Student Networking Behavior, Culture, and Grade Performance: An Empirical Study and

Pedagogical Recommendations
Author(s): Alvin Hwang, Eric H. Kessler, Anne Marie Francesco
Source: Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Jun., 2004), pp. 139-150
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40214244 .
Accessed: 04/03/2011 17:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aom. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Academy of
Management Learning & Education.

http://www.jstor.org
®Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 2004, Vol. 3, No. 2, 139-150.

StudentNetworkingBehavior,
Culture,and Grade
Performance:An Empirical
Studyand Pedagogical
Recommendations
ALVIN HWANG
ERIC H. KESSLER
Pace University
ANNE MARIE FRANCESCO
HongKongBaptistUniversity

Weexaminehowcultureinfluences student networking behaviorsand thesebehaviors'

consequent on
impact gradeperformance. We testedresearch hypothesesintegrated
througha pathmodelwithdata fromthreecountries, twoin theFarEastand one in the
West.Regardlessofcountry individualistic
origin, ratherthancollectivistic
orientation
predictedtwoforms ofnetworking behaviors- one targeting (vertical
professors
networkingbehavior)and anothertargeting fellowstudents (horizontal
networking
Bothnetworking
behavior). behaviorshad a positiveimpacton gradeperformance. In
meandifferences
addition, in verticaland horizontalnetworking weredetectedamong
thethreecountries.
Pedagogicalimplications are discussedin lightoftheresults.

Todaymanagement education is a globalphenom- Networking is theage-oldpracticeofestablish-

enon,partly duetothegrowth ininternational busi- ingeffectiverelationships withkeypeople- both
ness,theincreaseinpeopleworking andstudying in inside and outside the organization(Luthans,
geographically morediversesettings, and thesub- - who have the potentialto assist in one's
1988)
sequentdevelopment ofgloballyoriented academic workorcareer(Forrett & Dougherty, 2001).Network-
programs, faculty,andcurricula (Pierce, 1999;Webb, ingbehaviorsinvolvethebuildingand nurturing
Mayer, Pioche,& Allen,1999).Notwithstanding, the ofpersonaland professional linkstocreatea sys-
roleofculture inpedagogy has notbeenadequately tem of information, contacts,and support.Re-
considered,particularly in many Westernap- searchershavedemonstrated thatsuccessfulman-
to
proaches management education (Adler,Doktor, & agers spend more of their time networking than
1986;
Redding, Bailey, Chen, & Dou, 1997).Given its averagemanagers, and that thismay be themost
implications formanaging theincreasingly complex important contributor to theirsuccess (Luthans,
of
learningdynamics culturally diversestudents, Thisinsight
1988). can be tracedtoclassicpolitical
thisis an important issue.Although a substantial thought and is also attributable to the factthat
amount addressesintraclassroom
ofliterature learn- networking behaviors can facilitate
learningand
ingneeds, little
research addressing culturalimpli- knowledge acquisition(Leeman& Why mark,2001;
cationsof extraclassroom behaviorssuch as stu- Sonnenberg, 1990).Successfulmanagersactively
dents1peer- and professor-oriented networking network witha wide varietyofpeopleto getthe
activitieshas been done.In ourstudywe seek to informationtheyneed,including tar-
horizontally
addresssomeoftheseconcerns, specificallythere- getedactions(e.g.,withpeers)and vertically tar-
lationshipbetween students'culture,networking be- getedactions(e.g.,withtheboss;Kotter, 1982).Net-
havior,andtheirgradeperformance. working amongmanagersis also relatedto the
139
HO AcademyofManagementLearningand Education June

trendof taking more personal responsibilityfor at gettinginformation fromthe professor,includ-

performanceachievement,continuous learning,
and career development(Poell, Chivers,Van der
Krogt,& Wildemeersch,2000). As a result,self-
initiatednetworkingbehaviors have become an
importantavenue to meet a variety of needs
(Arthur, Inkson,& Pringle,1999;Ibarra,1993).
Althoughresearchershave highlightedthe ex-
pandingrole ofnetworking in thebusiness world,
it is equally importantin the learning environ-
ment,such as in universities,which are them-
selves overlappingsystemsof individuals inter-
acting within a shared academic context.For
example,in selectingand completingcourses,stu-
dents are largely responsible for navigating
throughthisenvironment. To do this,theyinteract
with theirprofessorsand classmates througha
varietyof channels forinformation to meet their
needs. Students'formallearningthroughclass lec-
turesand activitiescan be contrastedwithlearn-
ingthatoccursbyway ofnetworking, whichis less
formaland includes hallway and libraryconver-
sations, study groups, and outside interactions
withprofessors(Poell et al., 2000).
In thisstudy,we examine two primarypatterns
of students'learning-oriented networkingbehav-
iors. First,we consider networkingbehavior fo-
cused on gettinginformation fromotherstudents.
This includesmeetingclassmates outsideofclass
to discuss unclear answers,confusingquestions,
and otherareas ofstudentdifficulties. The second
pattern we examine is networking behavior aimed
ing checking views with the professoroutside of
class, privatelyseekingout the professorforsolu-
tions to questions, and taking time to meet the
professor.Because interpersonal behaviorsuch as
networking be
may strongly affectedbyculture(cf.,
Hofstede,1980;Triandis,1995),we also examine
possible culturalinfluencesand theirimpacton
learning performance.In summary,we initiated
thisstudyto address the followingresearchques-
tions:
1. How does culturepredictlearning-oriented
networkingbehaviors?
2. How do these learning-oriented
networking
behaviors
impactperformance?
MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
To address theseresearchquestions,we proposea
path model examiningrelationshipsamong ele-
mentsof culture,networkingbehaviors,and per-
formance(see Figure1).Withregardto culture,we
focus on individualism-collectivism(IC), given
thatithas been extensivelyresearchedand shown
to explain behavioral differencesin many areas
(cf.,Hofstede,1980;Triandis, 1995).We examine
how IC predictstwo formsof studentlearning-
orientednetworkingbehavior:(a) horizontal,stu-
dent-targetednetworking,and (b) vertical,pro-
fessor-targetednetworking.We thenconsiderthe
impact of these networking behaviorson student
grades.

