iIWUllllWlWNHWNHIHNWWIlltflHWllN

  

   

138
345
THS_

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INFORMATION SEEKING TACTICS
AND SENSE OF WORKPLACE COMMUNITY:
EVIDENCE FROM KOREAN WORKPLACES

presented by
Yong Jun Shin

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Communication-Urban Studies

Major Professor’s Signature

46%) // £53351

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

.—«-

 

UBRARY I
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

Ema

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6101 cJClRCJDatoompss-ms

 

 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INFORMATION SEEKING TACTICS AND
SENSE OF WORKPLACE COMMUNITY:
EVIDENCE FROM KOREAN WORKPLACES

By

Yong Jun Shin

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication
Urban Affairs Programs

2004

ABSTRACT
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INFORMATION SEEKING TACTICS AND
SENSE OF WORKPLACE COMMUNITY:
EVIDENCE FROM KOREAN WORKPLACES
By
Yong Jun Shin
This thesis purposed to assess how individual employees in Korean organizations

sought necessary information and how different information seeking tactics were related
to their perception of sense of community at the workplaces. The data from Korean
workers showed that the measurement for sense of workplace community was
unidimensional, and that overt tactic (i.e., direct questioning) was significantly related to
sense of workplace community. Information types and sources did not moderate the
relationship between information seeking tactics and sense of workplace community,
because overt tactics used for supervisors and coworkers were both related to sense of
workplace community across all the three types of information. Information types,
however, moderated the relationship between importance of information and sense of
workplace community and the relationship between coworker availability as an
information source and sense of workplace community. That is, for relational
information, the more important the information was, the weaker the sense of workplace

community. The more readily coworkers were available for providing relational

information. the greater the sense of workplace community among employees.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere and deepest appreciation to several wonderful
persons. First of all, I really thank my family. Without their love, support, and sacrifice, I
would not complete my study here at MSU. Especially, my wife Ji Yun’s understanding
and supporting were critical for me to continue my study.

Next, I give my special appreciation to Dr. Hee Sun Park, my academic advisor,
for her precious time and effort guiding my thesis and study. If it were not her helping
advising and understanding, I would not finish my thesis and my degree. I owe so much
her.

I also appreciate Dr. John Schweitzer, my supervisor professor as well as a
committee member. Dr. Schweitzer was a father-like person to me; he has shared his
thoughts and hands-on experience with me. It was Dr. Schweitzer who influenced me to
have an insight on the issue of community.

My gratitude goes to Dr. Charles Salmon for his invaluable help as a committee
member and the former academic advisor. While studying with him, I was surprised at
his insight. Dr. Salmon inspired and encouraged me to think broadly.

In addition, I also thank my Korean friends, Seung Soo Han and Woo Sung
Chang, for their assists; in particular, Mr. Han collected the data for my thesis research in
Korea. But for their encouragements and friendships, I would not have a privilege to
begin my study in the States.

Finally, I can not help giving my best appreciation to God for showing me the
way I should go and guiding my life as the true mentor. I am leaving Michigan with

many wonderful memories. I loved the nature as much as the people in Michigan.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. vi
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................... 2
Sense of Community ........................................................................ 2
Sense of Community in the Workplace ................................................... 3
Information Seeking ......................................................................... 5
Workplace in a Collective Culture ......................................................... 7
Sense of Community and Information Seeking in a Collective Culture .............. 8
Information Source and Information Type as Moderators ........................... 11
CHAPTER II: METHODS ........................................................................ 13
Overview of Design ........................................................................ l3
Participants .................................................................................. l 3
Procedure .................................................................................... 14
Measures .................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER III: RESULTS ......................................................................... 18
Preliminary Analyses ...................................................................... 18
Main Analyses .............................................................................. 20
Additional Analyses ........................................................................ 21
CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION .................................................................... 23
Summary .................................................................................... 23
Direction of Influence between Information Seeking and Sense of Workplace
Community .................................................................................. 24
Implications ................................................................................. 24
Limitations .................................................................................. 28
Conclusion .................................................................................. 29
Endnotes .................................................................................... 30
TABLES & FIGURES .............................................................................. 31
APPENDICES ....................................................................................... 4l
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................... 68

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Zero-Order Correlations among the Composite Variables .................................... 30
Means and Standard Deviations of Variables ................................................... 3]
Comparisons of Preferred Use of Information Seeking Tactics .............................. 32

Moderated Regression Analysis for Information Seeking Tactics and Information
Sources ............................................................................................... 33

Moderated Regression Analysis for Importance, Likelihood, and Frequency of
Information Seeking and Information Source Availability ................................. 35

LIST OF FIGURES

Slopes of Importance of Information Seeking on Sense of Workplace Community for
Three Information Types .......................................................................... 37

