases of a values survey? Quasi-experiments were conducted in a distributed collaborative computer game environment. The study is multimethod, employing self-reporting, observer ratings and direct behavioral measures, and it is the first study of cross-cultural differences in individualism–collectivism in behavior in a military context. By studying differences in collectivist-type behaviors in a sample of military officers (N = 154) in 4 different countries (the United States, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway), this study seeks to determine whether the cross-cultural differences in values found by Soeters from a military context are reflected in behavior. The study also includes a values survey using Hofstede’s (2007) Hofstede, G. (2007). Values survey module 1994 (VSM-94). Retrieved from www.geerthofstede.com [Google Scholar] measurement tool, the Values Survey Module (VSM), consistent with Soeters’ study. The study is considered exploratory because of a somewhat limited sample. The results from the 6 different measures of collectivist behaviors provide no support for the suggestion that cross-cultural differences in individualism–collectivism are not the same in military organizations as in civilian organizations. Although not conclusive, the results raise doubt concerning the appropriateness of using the VSM in military samples. The implications are discussed.     

Silence is golden? Characteristics and experiences of self-reported whistleblowers

This study investigates the characteristics of whistleblowers, the prevalence and nature of whistleblowing, and the occurrence of retaliation after whistleblowing using a randomly selected and representative sample of Norwegian employees. The results showed that 12 per cent self-reported as whistleblowers according to an operational definition. Being a leader, or a union or personnel safety representative was significantly related to whistleblowing. The most frequently reported wrongdoing was harassment conducted by a single colleague. Wrongdoer(s) received mixed responses, from no reaction to reprimand. Even though most whistleblowers were not sanctioned, they reported less job satisfaction and more workplace bullying than did nonwhistleblowers. Only a few were rewarded. For the most part, wrongdoing was stopped or reduced. However, whistleblowing was only partially effective, because whistleblowers reported lack of feedback about the result of their report. Results also showed that the status of the wrongdoer was related to the reaction he or she received afterwards, as were the type of wrongdoing and the effect on the wrongdoing, and the type of wrongdoing and the effect on the wrongdoer(s). Potential explanations for the results, such as the type of sample and power distance, are discussed. Practical implications of the study are also addressed, such as the importance of providing feedback to whistleblowers.     

Role stressors and exposure to workplace bullying: Causes or consequences of what and why?

Stressful working environments are commonly assumed to create conditions that can lead to bullying. Although environmental factors may relate to both exposure to and perpetration of workplace bullying, empirical knowledge is still limited regarding how environmental factors and bullying is causally linked. In line with interpretations of previous cross-sectional findings, the present study investigated an individual-level target-oriented model of role stressors as antecedents of exposure to workplace bullying, applying a two-wave longitudinal sample of the Norwegian working population. Results from structural regression analyses failed to identify any significant relationships between the role stressors and subsequent exposure to workplace bullying. However, prior exposure to workplace bullying accounted for subsequent variation in role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload alike. The findings of the present study question conclusions regarding causality made in previous cross-sectional research on work-related factors as antecedents of exposure to workplace bullying. We argue that future research may benefit from adopting multilevel and actor-oriented perspectives in order to more fully understand how causal relationships between environmental factors and workplace bullying unfold.     

The world turns at 33 and 45: Defining simple cutoff scores for the Negative Acts Questionnaire–Revised in a representative sample

Workplace bullying is a serious hazard in every day working life that needs to be assessed carefully. In order to achieve such a goal, both victims of severe bullying as well as targets of less intensive bullying need to be identified, the latter in order to prevent further escalation into severe bullying. Previous research has mainly offered simple and crude measures of who is and who is not a victim of bullying. In this article we show how cutoff scores for the scale Negative Acts Questionnaire–Revised (NAQ-R) can be calculated. Based on a representative sample of the Norwegian workforce, we formulated 2 cutoff points or thresholds for the NAQ-R with a Receiver Operation Characteristic curve. Employees with a score lower than 33 are not bullied, employees with a score between 33 and 45 may be considered as being bullied occasionally, and employees who score above 45 can be considered to be victims of workplace bullying. As the NAQ-R is used in more than 300 research projects worldwide, we hope to inspire other scholars to define similar cutoff points. In addition, we hope that clear cutoff scores may be of assistance to practitioners for designing interventions regarding workplace bullying in line with the identified problems.     

Do core self-evaluations and coping style influence the perception of job insecurity?

Over the last few decades, increased flexibility and lack of stability in employment has made job insecurity a work stressor that affects more and more employees. Since worrying about potential job loss (quantitative job insecurity) or possible loss of valued job features (qualitative job insecurity) constitutes a subjective perception, it has been claimed that personality factors may be decisive for job insecurity perceptions. Furthermore, the perception of a stressor, in this case job insecurity, could be argued to be dependent on appraisals of available coping resources. This study investigates whether core self-evaluations predict job insecurity perceptions, and whether coping mediates this relationship, in a two-wave data set from a Swedish sample of white-collar workers (N = 425). The results show that core self-evaluations had a negative total effect on both qualitative and quantitative job insecurity. Core self-evaluations were positively related to problem-focused coping but not to emotion-focused coping. However, there was no mediating effect of coping style on the association between core self-evaluations and job insecurity.