STDALONE
y/B ^S^^

yyy^ 1 \ ^*^. nt
horizontal

GRPPREF
,S y( GRADE
V /X X^ jf

^^SS. / NT /
VERTICAL
^ 2

^cj INDIVTHK^^^^^^^

FIGURE 1
Hypothesized Hong Kong, Singapore, and U.S. NetworkLearning Model. STDALONE = Stand Alone;
WINALL = Win Above All; GRPPREF = Group Preference; SACRIF = Sacrifice; INDIVTHK = Individual
Thinking;HORIZONTAL NT = Horizontal Networking;VERTICAL NT = Vertical Networking;GRADE =
Previous Semester Grades.
2004 Hwang,Kesslei,andFrancesco 141

and StudentLearning
Individualism-Collectivism clinationto win in competitive situations. Group
collectivism is a keyconceptinthe Preference shows a preference to work with others
Individualism- in groups. Sacrifice recognizes that individuals
studyofculturaldifferences. Researchers in man-
have to make sacrificesin groupsitua-
personal
agement,education,and psychology have found
tions,and Individual reflects a need for
IC tobe usefulin explaininga widerangeofbe- Thinking
individual beliefs to be sublimated in groupsitu-
haviorsincluding thosethatcouldaffect personal ations.Thesefivedimensions were used totestfor
networking (cf.,Earley,1989;Greenfield, Raeff,& IC differences across the threecountriesin this
Quiroz,1996;Hofstede, 1980;Triandis,1995;Wag-
ner,1995). MarkusandKitayama(1991)arguedthat study.
Ournextquestionwas howa person'sIC orien-
an independent construalof self has generally tation
beenfoundinWestern cultures, suchas theUnited mightinfluencepersonalnetworking. An
important finding from Earley's (1989) work showed
States,wheresocietalnormspromotevalues of
autonomy, uniqueness,self-sufficiency, and self- that personswitha moreindividualistic orienta-
tion were more likely to engage in social loafing
actualization. Bycontrast, in non- Westernsociet- behaviorswhen
placed in interpersonal situations
ies,theinterdependent construal oftheselfis dom- in
a learningenvironment. A latercross-cultural
inant,and personalrelationships are morehighly
valued.Triandis'(1995)definitive worksuggests manceresults.Whilecollectivistsdistinctperfor-
study by Earley (1993) produced
worked better in
thatIC has fourimportant attributes: thatis, thosewheremembersshared
in-groups,
1. Definition ofselfvaries,withemphasis on in- similartraitsand background characteristics, in-
dependenceand personalaspects forindivid- dividualistsperformed betterwhen theywere
ualists versusinterdependence and groupas- workingalone. Further, collectivistssee them-
pects forcollectivists. selves as mosteffective when workingwithan
2. Goal priority varies such thatpersonal goals
are moreimportant forindividualists, whereas in-group as reflected in higher group-and self-
groupgoals take precedence forcollectivists. efficacy scores.This was in contrast toindividual-
3. Determinantsforsocial behavior vary such ists who had higherself-efficacy expectations
thatindividualisticbehavioris dominatedby whentheywere workingalone. These findings
self-focusedattitudes,personal rights,and
contracts,whereas collectivisticbehavior is
supportOlson's(1971)and Wagner's(1995)argu-
ment thatindividualists' self-interest motivation
guided by norms,obligations,and duties.
4. The natureof relationshipsvaries such that made themless cooperativein interactive work.
individualists rationally consider the ex- Theresultsofthesestudiessuggestthatcollectiv-
change, whereas collectivistsemphasize the ists ratherthanindividualists are morelikelyto
communalityof the relationship,even when findnetworking usefulin informal student groups
thisrepresentsa disadvantage.
wherelearningand gradesare unifying goals.In
Apartfromtheimportant worksofMarkusand fact,within thelearning environment, Earley(1994)
Kitayama(1991),and Triandis(1995),a rangeof foundthatindividualists' self-efficacy and perfor-
perspectives on bothconceptualizations and mea- manceweremoreinfluenced by self-focused train-
-
suresof IC exists a reflection of IC's complex ingwhereascollectivists' and
self-efficacy perfor-
nature(cf.,Hui,1988;Triandis, 1995;Wagner,1995). mance were more affectedby interpersonally
Forexample,whileresearchers suchas Triandis focusedtraining. Apartfromperformance differ-
(1995)and Chen,Yu, and Miner(1997)advocate al.
ences,Baileyet (1997)argued that collectivists,
verticaland horizontal IC orientations, thereare possiblyas a resultoftheirinterdependent viewof
others,such as Wagner(1995)and Earley(1993) self, preferred failure feedback, that is, they
whohavenotadoptedthisperspective becausethe wantedto knowabout theirmistakesforgroup
addedhorizontal and verticaldimensions seemto improvement, whereasindividualists, in contrast,
be verysimilartoHofstede's (1980)powerdistance weremore interested in success feedback, possi-
dimension. In ordertorevealpossibleunderlying blyreflecting a desireto enhancepersonalrepu-
IC dimensions acrossa widerangeofdifferent IC tationand self-image.
conceptualizations, Wagner(1995)developed a IC has also beena subjectofdiscussionforthose
composite measureon whichhe conducted an ex- inelementary and secondary education. Intheed-
ploratory factor analysistoproducethreeindivid- ucationsystems ofindividualist societies, children
ualisticfactors, StandAlone,WinAboveAll,and are handledon an individualbasis, whereasin
Individual Thinking, and twocollectivistic factors, collectivist societies,teachersdeal withchildren
GroupPreference and Sacrifice.StandAlonefo- ona groupbasis (Hofstede, 2001).Sometimes these
cuses on individualindependenceand self-reli- twoorientations mayconflict. For example,one
ance.WinAboveAllreflects an all-consuming in- studyshowedHispanicstudentsin the United
142 AcademyofManagementLearningand Education June