Slopes of Coworker Availability as Information Source on Sense of Workplace
Community for Three Information Types ....................................................... 38

vi

Relationship between information seeking tactics and sense of workplace community:
Evidence from Korean workplaces
Introduction
As the workplace takes an important part in employees’ lives, establishing a sense

of community in the workplace has significant implications. In a collectivistic culture in
which a collective, such as a work group or an organization, can take a priority over an
individual, employees” sense of community in their workplace can influence adjustment
to their roles in the organization and socialization into the culture of the organization.
Although various factors can contribute to forming and strengthening a sense of
community at the workplace, ways that employees use to obtain necessary information
can be also importantly related to how strongly the employees feel about their workplace
as a community. Because employees are not always fully provided with all the
information they need to perform their jobs and interact with other employees, employees
need to be active in seeking information that they need. As there are many different
tactics for seeking information, employees may use different ones for different types of
information and for different information sources. It is expected that information seeking
tactics vary in terms of how effective they are for conjuring a sense of community. Thus.
the goal of this thesis is to examine how such different information seeking tactics are
related to individual employees’ sense of community. The next section provides brief
overviews for sense of community and information seeking tactics and presents research

questions.

Chapter 1

Sense of Community

The concept “community” has been used by many scholars to explain the aspects
of social settings that satisfy people’s needs for connection and belonging (Etzioni, 1994;
Gardner, 1992; Maclntyre, 1981; McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Morgan, 1943; Sarason,
1974). A community is defined as “a social organization whose members know, care
about and support one another, have common goals and feel personally committed”
(Solomon, Watson, Battistich, Schaps, & Delucchi, 1996, p.720). As people can
recognize their community psychologically as well, a way of examining the relation
between people and their community is to assess people’s sense of community. A sense
of community is defined as affects of belonging to a group and sharing connection with
other members and a shared faith in members’ mutual commitment to fulfill their needs.
(McMillan & Chavis, 1986). According to Riger and Lavrakas (1981), a sense of
community consists of two important factors, social attachment and behavioral
rootedness. In other words, the residents who show commitment to and satisfaction with
their neighborhood consider their neighborhood as a small community nested in a city
and devote themselves more to their neighborhood than the rest of the city (Ahlbrandt &
Cunningham, 1979). A psychological sense of community can be obtained through
“perceptions of similarity to others, an acknowledged interdependence with others, a
willingness to maintain this interdependence by giving to or doing for others what one
expects from them, and the feelings that one is part of a larger dependable and stable

structure” (Sarason, 1974, p. 157).

The concept, a sense of community, has been studied in a variety of research areas
such as civic activities including voting and participatory behaviors for community
development (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990), toxic exposure related issues (Bachrach &
Zautra, 1985; Edelsten, 1987), and recycling participation (Campos, 1996). These studies
demonstrate that many social and community problems can be prevented and solved by
creating and enhancing a sense of community.

Sense of Workplace Community

As people spend a great amount of time in their workplace, they consider their
workplace, rather than neighborhood, as more important sources of identity and social
support (Burroughs & Eby, 1998). Accordingly, organizational researchers have
examined the workplace as a type of community that plays a significant role in
employees’ lives (e.g., Klein & D’Aunno, 1986; Lambert & Hopkins, 1995; Shinn,
1987). Recent studies have shown that employees who experience a sense of community
in their workplace think that their organizations meet the needs of their family as well as
employees themselves, and provide them with an enhanced quality of life. In addition,
employees with a greater sense of community feel more responsible for their
organizations and the larger society (Burroughs & Eby, 1998; Sarason, 1974).

When a workplace is considered a community, a workplace community is
identified both as a locality and as formal and informal networks of individuals who share
a common affiliation (Burroughs & Eby, 1998). Sense of membership, participation, and
identification with work groups are some of the factors that characterize employees’
sense of community in the workplace (Klein & D’Aunno, 1986). More specifically,

Burroughs and Eby (1998) delineate six elements of sense of workplace community:

sense of belonging, coworker support, team orientation, emotional safety, truthtelling,
and spiritual bond. The first element, sense of belonging, refers to the level of trust and
security that individual members have about each other in terms of knowing each other
well and willingness to help each other. The second element, coworker support, deals
with the amount of influence that individual members have over group activities and the
number of opportunities that individual members have in working with others. The third
element, team orientation, addresses concerns for social support, acknowledgement of
various contributions and accomplishments, and feelings about the importance and value
of group activities. The fourth element, emotional safety, is about the amount of contacts
that individual members have with one another and the quality of those interactions. The
fifth element, truthtelling, is based on the notion that community members must feel safe
to tell the truth. Truthtelling requires the member to have personal emotional courage to
take a psychological risk, and the community to have empathy, understanding, and
caring. The sixth element, spiritual bond, deals with enhancement of the human spirit and
spiritual importance of community.