Statesformed groupswithintheclassroomforso- sideofclass inlearning-oriented interactions. The

cial interaction rather thanworkon thetask,even moresuccessfulstudents (here,ofChineseorigin)
though this was against theirteacher'swishes wouldgettogether in theeveningstogo overthe
(Greenfield et aL, 1996).Although the(individual-
homework, checkeach other'sanswers,and learn
istic)teacherconsideredthesocial interaction as
from eachother. Theless successful students (here,
problematic or even as a form of on
cheating per- non-Asian) would work alone and spend littletime
sonalassignments, the(collectivistic)
students did
and effort networking with theirpeers outside of
notviewit thisway,butin factconsideredsuch class.
social interactions as an important and expected Thefunctionality ofstudents' networking behav-
way tobehave. ioris also consistent withlearningnetwork theory
Takentogether, thebodyof researchsuggests (LNT).According toLNT(Poelletal.,2000), network-
thatIC orientation does havean important impact
ing represents liberallearning-oriented behavior
onbehavior, and thatthisalso shouldbe truewith insofaras individualscreatetheir own sets of
studentnetworking behaviors.Based on thisevi-learningactivitiesand self-directed learningpro-
dence,we predictthatcollectivists' traitsofinter-
grams.Thisnetworking can taketheform ofhori-
dependent orientation and view of self, zontallearning
preference engagements, through interactions
forinterpersonal situations, andpropensity formu-
amongpeersthatoccurinformally outsideofclass,
tually beneficial interaction are more consistent
orverticalnetworking engagements through inter-
withnetworking behaviorthanthoseoftheirindi- actionswiththoseat different hierarchical levels
vidualistcounterparts. Ourargument is also sup-
(e.g.,professor,tutor,teachingassistant)again for
portedby research that
indicating networking re-
thepurposeofobtainingknowledge. Networking
lationships are facilitated byengagement openin mayalso benefitlearninginsofaras face-to-face
conversation, a goal ofcollaboration, and beliefs
interactions createrichinformation channels(Daft
thatgivingwillbegetreceiving and notloss (Lee-
& Lengel,1984)thatfacilitate informal butimpor-
man& Why mark, 2001) - activitiesthatare all con-
tanthigherorderlearningof complex,abstract,
sistentwitha collectivistic orientation. Thus,we
and experience-driven information. Suchlearning
suggest that: may not take place if students relyonlyon the
Hypothesis 1: Collectivism will be positivelyre-
textbook withina large class environment. Stu-
lated to studentnetworking behav-
dentswhoinitiatenetworking engagements may
ior. consequently have an advantageovernonpartici-
pants.
StudentLearningNetworksand Grade All in all, we see student-initiated networking
Performance behaviors targeting bothfellowstudents and pro-
fessorsas vehiclesforgaininguniqueinformation
Wehavearguedthatnetworking behavior, bycre- and knowledge, thepotentialfor
of and thereby offering
atingsystems information, contacts, sup- gradeperformance advantages. Thus we makethe
port,is relatedto learning(Leeman& Whymark, following prediction:
2001;Sonnenberg, 1990)and work-related success
Hypothesis 2: Students' networking behaviorstar-
(Luthans, 1988).We also believea relationship be- bothotherstudents and their
tweennetworking and successexistsin theedu- geting
professors willbe positively related
cationalcontext. Forexample,becausea person's totheirgradeperformance.
access to the "rightpeople" helps him or her
achieve important goals (Brass, 1984),student
learning-related networking activities
suchas get-
tingtogether with other studentsoutside ofclass METHODOLOGY
(vs.studying alone) and activelyinteractingwith
members Subjects
faculty (Light,2001)shouldalso helpob-
tain the desiredinformation. The importance of The sampleforthestudycame fromthreecoun-
student is
networkinggermane tothe learningen- tries:theUnitedStates(n = 253),HongKong(n =
vironment because class time is a limitedre- 266),and Singapore(n = 131).Alltherespondents
and
source, consequently, students can benefitby were undergraduate business studentswithan
pursuing elaboration oncoursematerial outsideof age range between 18 and 44years.Themeanage
class. In supportof this thesis,Treisman(1992) was 20.8years,witha standarddeviationof2.87
foundthata differentiating factorbetweenhigh- years.Bothmode and medianages were at 20
versuslow-performing studentsina collegecalcu- years.Close to63%oftheparticipants inthesam-
lus class was thetimetheyspentwithpeersout- ple werefemale.
2004 Hwang,Kesslei,and Francesco 143

Measures adequate fortherecommended rangeofat least

five to ten times the number of respondents for
Scales from Wagner's(1995)fivefactors wereused
item in the structural models (Bentler&
tomeasureIC. Cronbachalpha coefficients forthe every
Chou, 1987). Consequently, we tested the hypothe-
fivemeasuresacross the international sample sized relationships using Lisrel path models
werebetween0.77and 0.84.Twomeasures,hori- traditional
behaviors(extentthatstudents through variables that were composed
zontalnetworking from the factors &
otherstudents outsideofclass) and verti- checkon the (Joreskorg Sorbom, 1989). As a
targeted reliability of the variables
cal networking behaviors(extent thatstudents tar- composed
forpath models, we performed Cronbachalpha
getedprofessors outsideof class), adoptedfrom The
reliability tests. variables had acceptableco-
Hwang,Ang,and Francesco(2002),had reliabili- efficients with most variables in the .80sand .90s,
tiesof.92and 89,respectively. TheIC, horizontal
along with a few at more moderate .72 and above
networking, and verticalnetworking scales were levels.
all anchoredon a 7-pointscale, rangingfrom
Additionally, althoughthe effectsof common
strongly agreetostrongly disagree. method variance are less prevalentthan often
Grade performance was measuredby asking & Wagner,1994;Forrett&
students tolisttheirclassesandgradesintheprior thought(Crampton
2001), followedPodsakoff
we and Or-
semester. Gradesfrom thethreedifferent grading Dougherty, and conducted checks forpo-
werethennormalized Because gan (1986) multiple
systems bycountry. tential common method variance problems:
studentswere enrolledin different numbersof
courses,we used the fourhighestnormalized 1. Performing unrotated factoranalysistocheck
gradescoresofeach studentas indicators ofper- whether theresultsbreakintomultiple factors
formance. Choosingmorecourseswouldhavedra- as was hypothesized.
2. Performing scale-trimming analysisby pre-
maticallyreducedthesamplesize. Thisnormal-
ized grade measurehad a reliability of .92.All sentingtwolistsnotidentified by construct
labels(oneofthedependent andanother ofthe
scale items,individualconstruct reliability coeffi- independent variables)toneutralparties, and
cients,andfactor loadingsaregiveninTable 1.All askingthemifany itemon thefirstlisthad
questionnaires were written in English,as this essentially thesamemeaningas anyitemon
was themediumofinstruction in all theuniversi- thesecondlist.
tieswheresubjectswereenrolled. Also,all partic- Iftheresultsbreakintofactors close towhatwas
ipants in the three universitieshad beenwellim- predicted a priori, and theneutralpartiesdo not
mersedin theEnglishlanguagemediumin grade perceiveduplication acrossthelists,we concluded
schools,and had eithercompletedthe U.S. SAT thattherewas nota seriouscommon method vari-
testsorthelocal equivalentoftheBritish General ance problemin the data. No commonvariance
Certificate of Education(AdvancedLevel)in En- problems wereidentified byeithertest.
glishbefore entry intouniversity. Thus,we decided
thattranslation intootherlanguageswas notnec-
essary for this study. RESULTS
The firstanalyticalstep,an exploratory factor
analysis of the IC scales across the three countries,
Analyses revealeda five-factor structure thatwas similarto
Because cross-cultural researchers have argued thatin Wagner's study(see Table 1).Thetotal
1995
of
thattheIC orientation people can vary even variance explainedbythesefivefactors was 54.8%.
withina single culture (Triandis,1995), our first These five factors were IC1 Stand Alone (Stdalone),
stepwas tocarry outan exploratory factoranalysis IC2 WinAboveAll(Winall),IC3 GroupPreference
to determine the replicability of Wagner's(1995) (Grppref), IC4 Sacrifice (Sacrif), and IC5 Individual
factor structure. The next majorstep was to simul- Thinking(Indivthk). The two networking factors
taneously testthe stated for
hypotheses significant were also stable, and togethertheyexplained
variationsacrosscountries. Although theoverall 72.2%ofthevariance.Theexploratory factor anal-
sampleof650cases was adequate to testhypoth- ysis results are shown in Table 1.Means and stan-
esized relationships among the eight constructs dard deviations of the variables appear in Table 2.
based upon 32 responseitems(response-to-item The next step was to develop models that simul-
ratioof20),thenumberofcases at theindividual taneouslytestedthehypotheses in each country
country level was too low to permitthis.The re- and across countries. We used Lisrel pathmodels
sponse-to-item ratiosof7.5forHongKong,6.2for that were built upon traditional variables. Wethen
theUnitedStates,and 3.6forSingaporewerenot tested the hypothesized relationships in the Lisrel
144 Academy of Management Learning and Education June

TABLE1
FactorLoadings ofVariables
IC Factors (n = 630; r2 = 0.548) Individualism-Collectivism Factor Loadings

StandAlone(alpha = 0.79) 12 3 4 5
11. Onlythosewho depend on themselvesget ahead in life .15 .04 .67 .01 .07
12.To be superiora personmuststandalone .25 -.06 .61 -.08 .11
13.Ifyouwantsomethingdone right,you'vegotto do it yourself .17 .11 .65 -.05 .03
14.Whathappens to me is myown doing .08 .11 .58 -.04 -.08
15. In thelongrun,theonlypersonyou can counton is yourself .20 .07 .69 -.12 .03
WinAboveAll (alpha = .83)
16.Winningis everything .75 -.04 .28 -.07 .02
17. I feelthatwinningis important in bothworkand games .69 .05 .14 -.07 -.05
18. Success is themostimportant thingin life .64 .03 .21 -.01 .09
19.It annoysme whenotherpeople perform betterthanI do .62 -.04 .12 -.06 .12
110.Doingyourbest isn'tenough;it is important to win .76 .02 .13 -.05 .09
GroupPreference (alpha = .84)
111.I preferto workwithothersin a groupratherthanworkingalone -.03 .01 -.05 .86 .10
112.Giventhechoice,I wouldratherdo a job whereI can work -.14 -.12 -.10 .70 -.10
alone ratherthandoinga job whereI have to workwithothers
in a group(reverse-scored)
113.Workingwitha groupis betterthanworkingalone -.05 .09 -.09 .86 .08
Sacrificein Group(alpha = .83)
114.People shouldbe made aware thatiftheyare goingto be partof .02 .70 .04 -.06 -.04
a group,thentheyare sometimesgoingto have to do things
theydon'twantto do
115.People who belongto a groupshouldrealize thatthey'renot .03 .78 .06 -.03 -.08
always goingto get whattheypersonallywant
116.People in a groupshouldrealize thattheysometimesare going -.06 .86 .10 .01 -.13
to have to make sacrificesforthesake ofthegroupas a whole
117.People in a groupshouldbe willingto make sacrificesforthe .02 .68 .07 .05 -.10
sake ofthegroup'swell-being
IndividualThinking(alpha = .77)
118.A groupis moreproductivewhenits membersdo whatthey .03 -.08 .06 .01 .77
want to do rather than what the group wants them to do
119. A group is most efficientwhen its members do what they think .07 -.08 .04 .00 .71
is best rather than doing what the group wants them to do
120. A group is more productive when its members follow their own .13 -.16 .00 .06 .67
interests
andconcerns

NetworkFactors (n = 644; r2 = .72.2) NetworkFactor Loadings

HorizontalNetworking Behavior(alpha = .92) 1 2

Nl. I meetmyclassmates afterclass to checkon unclearanswers .84 .11
N2. I meetmyclassmates afterclass to checkon answersto .84 .11
questionstheinstructor did notansweradequately
N3. I meetmyclassmates afterclass to checkon answersto .92 .13
confusingquestions
N4. I meetmyclassmatesafterclass to discuss areas I do not .82 .21
understand
VerticalNetworking Behavior(alpha = .89)
N5. I checkmyviews withmyinstructor afterclass .12 .72
N6. I privatelyseek out myinstructor forsolutionsto questions .15 .83
N7. I raise questionswithmyinstructor afterclass .18 .85
N8. I take timeto meetmyinstructor afterclass .07 .88

NormalizedBestGrades (n = 566;r2= .75;alpha = .92) NormalizedGrade FactorLoadings

51. Top BestGrade .76

52. Second BestGrade .88
53. ThirdBestGrade .94
54. FourthBestGrade .87

Nofe.Maximumlikelihoodextraction
and varimaxrotation.
2004 Hwang,Kesslei,and Francesco 145

TABLE2
Means and StandardDeviationsofVariables
Mean (HK) Mean (Sg) Mean (U.S.)
Variables (n = 266) (n = 131) (n = 250) SD (HK) SD (Sg) SD (U.S.)