Even though PSCW was initially proposed to consist of the six elements,
Burroughs and Eby (1998) found that truthtelling did not emerge as a factor and
identified additional four factors: tolerance for individual differences, neighborliness,
sense of collectivism, and reflection. According to Burroughs and Eby (1998), however, a
single large eigenvalue emerged supporting the presence of a general factor representing
the construct of sense of workplace community. Thus, at this point, it is not clear whether
the measurement of sense of workplace community is a unidimensional, second-order, or

multidimensional one. Even if the measurement of sense of workplace community is

multidimensional, it is not clear how many factors would emerge from sense of
workplace community scale, especially with a sample from a non-westem culture.
Therefore, in order to identify the dimensionality of sense of workplace community, this
research presents a research question as follows:

RQI: Is the measurement of sense of workplace community, multidimensional or
unidimensional‘?
Information Seeking

When facing the demanded acquisition of the formal and informal roles and rules
of the organization, newcomers are expected to experience high levels of uncertainty
(Miller & Jablin, 1991). Then, people seek information to reduce their uncertainty
(Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Although management, supervisors, and co-workers can
proactively provide information to help newcomers overcome role shock and uncertainty,
such information is often not sufficient enough to completely remove newcomers’
uncertainty (J ablin, 1984). Thus, newcomers often need to depend on others and actively
seek information (Miller & Jablin, 1991). Information seeking enables newcomers to
reduce uncertainty and to understand, predict, and control their environments (Berger,
1979; Berlyne, 1960; Lanzetta, 1971), and eventually promote the socialization process in
which newcomers acquire the appropriate attitudes and behaviors for their roles in an
organization (Fisher, 1986; Jones, 1983; Morrison, 1993a, 1993b; Nelson, 1987; Van
Maanen, 1976; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). New members of an organization show
more confidence in predicting how their supervisors evaluate them as they are more

certain about appropriate behaviors of the organization (Lester, 1987).

Employees use various tactics for seeking information. Among seven information
seeking tactics proposed and examined by Miller and Jablin (1991, 1996), three major
tactics include (a) “overt” — directly asking for information; (b) “indirect” — hinting and
letting others respond to non-interrogative questions; and (c) “third party” — asking
people who are not the primary information targets.

Information sources vary in how frequently employees rely on them. Several
researchers found that newcomers consider familiarity and accessibility important
determinants in selecting information sources (Beach, Mitchell, Deaton, & Prothero,
1978; O’Reilly, 1982). Thus, newcomers solicit information more often from direct
supervisors and experienced peers than from any other sources such as other supervisors,
other newcomers, subordinates, support personnel, or people outside of their organization
(Dalton & Thompson, 1986; Evan, 1963; Falcione & Wilson, 1988; Louis, 1990; Miller
& Jablin, 1991). In addition, people use different information seeking tactics for different
information sources. Individuals choose information seeking tactics partly based on the
perceived social costs of interacting with a particular source (Rolof’f, 1981). Thus,
newcomers, who consider asking their supervisors to be embarrassing and risky for their
public image, seek information in roundabout tactics (Morrison & Bies, 1991). On the
other hand, newcomers often consider their coworkers as similar in status and enjoy a
more casual relationship with their coworkers (Jablin, 1984). As a result, newcomers tend
to employ more direct tactics in seeking information from coworkers (Miller, 1996).

Another factor affecting the use of different information seeking tactics is types of
information (Miller & Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 1993a). According to Morrison (1993a),

research on newcomers’ socialization suggests that “newcomers need technical, referent,

normative, performance feedback, and social feedback in order to master their jobs and
become integrated into their organizations” (p. 559). According to Miller and Jablin
(1991), there are three kinds of information important for employees: (1) refizrent, (2)
appraisal, and (3) relational information. Referent information refers to the type of
information that employees need to perform their jobs successfully (Hanser &
Muchinsky, 1978; Greller & Harold, 1975). Appraisal information is a type of
performance feedback which indicates workers’ accomplishment (Hanser & Muchinsky,
1978). Relational information is information about the nature of interpersonal
relationships among workers (Miller & Jablin, 1991).
Workplace in a C ollectivistic Culture

Collectivism is defined as “a social pattern consisting of closely linked
individuals who see themselves as parts of one or more collectives (family, co-workers,
tribe, nation)” and people in collectivistic cultures are “primarily motivated by the norms
of, and duties imposed by, those collectives; are willing to give priority to the goals of
these collectives over their own personal goals; and emphasize their connectedness to
members of these collectives” (Triandis, 1995, p. 2). Collectivist cultures have astrong
cultural tightness, which refers to the extent to which members of the culture agree on
what defines correct behaviors, force one anther to follow the norms of the culture, and
discourage one another from deviating from the norms (Pelto, 1968). According to
Hofstede (1993 ), many Asian countries hold collectivistic cultures in which the “self” is
defined primarily in terms of in-group membership (Guzley, Araki, & Chalmers, 1998).

In a collectivistic culture, employees are hired and managed not just as an

individual but as a part of a group (Hofstede, 1991). The national cultural values have a

strong influence on the managers’ skills and behaviors and management practices
(Hofstede, 1980; Jaeger & Kangungo, 1990; Schneider, 1989; Schneider & DeMeyer,
1991) and industrial and entrepreneurial development (Franke, Hofstede & Bond, 1988;
Hofstede & Bond, 1991; Shane, 1994; Yeh & Lawrence, 1995). At the workplaces in
collectivistic cultures, relationships between employer and employees are closely related
to ingroup membership, and the relationship resembles family relationships with mutual
obligations of protection in exchange for loyalty; therefore, the primary focus for
collectivists is the interest and honor of the ingroup which require self-effacement from
the ingroup members (Hofstede, 1991). In addition, managers in collectivistic cultures
exert more effort on building social and interpersonal relationships even before and when
working on business deals (Fan & Zigang, 2004).