STDALONE 4.49 4.20 4.50 1.05 1.29 1.31

WINALL 4.00 3.06 3.93 1.14 1.11 1.40
GRPPREF 3.97 4.64 4.10 1.19 1.30 1.39
SACRIF 5.32 5.79 5.51 0.69 0.71 1.01
INDIVTHK 3.80 3.08 3.03 1.23 1.15 1.33
HORIZONTAL NETWORKING BEHAVIOR 3.48 3.25 2.83 1.16 1.06 1.29
VERTICAL NETWORKING BEHAVIOR 2.76 2.36 2.76 1.10 0.88 1.29
NORMGRD (0.01) (0.02) (0.06) 0.92 0.89 0.95

path modelacross the threecountriesusing a Thedirection oftheserelationships rancounter to

stackedmodel approach(Joreskorg & Sorbom,
1989).Age and genderwerecontrolled forin the
stackedmodel.Theresults(Figure2) showedthat
theoverallmodelfitthethreecountries well and
did notvarysignificantly acrosscountries (GFI =
.91;NFI = .92;CFI = .94;Chi-Square(df 88) =
= Although Lisrelfitindicesindicatedno signifi-
p < 0.01).
281.27,
Resultsindicatedthatall fiveIC variableswere
significantlyrelatedto each otherin themodel
although varyingdegrees. The correlations
in
amongIC variableswerenotsurprising, as all of
themmeasuredsomeaspectoftheindividualism-
collectivismdimension. The resulting phi coeffi-
cientsranged from.13 betweenStdalone and
Winallto .74 betweenGrppref and Indivthk. Al-
though all were related to each other, only
Stdalonepredicted thenetworking variables,hor-
izontalnetworking (HorizontalNt;gamma = .68)
andvertical networking(VerticalNt;gamma= .75).
theprediction ofHypothesis 1. Second,bothhori-
zontalnetworking behavior(beta= .32)and verti-
cal networking behavior(beta = .54) predicted
gradeperformance. Allresultsweresignificantat
thet > 1.96leveland support Hypothesis 2.
cantoverallmodelrelationship differences
across
thethreecountries in thestackedmodel,we were
nevertheless curiouswhethermeanvalue differ-
encesexistedacrosscountries forthetwonetwork
variables.Such differences couldindicatefuture
researchdirections and possiblyshedlighton the
meaning of informal networks ineach country.We
thereforedid a one-wayANOVAteston thetwo
network variableswithsubsequentposthoctests
ofbetweencountry differences(see Tables3Aand
3B).Although scoreson thenetworking variables
werenothighinanycountry (ranging between 2.36
and3.48),theposthocANOVAtestresultsdidshow

yyj STDALONE>^^ 6Q

^// r-13 \ ^"^^ NT .

HORIZONTAL

/f(l\ J[ WINALL
I \ \ .32

GRPPREF \ GRADE
V /X'57/^

SACRIF V / .54
NCX^^I 1
\SSs/^ 71 *
I VERTICALNT
^« INDIVTHK

FIGURE2
HongKong,Singapore,and U.S. NetworkLearningModel. Goodness ofFit Index = 0.91;NormedFit
Index = .92;Chi-Square (88 df)= 281.27,(p < 0.01).All bolded lines t > 1.96(Tau-Equivalence
Stacked Model).
146 Academy of Management Learning and Education June

TABLE3A
Post Hoc ComparisonofNetworkMeans by Country
95% Confidence
Interval
Mean
Difference Std. Lower Upper
Dependent Variable (I) Location (J)Location (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound

HORIZONTAL NETWORKING BEHAVIOR Hong Kong Singapore 0.23 0.13 0.17 -0.07 0.53
Hong Kong U.S. 0.65 0.11 0.00 0.40 0.90
Singapore U.S. 0.42 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.72
VERTICAL NETWORKING BEHAVIOR Hong Kong Singapore 0.40 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.69
Hong Kong U.S. 0.00 0.10 1.00 -0.23 0.24
Singapore U.S. -0.40 0.12 0.00 -0.69 -0.11

TABLE3B
Post Hoc ComparisonofNetworkMeans WithinCountry
95% Confidence
Interval
Mean
Difference Lower Upper
Country (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Bound Bound

HORIZONTAL NETWORKING VERTICAL NETWORKING (I-J) Std. Error t value df Sig (2-tailed)
BEHAVIOR (I) BEHAVIOR (J)
Hong Kong (n = 266) 3.48 2.76 .72 .08 8.64 265 0.00
Singapore (n = 131) 3.25 2.36 .89 .12 7.39 130 0.00
U.S. (n = 249) 2.83 2.76 .07 .09 .77 248 .443

somesignificant differences.
First,horizontal net-
predictor of bothtypesof networking behaviors.
working behavior intheU.S.sample (M = was
2.36) Theseresultsindicatedthatpeoplewhovaluethis
significantlylower(F (2,643)= 19.37)thanin Sin-aspectofindividualism moreoftenseek outoth-
gapore(M = 3.25)orHongKong(M = 3.48).On the -
ers bothprofessors and students- forinforma-
otherhand,an examination ofverticalnetworkingtion.
behaviorshowedthattheSingaporesample(M = Although we had hypothesized thatcollectivism
2.36)was significantlylower(F (2,643)= 6.43)than
ratherthanindividualism wouldbe positively re-
HongKong(M 2.76)or theUnitedStates(M =
= lated to networking, the contrary resultsfound
2.76).Anotheranalysisofdifferences innetworkingheremakesense ifwe considerthedeepermean-
behaviorswithin thecountryshowedthathorizon- - one
factor
talnetworking behaviorsweresignificantly ingoftheStandAloneindividualism
higher
thathas factoritemsreflecting a sense of self-
thanverticalnetworking behaviorsin Singapore thathas beenshowntopow-
reliance,a dimension
(MeanDiff= .88;t > 7.39)and HongKong(Mean
Diff= .71;t > 8.65).Therewas no significant erfully
dif- shape theself-concept(Baileyet al., 1997).
ferencebetweenthese two typesof networking In particular,itemstatements suchas "Tobe su-
behaviorsin theUnitedStates. periora personmuststandalone"and "Whathap-
pens to me is myown doing"indicatethisself-
reliance focus in Stand Alone, and this is
DISCUSSION AND PEDAGOGICAL consistent withTriandis'(2002)viewthatindividu-
RECOMMENDATIONS alistsarepronetobe moreself-reliant thancollec-
The stabilityof the fiveIC and twonetworking tivists. Thisselfreliance,whichmapscloselywith
factors
acrossthethreecountries, with
together the a high internal couldbe thereason
locusofcontrol,
lack ofcountry differencesin theoverallmodel, fortherelationship betweenStandAloneand net-
indicatedsomedegreeofacross-country congru- workingbecause highlyindividualistic people
ence in the way IC was influencing networking have to depend onthemselvesrather than others to
behaviorsand gradeperformance. Unexpectedly, network fortheirown informationalneeds. Results
theStandAlonedimension ofIC was theonlyclear from thisstudyshowthatnetworking is important,
2004 Hwang,Kesslei,and Francesco
butindividualists,particularlythosewho are self-
reliant,are morelikelyto take advantage ofit.
When we examined the networkingmeans
across countries,U.S. studentsweremorereluctant
to networkwithpeers comparedto theircounter-
parts in Singapore and Hong Kong. In addition,
participantsin bothAsian samples preferred hor-
izontal networkingto vertical networking,and
theirhorizontalnetworkingmeans were signifi-
cantlyhigherthanthoseofparticipantsin theU.S.
sample. These resultsare interesting and, to some
extent,may reveal a possible power distance in-
fluence(Hofstede,1980)in networking because ver-
ticalnetworking activitiesrequire degreeofcom-
a to
fortin interactingwith those higher up while
horizontalnetworking activitiesdo nothave sucha
requirement. The resultsmay also offersome in-
direct support for our Hypothesis 1 insofar as
students in traditionallycollectivisticsocieties
(Hofstede,1980;Trompenaars,1993)showeda com-
parativelygreaterpreferenceforhorizontalnet-
workingbehaviors.It is important to note,though,
thatthis studydid not replicatethe IC value dif-
ferencesbetween traditionallycollectivisticsoci-
eties of Hong Kong and Singapore and the tradi-
tionally individualisticUnited States (Table 2).
However,this disparityis consistentwiththe no-
tionthatthe IC dimensionis morecomplexthan
originallyconceived (Wagner, 1995) and agrees
withrecentresearch showingthat traditionalIC
values may be changingQavidan & House, 2001),
perhapsdue to exportofWesternvalues in educa-
tionand media.
A further examinationof Table 2 indicates that
both networkingvariables had relatively low
mean values across countries(between 2.36 and
3.48 on a 7-pointscale). This was disconcerting
because learning-oriented networkingbehaviors
were foundto be functional.However,it was not
entirelysurprisingin thateducationalresearchers
have alreadyraised "fearofembarrassment" as an
importantissue, even forstudentsseeking infor-
mation in a learning environment(Fassinger,
1995).This fearof embarrassmentwas also found
in themanagementresearchliterature where"per-
sonal considerations,"such as impressionman-
agementand politicalissues, have been shownto
negativelyinfluencethe pure feedback-seeking
process to achieve performancegoals (Leary &
Kowalski,1990).
Bothnetworkingvariables positivelypredicted
grade performance, withverticalnetworkingbe-
havior a strongerpredictorthan horizontalnet-
workingbehavior.This suggests thatnetworking
withfellowstudentsand professorswas beneficial
in the managementeducation context,although
147
networkingwith professorsmay have a slight
edge. The strongerverticalnetworkingto grade
performancemay reflectthe moreaccurate infor-
mation that a professorcould give to students,
whichin turnleads to bettergrades. Overall,the
results showed both horizontaland verticalnet-
workingactivitiesto be beneficialto students,and
where resources permit, differentnetworking
channelsshouldbe used tomaximizelearningout-
comes. Having diverse networktargets(e.g.,both
studentsand professors)are potentiallymoreben-
eficial because they provide access to a wider
range of information (Baker,2000) and are more
likely yield suitable exchange partners(Hart,
1996;Rangan,2000).It mightalso be the case that
the functionality of networkingforlearning out-
comes generalizesto othertypesoforganizational
contextsand participants, and thistoocan be pur-
sued in futureempiricalstudies.
The overall applicability of the networking
model in all threecountriesindicates that both
horizontaland verticalnetworking behaviorshad
consistentimpacton learning outcomes. Thus,net-
workingcan help to achieve learningperformance
across different culturalenvironments. As such,
the studyrepresentsan extensionofLight's(2001)
research,which focused only on Americansam-
ples. One of the most importantpedagogical im-
plicationsfromthisstudyis thatstudentself-initi-
ated learning-oriented networking is a good thing,
at least to the extentthathighergrades are pre-
ferredto lower ones. The results also raise the
importantquestion of how academic institutions
shouldfacilitatelearning-oriented networking, as-
sumingthatdeveloping and leveraging sets ofre-
lationships is a skill or competency that can be
et
built and encouraged (Arthur al., 1999). This
challenge is especially importantgiven the com-
binationofthe (a), relativelylow frequencyofnet-
workingbehaviorobserved in this studyand (b),
significantpositive relationships between net-
workingand performance.
First and foremost,educational institutions
could providea supportiveinfrastructure in which
networking activities can take place. This might
requireallocating commonroomsor otherplaces
forstudentsto meetand conductinformaldiscus-
sions or networking. Instead ofasking studentsto
use thelibrarywheretheyare expectedtobe quiet,
alternativessuch as seats along corridorsand out-
doorareas could be providedso thatmanydiffer-
ent locations would be available forstudentsto
congregate for informalnetworkingactivities.
Space can be designatedforstudentuse whenitis
not used forformalclasses. This will allow stu-
dentsaccess to areas forengagementwithsimilar
148 AcademyofManagementLearningand Education
others.Some othercreativeways toencouragestu-
dent-to-student networkinginclude coordinating
thecoursesofstudentsresidingin thesame dorms
or schedulinglarge classes just beforemealtime
because classmates oftencontinuethe discussion
ofthecourseissues in these social settings(Light,
2001).
Professorscan also facilitatestudent-targeted
networking byencouragingstudentstoparticipate
in these learningactivities(Forrett& Dougherty,
2001).Forinstance,professorscan help studentsto
deal withissues thatmay inhibitnetworkpartici-
pation such as lack of self-esteemor confidence,
difficultyin asking others for help, wanting to
reach goals withouthelp fromothers,concerns
about reciprocityobligations,or concernsabout
sharinginformation (Hwanget al., 2002).Professors
may address these issues bydevelopingan appro-
priate mind-set and positivecooperativeorienta-
tionand by focusingon appropriateskill-building
seminarsand workshops.Additionally, given that
networking behaviors are facilitated by open-
space design,use ofteams and participatory pro-
cesses (Baker,2000),professorscan significantly
improverelated learningby "openingup" class-
roomlayouts(e.g.,by using nontraditional
seating
arrangements)and assigning or encouragingstu-
dents to forminteractiveoutside-of-classgroups
(Light,2001).
Facilitatingstudents'networking withtheirpro-
fessorsposes a different - (e.g.,via enhancinginternallocusofcontrol
challenge the demand
on professors'time.This is because the time re-
quiredto meetstudent'slearningneeds outsideof
class may come at the expense of otherduties,