In particular, Korean workers tend to have less individualistic tendencies than do
workers in the USA (Christie et al., 2003). Cha (1994) examined and noted collectivism
in the traditional Korean culture by looking at travelogues written by foreign observers of
Koreans during 1870 to 1970 and by reviewing a survey result of attitudes and beliefs of
younger and older generations of Koreans (Cha, 1994). South Korean organizations
emphasize cooperative relations, harmony, and human network among group members
(Cho, 1999).

Sense of Community and Information Seeking in a Collectivistic Culture

A sense of community can play an important role for people in a collectivistic
culture. Employees who hold collectivistic values or norms tend to exhibit citizenship
behaviors that support the interests of their group or organization even when performing

such citizenship behaviors may not directly provide individual benefits (Moorrnan &

Blakely, 1995). Collectivistic values or norms are distinguished from those of
individualism at not only an individual level but also at a societal level (Hofstede, 1980).
In collectivistic societies, the interests of the group prevail over the interests of the
individual; a key virtue is harmony with the social environment (Christie, Kwon,
Stoeberl, & Baumhart, 2003). According to Chang’s case study (1995) of a Korean
corporation, the employees as well as the employer made various efforts to maintain their
sense of community in the corporate. In addition, many Korean studies demonstrate that
Korean organizations emphasize harmony, solidarity and cooperation among
organizational members, in which a sense of community is encouraged (e.g., Baik, 1988;
Chang, 1995; Cho, 1999; Kim, 2000).

The lack of a sense of community among the members in an organization may
lead to a feeling of isolation, loneliness, and alienation, which may eventually result in
such undesirable behaviors as personal stress, family crises, violence, and health
problems at the individual, workgroup, organizational, and societal level (Senge, Kleiner,
Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994). Investigation of a sense of workplace community has
important research implications. For example, investigating a sense of workplace
community serves as another way of understanding employee’s adjustment or
socialization to the organization, as organizational socialization is defined as the process
by which newcomers are transformed from outsiders to insiders who participate
effectively in an organization (Feldman, 1976). Research findings on a sense of
community can inform organizations about the effective ways to create and enhance a

sense of workplace community.

Among the many factors that may be associated with a sense of community in the
workplace, this thesis focuses on information seeking tactics that employees use.
Different information seeking tactics can vary in their usage and outcomes. Direct
information seeking tactics may be more effective in terms of obtaining necessary
information efficiently and the obtained information may result in enhanced job
performance and personal relationships, which can contribute to improving a sense of
community. On the other hand, the constant use of indirect information seeking tactics
such as testing and surveillance may not be effective as other tactics in terms of
increasing the sense of belonging and trust among the members. Thus, it is expected that
different information seeking tactics are variously associated with a sense of community.

People in different cultures have different preferences for the way they
communicate with each other. According to Gudykunst (1988), the different ways of
seeking information can be explained by high versus low context cultural characteristics.
In hi gh-context cultures, people depend heavily on the overall situation to interpret
events, and people in low-context cultures rely more on the explicit verbal content of
message (Gudykunst, 1988). Therefore, members in high-context culture prefer indirect
ways such as nonverbal cues and information about a person’s background, but members
of low-context cultures ask direct questions to find out experience, attitudes, and beliefs
(Littlejohn, 1996). In addition, the dimension of independent versus interdependent self-
construals proposed by Markus and Kitayama (1991) explains individuals’ choice of
communication style (Kim & Sharkey, 1995). For instance, individuals high in
independent self-construal use direct and non-ambiguous forms of communicative

strategies to assert their needs and intentions clearly. In contrast, people high in

10

interdependent self-construal tend to be more concerned with avoiding negative
evaluations and desire not to hurt the other’s feelings, so that they use more situationally
appropriate communication styles (Kim & Sharkey, 1995). However, it is not clear which
information tactics would be more important for sense of community than others,
especially among people in a collectivistic culture. Although some research has shown
that people in collectivistic cultures prefer more indirect ways of requesting (Gudykunst
et al., 1996; Hall, 1976), other research has shown that people in collectivistic cultures
are also quite direct in their communication (Beamer, 2003) and prefer direct persuasion
appeals, along with other types of appeals (Ma & Chuang, 2001 ). Thus. the second
research question is presented as follows:

RQ2: Which information seeking tactics among “overt,” “indirect,” and “third

party” are significant predictors of sense of workplace community?

Information Source and Information Type as Moderators

As discussed above, there are several distinct information seeking tactics, and
employees use different tactics depending on the type of information and information
source. For example, research has shown that direct information tactics such as “overt”
one are less often used for seeking confidential information (Comer, 1991) and more
often used for seeking technical, referent, and appraisal information rather than relational
information (Ashford & Tsui, 1991; Comer, 1991; Cusella, 1980; Morrisin, 1993b). In
contrast, indirect tactics are more frequently used when it is necessary to avoid
embarrassment and save face (Brown & Levinson, 1978; Goffman, 1959, 1967).

Moreover, information source can influence people’s information tactics in terms

of power distance, which Hofstede (1991) defines as the degree to which employees feel

11

comfortable approaching their supervisor in an organizational setting. The level of power
distance between a supervisor and subordinates has an inverse relationship with the level
of openness of organizations for sharing information (Dawar et al., 1996). For example,
people in cultures of high power distance are less likely to disagree openly with their
superiors than those in cultures of low power distance (Harrison, 1995). Thus, it is
possible that in cultures of high power distance, people are more likely to prefer indirect
information seeking tactics, especially with their supervisors. It can be questioned if
indirect tactics used for supervisors contribute to more harmonious relationships with
superiors and thus lead to increased sense of community. Thus, the third research
question is posed as follows:

RQ3: How do information source and information type moderate the relationship

between information seeking tactics and sense of workplace community?

12

Chapter 2
Method
Overview of Design

This research used a 2 (information seeking sources: supervisors vs. coworkers) X
3 (information type: reference vs. appraisal vs. relational) mixed design with information
seeking target as a repeated (within subject) factor and information type as an
independent (between subject) factor. After responding to the scale for sense of
workplace community (dependent variable), each participant read a brief description of
one of the three information types and indicated preferences for using three types of
information. Participants also indicated the degree to which they would employ the three
types of information tactics for their supervisors as well as for their coworkers.

In addition to the main variables (sense of workplace community and information
seeking tactics), items assessing importance, likelihood, frequency of information
seeking, and availability of supervisors and coworkers as information sources were added
to the questionnaire to check if participants would consider information seeking
behaviors as relevant and applicable to their workplaces, and information sources were
available for participants to try various information tactics.

Participants

Participants were two hundred and forty (59.2% men and 40.8% women)
employees holding a variety of work types (50.0% administration/management, 23.8%
sales/marketing, 17.1% professional, 3.3% service, 1.3% engineering/science/research,
0.4% information technology/intemet, and 2.9% others) in various types of Korean

organizations (37.5% financial companies, 16.7% press companies, 9.6% governmental

l3

organizations, 9.6% TV home shopping companies, 8.8% advertising agents, 5.0%
chemical companies, 0.8% accounting corporations, and 8.3% other organizations). As
for departmental membership, 1 1.3% of the participants worked in sales departments,
9.6% in broadcasting arts, 9.2% in supporting departments, 6.7% worked in visual
broadcasting, 6.3% in advertising departments, 4.2% engaged in marketing departments,
2.9% in planning departments, 2.1% were in human resource departments, 24.6% were
unclassified, and 23.3% did not indicate their departments. Age of participants ranged
from 21 to 52 years, with a mean age of 33.50 years (SD = 6.63). Tenure ranged from
0.08 year to 27.5 years, with a mean of tenure 7.47 years (SD = 6.85). The majority of the
participants (99.6%) worked 40 or more hours per week. For educational background,
56.3% of participants held bachelor’s degree, 13.3% high school diploma, 9.6% master’s
degree, 9.2% associate degree, 4.6% were in master’s program, 1.7% experienced some
college, and 0.4% doctoral degree. Of all the participants, 45.8% of employees were
single, 37.1% married with children, 15.0% married without children, and 0.8% divorced.
Procedure

Participants were contacted by personal contacts and snowball sampling. Prepared
questionnaires were delivered in bulk to a contact person within each organization who
distributed the questionnaires to organizational members. Each participant received a pre-
stamped and pro-addressed envelope with the questionnaire and consent form. Afier
answering the questions, each participant voluntarily mailed the questionnaire to a
research assistant in Korea. The research assistant collected the completed questionnaires

and sent them directly to the researcher in the United States.

14

Measures

Before distributing the questionnaires, the researcher translated the questions from
English to Korean, and a Korean fluent in English back-translated the translated
questions from Korean to English. After that, the questions were reviewed to check the
translation. When the meanings of some questions came out differently, the translation
processes were repeated.

All the measures were checked for unidimentionality and reliability before
creating composite variables, which were then checked for normality of distribution. All
the measures used a 5-point Likert response format (I = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree). Table 1 shows correlations among variables and Table 2 shows means and
standard deviations of the variables.

. ense of Workplace Community. Thirty-one items examined sense of workplace
community. Twenty-four items were selected and modified from the scale of
psychological sense of community at the workplace (Burroughs & Eby, 1998), which
included seven dimensions of sense of workplace community: emotional safety,
coworker support, team orientation, sense of belonging, tolerance for individual
differences, neighborliness, and sense of collectivism. Additionally, seven items were
created to assess Korean workers’ social activities with people at the workplace (see
Appendix A).