especially research.Ratherthan consideringjust
this time aspect, perhaps we should look to the
professor'sattitude.A willingnesstomeetstudents
informally and engage in networkingbehaviors
would facilitatethe learningprocess.If that"pro-
student"learningattitudewerepresent,professors
mightalso findothercreative ways to increase
theiravailability,say by eating lunch in the stu-
dent union.Such an attitudetowardlearningac-
tivitiesshouldbe encouragedand givendue insti-
tutionalrecognitionso thatefforts to networkare
notimpededby school or professionalnorms.
An additional means forimprovingnetworking
activitiesmaybe throughdistance-learning mech-
anisms, particularlyfor individualists(Anakwe,
Kessler,& Christensen,1999).For example, elec-
tronicmail and blackboards, virtual discussion
rooms,and similarcommunicationsystemscould
be adopted into professors'pedagogical toolkits
to expand theirout-of-classroles. Withthe move
toward greater learning flexibility,professors
should be encouragedto become moreaccessible
June
throughthese technologicalmeans. Anotherinter-
estingfindingofour studywas the important role
of underlyingself-reliantcharacteristicsin the
Stand Alone variable thatinfluencednetworking
behaviors.These characteristics weretheunderly-
ing source of influence to seek out both fellow
studentsand professorsas information resources
forlearningand ultimatelygrade performance. It
seems thatstudentswithStand Alone values saw
othersas important sourcesofinformation forself-
enhancementand were more likelyto tap these
sources to increase their grade performance.
In lightof this findingand consideringthe peda-
gogical implicationsof the Stand Alone aspect of
individualism,we suggesta fewways thateduca-
tional institutionsand professorscould incorpo-
rate this importantorientationinto the learning
environment:
1. Schoolscouldaddressthisvalueat itssource
as a recruiting toolbyemphasizing personal
initiativeand networking skillsinadmissions
criteria,and laterby sponsoring university-
leveltraining oneffectivenetworking,perhaps
through previously discussedprofessorinter-
ventions in classes and workshops.
2. Institutionscouldalso encourage
departments
and professorsto incorporate course-level
training on networking, perhapsthrough ded-
icatedmodulesand assignments.
3. Complementary approachescouldaddressis-
sues such as developingpersonalinitiative
and self-esteem beliefs),buildinginterper-
sonal skillssuchas communication and con-
flict
resolution,expanding train-
cross-cultural
ing, and making studentsaware of the
informal networking andavailablere-
benefits
sources.
Althoughour findingshere are interestingand
consistentwithpreviousresearch,it is important
to note theirlimitations.Specifically,because the
sample was drawnfromthreesets ofundergradu-
ate students,each fromonlyone university in one
country, it is possible that the participantswere
not representativeof studentsin theirrespective
countriesor of studentsin general. Also, the per-
formancemeasures obtained here,that is, previ-
ous semestergrades, were based on self-reports
with the possibilitythat studentsdid not report
theiractual grades accurately,eitherintentionally
or unintentionally. We normalizedthe grades of
thethreeinstitutions forthe sake ofcomparability
across countries.However,it is possible thatthe
assumed normaldistributions did not in factrep-
resenttheactual performance level ofthestudents
in our samples. Additionally,there were many
variables not measured here thatmightalso im-
pact networkingand grade performance(e.g.,
2004 Hwang,Kesslei,and Francesco
power distance, total hours studied, aspiration
level,prioracademic performance). Based on these
limitations, futureresearch could perhaps make
use of different
approaches performancemea-
to
surementso that the problem of possible non-
equivalentdata couldbe avoided.Anothersugges-
tionis to expand the model to controlor formally
testotherrelationshipsand interactions.
In all, ourcontribution
here has been to provide
initialevidenceofsome underlyingculturalinflu-
ences on studentnetworkingbehavior and their
consequent impact on learning outcomes. Our
findingssuggestthateducatorsand trainersneed
to consider differentnetworkingstrategies arid
theirfacilitationto maximizethe learningoftheir
students.
REFERENCES
& Redding,G. S. 1986.FromtheAtlantic
Adler,N. J.,Doktor,R.#
to the Pacific century:Cross-culturalmanagementre-
viewed.JournalofManagement12:295-318.
E. W. 1999.Distance
Anakwe,U.,Kessler,E. H.,& Christensen,
learningand culturaldiversity:Potentialusers' perspec-
JournalofOrganizationalAnalysis,7(3):
tive.International
224-243.
M. B.,Inkson,K.,& Pringle,J.K. 1999.The new careers:
Arthur,
Individualactionand economicchange. London:Sage.
Bailey,J.R.,Chen,C. C, & Dou, S. G. 1997.Conceptionsofself
and performance-relatedfeedbackin the U.S., Japanand
China. Journalof InternationalBusinessStudies,28: 605-
625.
Baker,W. E. 2000.Achievingsuccess throughsocial capital:
Tappingthe hiddenresourcesin yourpersonaland busi-
ness networks, San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bentler,P. M., & Chou, C. 1987.Practicalissues in structural
modeling.SociologicalMethodsand Research,16:78-117.
Brass,D. J.1984.Beingin therightplace: A structural
analysis
of individualinfluencein an organization.Administrative
Science Quarterly,29: 518-539.
Chen,C. C, Yu,K. C, & Miner,J.B. 1997.Motivationtomanage:
A studyofwomenin Chinesestate-owned Jour-
enterprises.
nal ofAppliedBehavioralScience,33(2):160-173.
Crampton, inflation
S. M.,& Wagner,J.A. 1994.Percept-percept
in micro-organizationalresearch.Journalof Applied Psy-
chology,79: 67-76.
Daft,R. L, & Lengel,R. H. 1984.Informationrichness:A new
approachto managerialbehaviorand organizationalde-
sign. In L. L. Cummings& B. M. Staw (Eds.),Researchin
organizationalbehavior,(6: 191-233).Greenwich,CT: JAI
Press.
A comparison
Earley,P. C. 1989.Social loafingand collectivism:
of the UnitedStates and the People's Republicof China.
Administrative Science Quarterly,34: 565-581.
Earley,P. C. 1993.East meets West meets Mideast: Further
explorationsof collectivisticand individualisticwork
groups.AcademyofManagementJournal, 36: 319-348.
Earley,P. C. 1994.Selfor group?Culturaleffectsoftrainingon
149
self-efficacyand performance.AdministrativeScience
Quarterly,39: 89-117.
Fassinger,P. A. 1995.Understanding
classroominteraction:Stu-
dents' and professors'contributionto students'silence.
JournalofHigherEducation,66: 82-96.
M. L, & Dougherty,
Forrett, T. W. 2001.Correlatesofnetworking
behavior for managerial and professionalemployees.
Groupand OrganizationManagement,26(3):283-311.
Greenfield,P. M.,Raeff,C, & Quiroz,B. 1996.Culturalvalues in
learningand education.In B. Williams,(Ed.),Closingthe
achievementgap: A visionforchangingbeliefsand prac-
tices: 37-55.Alexandria,VA: AssociationforSupervision
and Curriculum Development.
Hart,R. 1996.Effective
networking forprofessionalsuccess:Mak-
ing themostofyourpersonalcontacts.Brussels,Belgium:
SterlingBooks.
Hofstede,G. 1980.Culture'sconsequences:International differ-
ences in work-related values. BeverlyHills,CA: Sage.
Hofstede,G. 2001.Culture'sconsequences:Comparingvalues,
behaviors,institutions, and organizationsacross nations,
(2ndEd.).ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
Hui, C. H. 1988.Measurementof individualism-collectivism.
JournalofResearchin Personality, 22(1):17-36.
Hwang,A.,Ang,S., & Francesco,A. M. 2002.The silentChinese:
The influenceof face and Kiasuism on studentfeedback
seekingbehaviors.Journal ofManagementEducation,26(1):
76-98.
Ibarra,H. 1993.Personalnetworksofwomenand minorities
in
management:A conceptualframework.AcademyofMan-
agementReview,18:56-87.
Javidan,M.,& House,R. J.2001.Culturalacumenfortheglobal
manager:Lessons fromprojectGLOBE.OrganizationalDy-
namics,Spring:289-305.
K. G., & Sorbom,D. 1989.Lisrel 7: A guide to the
Joreskorg,
programand applications(2ndEd.). Chicago,IL: SPSS Inc.
J.1982.Thegeneralmanager.New York:The FreePress.
Kotter,
Leary,M. R.,& Kowalski,R. M. 1990.Impressionmanagement:
A
literaturereviewand two-component model.Psychological
Bulletin,107:34-47.
forknowledgeand
Leeman,R.,& Whymark,J.2001.Networking
businessimprovement:A bumpyridefornetworking?
Man-
agementServices,45(8):14-17.
Light,R.J.2001.Makingthemostofcollege:Studentsspeak their
minds.Boston,MA:HarvardUniversity Press.
real managers.Acad-
Luthans,F. 1988.Successfulvs. effective
emyofManagementExecutive,2(2):127-132.
Markus,H. R.,& Kitayama,S. 1991.Cultureand theself:Impli-
cationsforcognition,emotion,and motivation.
Psychologi-
cal Review,98: 224-253.
Olson, M. 1971.The logic ofcollectiveaction.Cambridge,MA:
HarvardUniversity Press.
Pierce,J.A. 1999.Facultysurveyon business educationreform.
AcademyofManagementExecutive,13(2):105-109.
Podsakoff, P. M.,& Organ,D. W. 1986.Selfreportsin organiza-
tional research:Problemsand prospects.Journalof Man-
agement,12:531-544.
Poell,R. F.,Chivers,G. E.,Van derKrogt,F. J.,& Wildemeersch,
150 AcademyofManagementLearningand Education June