Information Seeking Tactics to Supervisor. Twelve items assessed three types of
information seeking tactics towards the supervisor about each type of information:
referent information (see Appendix 01), appraisal feedback (see Appendix C-2), and

relational information (see Appendix C-3). All the items were taken from Miller’s (1996)

15

information seeking tactics scales. The four items measuring use of overt tactics for a
supervisor had reliability (Cronbach’s a) of .89. The four items measuring use of indirect
tactics had reliability of .84 and the four items for third party tactic had reliability of .84.

Information seeking tactics to coworkers. Identical to the measures assessing
information tactics for supervisors, twelve items assessed three types of information
seeking tactics for coworkers about each type of information: referent information (see
Appendix D-l), appraisal feedback (See Appendix D-2), and relational information (See
Appendix D-3). The four items measuring use of overt tactic for coworkers had reliability
(Cronbach’s a) of .90. The four items measuring use of indirect tactic had reliability of
.88 and the four items for third party tactic had reliability of .89.

Importance of Information Seeking. Four items were designed to assess
information seeking as an important activity (for referent information, see Appendix B-l;
for appraisal information, see Appendix B-2; for relational information, see Appendix B-
3). Among the four items, one item (“Information concerning is not helpful for
performing my job”) was removed because the Cronbach’s alpha was relatively small if
the item was included (a = .80). Removal of the reverse-coded item resulted in improved
reliability ((1 = .89).

Likelihood of Information Seeking. Three items to assess likelihood of
information were included in order to check if the participants considered information
seeking as (for referent information, see Appendix B-l; for appraisal feedback, Appendix
B-2; for relational information, Appendix B-3). Among the three items, one item (“It is

easy to obtain information concerning ....”) was removed because the Cronbach’s alpha

l6

was relatively small if the item was included (a = .69). Deletion of the item increased
reliability (or = .90).

Frequency of Information Seeking. Four items were used to check if participants
often engaged in obtaining information (for referent information, see Appendix B-l; for
appraisal information, see Appendix B-2; for relational information, see Appendix B-3).
Among the four items, one item (“I rarely try to get information concerning ...) was
removed to increase reliability from .80 to .86.

Supervisor ’s Availability as Information Source. Four items were included to
check if the supervisors were available as the information sources (for referent
information, see Appendix B-l; for appraisal information, see Appendix B-2; for
relational information, see Appendix B—3). Among the four items, one reverse-coded item
(“I do not see my supervisor often enough to ask information concerning. . . .”) was
removed because the Cronbach’s alpha was relatively small if the item was included (a
= .70). When the item was removed, however, the reliability increased (or = .83).

Coworker ’s Availability as Information Source. Four items were employed to
check if the coworkers were readily available as information sources (for referent
information, see Appendix B-l; for appraisal information, see Appendix B-2; for
relational information, see Appendix B-3). Among the four items, one reverse-coded item
(“I do not see my coworkers often enough to ask information concerning. . . .”) was

removed to increase reliability from .66 to 77.

17

Chapter 3
Results
Preliminary Analyses

One-way (information type: referent vs. appraisal vs. relational) ANOVAs were
performed on importance, likelihood, frequencies of information seeking and availability
of supervisor and coworkers as information sources. As shown in Table 2, all the
analyses yielded significant results. Overall, referent and appraisal information was more
important, more likely to be sought with greater frequencies than relational information.
Furthermore, supervisors and coworkers were more easily available for referent and
appraisal information than for relational information. Across information types,
coworkers (M = 3.38, SD = 0.70) were more easily available as an information source
than supervisors (M = 3.17, SD = 0.82), t (239) = 4.20, p < .001.

For the possibility of a certain information seeking tactic being preferred over
others, a 3 (information types) x 6 (overt, indirect, and third party tactics used for
superiors and coworkers) mixed ANOVA was conducted. The result was significant for
information seeking tactics, F (5, 1175) = 129.95, p < .001, if = .25. Although the main
effect for information types and the interaction effect between information types and
information seeking tactics were also significant, F (2, 235) = 9.03, p < .001, n2 = .02,
and F (10, l 175) = 2.42, p < .05, n2 = .01, the effect sizes were quite small, especially
compared to the effect size for information seeking tactics. A series of paired t-tests were
conducted to discern which tactics were preferred over others. As shown in Table 3, overt
tactic was more strongly preferred for both superiors and coworkers over indirect and

third party tactics.

I8

To answer RQl on dimensionality of sense of workplace community,
confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) with various numbers of dimension solutions were
conducted. Most of the analyses with multidimensional solutions failed to yield a
satisfactory fit, even after various attempts to increase the fit (e. g., removing certain
items, changing item-factor specification). Finally, a unidimensional solution was tested.
A factor structure with 16 items yielded a satisfactory fit (N FI = .82, NNFI = .85, CF] =
.87, GFI = .86, AGFI = .82) with reliability (Cronbach’s a) of .91. Thus, the following
analyses concluded sense of workplace community as a unidimensional variable.