D. A. 2000.Learning-network
theory.ManagementLearn- In
Triandis,H. C. 2002.Genericindividualismand collectivism.
ing.31(1):25-49. M. J.Gannon,& K. L. Newman(Eds.),The Blackwellhand-
book of cross-culturalmanagement:16-45. Oxford,En-
Rangan, S. 2000.The problemof search and deliberationin
economic action: When social networksreally matter. gland: Blackwell.
AcademyofManagementReview,25(4):813-828. Trompenaars,F. 1993.Ridingthewaves ofculture:Understand-
F. K. 1990.The professional(and personal)profits
Sonnenberg, ing diversityin global business. London:The Economist
of networking.Trainingand DevelopmentJournal,44: Books.
55-60. Wagner,J.A., III. 1995.Studies of individualism-collectivism:
Treisman,U. 1992.Studyingstudentsstudyingcalculus: A look Effectson cooperationin groups.AcademyofManagement
at the lives of minority
mathematicsstudentsin college. Journal,38(1):152-172.
TheCollege Mathematics 23(5):362-372.
Journal, Webb,M. S., Mayer,K. R.,Pioche,V.,& Allen,L. C. 1999.Inter-
Triandis,H. C. 1995.Individualismand collectivism.Boulder, nationalizationofAmericanbusiness education.Manage-
CO: WestviewPress. mentInternational Review,39(4):379-397.

AlvinHwangis an associate professorat Pace University.

He receivedhis PhD fromUCLAand
has researchinterestsin humanresources,learningperformance, cross-cultural
differences,
competitivenessand leadership.He receivedthe2000AcademyofManagementBestPaper in
ManagementDevelopmentAwardand also 2000and 2003OutstandingReviewerAwards.
EricH. Kessler(PhD,RutgersUniversity) ofmanagementand director
is an associate professor
oftheLubinLeadersand ScholarsProgramat Pace University. His research,widelypublished
in leading managementand technologyjournals,focuseson decision makingin organiza-
tionsparticularlyas applied to innovation,learning,and emergingtechnology.
Anne Marie Francesco is a facultymemberin the Departmentof Management,School of
Business,HongKongBaptistUniversity.She has a PhD in industrial/organizational
psychol-
ogy fromThe Ohio State University.Her currentresearchinterestsinclude cross-cultural
managementand organizationalbehavior,lifebalance, and cultureand feedbackprocesses.