When individual level characteristics were examined for sense of workplace
community, analyses showed that gender, individuals’ job title (or rank) (e.g., supervisor,
manager, executive), work type, educational level, and marital status did not significantly
affect sense of workplace community. Age, employment length, and working hours per
week were also not significantly related to sense of workplace community.

Intraclass correlations were calculated to examine a possibility that individual
workers’ departmental membership or organizations might have affected their sense of
workplace community. A substantial amount of variance at the departmental or
organizational levels would necessitate a multilevel analysis. When organizational and
departmental groupingsI were considered, however, even the largest variance was no
bigger than 6.4%. Because more than 93% of the variance in sense of workplace
community was at individual level, the following main analyses were conducted at

individual level.

19

Main Analyses

To answer RQ2 and RQ3, which questioned main effects of information seeking
tactics and moderating effects of information targets and information types on sense of
workplace community, a moderated regression analysis was conducted. To protect
against nonessential multicollinearity and to achieve easier interpretation, the continuous
variables (uses of three information seeking tactics) were centered before entering into
the equation (of, Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). The categorical variable (three
information types) was dummy-coded with relational information as a reference. For
interaction effects,2 sense of workplace community was regressed onto product terms of
information seeking tactics and dummy-coded referent and appraisal information
variables.

As shown in Table 4, the main effects for information seeking tactics accounted
for a significant proportion of the variance in sense of workplace community, F (8, 229)
= 7.92, p < .001 , adjusted R2 = .19. When the two-way interaction terms were entered
into the equation, however, the interaction terms failed to account for a significant
increase in the proportion of explained variance, F (12, 217) = 1.06, p = .40, R2 change =
.04. Among the predictors of interest for main effects, only overt tactics for supervisor
and overt tactics for coworkers were statistically significant. Since none of the interaction
terms were statistically significant at p < .05, it is concluded that the data were
inconsistent with the expectation for information types as a moderator. The data were
also inconsistent with the expectation for information sources as a moderator because

overt tactics were preferred both for supervisors and for coworkers.

20

Additional Analyses

Although the above results showed that information sources and information
types were not significant moderators for the relationship between information seeking
tactics and sense of workplace community, those may be moderators for importance,
likelihood, frequency of information seeking and information source availability for their
relationships with sense of workplace community. Thus, another moderated regression
analysis was conducted with centered continuous variables and dummy-coded categorical
variables.

As shown in Table 5, the main effects (for importance, likelihood, and frequency
of information seeking and information source availability) accounted for a significant
proportion of the variance in sense of workplace community, F (7, 232) = 15.64, p <
.001, adjusted R2 = .30. When the two-way interaction terms were entered into the
equation, they added a significant increase in the proportion of explained variance, F (10,
222) = 3.55, p < .001, R2 change = .09. Among the predictors of interest for main effects,
supervisor availability and coworker availability were significantly and positively related
to sense of workplace community. For interaction effects, as shown in Table 5, there was
a significant difference between appraisal and relational information for the relationship
between importance of information seeking and sense of workplace community, while
the difference between referent and relational information was not significant at p < .05.
Appraisal and relational information also differed for the relationship between coworker
availability and sense of workplace community, while referent and relational information
did not differ significantly. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the moderated relationships. When

regression analyses were conducted separately for each information type, the slope for

21

importance of information seeking was positive and significant for appraisal information
(/i = .21. t = 2.12, p = .04), non-significant for referent information (,8 = .10, t = 0.78, p =
.44), and negative and non-significant for relational information (3 = -.23, t = -1.69, p =
.10). The slope for coworkers’ availability was non—significant for appraisal information
([i = .0 l . t = 0.11. p = .92), positive and significant for referent information ([I = .26, t =
2.37. p = .02). and positive and significant for relational information (/i = .33, t = 3.01 , p

= .003).

22

Chapter 4
Discussion

Summary

This study was aimed at assessing the relationship between information seeking
tactics and sense of workplace community and the moderating roles of information types
and sources. First, in order to establish that these types of information were relevant in
the workplace and availability of superiors and coworkers was sufficient as information
sources, the study examined the importance, frequency, likelihood of seeking each of the
three types of information, and availability of superiors and coworkers as information
sources. Then, the measurement of sense of workplace community was checked for
unidimensionality (ROI) for further analyses. The main analysis for RQ2 revealed that
the two information seeking tactics, ‘overt tactic to supervisor’ and ‘overt tactic to
coworker,’ were significant predictors of sense of workplace community. That is, the
more likely employees were to use direct question asking tactic, the greater their sense of
community in the workplace. The analysis for RQ3, however, showed that information
sources and information types did not work as significant moderators. The positive
relationship between preferred use of overt tactic and sense of workplace community was
constant across information sources and types. On the other hand, the additional analysis
showed that information type moderated the relationships between importance of
information seeking and sense of workplace community and between coworker
availability and sense of workplace community. Compared to appraisal information, the
importance of seeking relational information was associated with decreased sense of

workplace community. but coworkers’ availability as relational information source was

23

associated with increased sense of workplace community. Regardless of information
type, however, supervisor availability was positively related to sense of workplace
community.
Direction of Influence between Information Seeking and Sense of Workplace Community

The current study does not show the direction of influence between preferred use
of information seeking tactics and sense of workplace community. When developing the
rationale for this study and using regression for data analyses, however, use of
information seeking tactics was treated as the predictors of sense of workplace
community. Consequently, one possible interpretation of the findings is that being direct
for seeking information contributes to increased sense of workplace community, maybe
because directly obtained information is higher in quality and affords employees with
being able to avoid wasting time and efforts so that employees are socialized more
efficiently and effectively. In addition, using overt tactic may indicate the information
seeker's enthusiasm about being a part of the workplace. Another equally (if not more)
plausible interpretation, however, is that a heightened sense of workplace community
enables employees to use overt tactic. A stronger sense of workplace community may
reduce social cost (e.g., embarrassment) that may come with overt tactic. Employees may
be at greater ease with being direct in seeking information because they feel a stronger
connection with their supervisors and coworkers.
Implications

In recent years, research on organizational socialization and information seeking
has focused on newcomers’ proactive and self-managing ability (Morrison, 1993) and on

newcomers’ information seeking behaviors (Ashford & Taylor, 1990; Comer, 1991;

24

Miller & Jablin, 1991; Reichers, 1987). The research on organizational socialization and
information seeking have shown implications for motivation, satisfaction, commitment
(Van Maanen, 1975), mutual influence, job involvement, internal work motivation

(F eldman, 1976), performing dependent role assignment, remaining with the
organization, and innovating and cooperating spontaneously (Feldman, 1981). Research
on sense of community in the workplace can also add to the area of organizational
socialization. As a part of organizational socialization processes, sense of workplace
community can be particularly more important in cultures which encourages informal
kinship and friendship pressures toward acceptance of position, commitment to the
current task and position, conformity, and common good.

In addition, many researchers demonstrated that supervisors’ role is critical in
creating a supportive atmosphere in the workplace. In other words, creating and
maintaining sense of community at the workplace depend on supervisors’ ability and
effort to a great extent. Thus, this study provides another rationale to motivate
supervisors to enhance sense of community in organization and suggests a way of
developing sense of workplace community by understanding employees’ information
seeking behaviors. In addition, coworkers can also help each other by being more active
in information seeking.

While many studies demonstrated that people in collectivistic cultures prefer
indirect modes of communication such as roundabout discursive style (e.g., Gudykunst,
1994; Kaplan, 1966; Stewart & Bennet, 1991; Ting-Toomey, 1994), this research found
that Korean employees preferred direct communication over strongly than indirect ones

in seeking information at the workplaces. This result is consistent with a few recent

25

research findings that demonstrate preference of direct communication style in
collectivistic cultures (e.g., Beamer, 2003; Ma & Chuang, 2001). This finding on
preference for overt tactic to both superiors and coworkers can imply at least a few
things. First, even when cross-cultural comparisons reveal that people in one culture
prefer direct mode of communication more strongly than people in the other culture do,
as shown in previous research (e.g., Gudykunst, 1994; Kaplan, 1966; Stewart & Bennet,
1991; Ting-Toomey, 1994), within —culture analysis may show that people in general
prefer direct mode of communication. Second, it is taken for granted that there are
specific cultural traits resistant to change (Chen & Chung, 1994). However, even the
national and/or cultural traits are likely to change at a fast pace especially in this era of
globalization and information society in which people in the world are connected on the
Internet. Third, although people in collectivistic cultures may show preference for direct
mode of communication in self-report survey, they may engage in more indirect mode of
communication in actual behavior.

The preliminary analyses showed that employees considered seeking referent
information most important and seeking relational information least important.
Consequently, they were more likely to seek referent and appraisal information than
relational information at the workplace. What these results did not indicate, however, is
whether employees thought that relational information itself was less important than
referent and appraisal information. Although relational information might be as important
as other types of information in terms of one’s organizational life, the behavior of
“seeking” relational information might not be. The concept of social cost (Roloff, 1981)

can be relevant here, because seeking relational information may pose relational

26

challenges. In particular, because people in Asian countries hold propriety in great
account (Chen & Chung, 1994), seeking relational information may seem opportunistic
and suspicious. Hence, people in those cultures may be reluctant to seek relational
information and try to avoid giving negative impression to others by restraining
themselves from actively seeking that kind of information. Nonetheless, the research
result showed that coworkers were relatively more available than supervisors in seeking
relational information.

The additional analyses showed that among the three types of information,
relational information was different from appraisal information for importance of
information seeking and coworker availability as an information source for their
relationships with sense of workplace community. Relational information is a type of
social feedback about how an individual’s non-task behaviors are accepted and evaluated
by other people (Morrison, 1993b). Relational information can contain an evaluation of
an individual’s personality or characteristics (Miller & Jablin, 1991). Compared to
appraisal information, it is more important for employees to obtain relational information
within an organization; some employees may consider non-task related issues such as
politics more important in the workplace, which can negatively affect their perception of
sense of workplace community. On the other hand, the positive relationship between
coworkers’ availability as a relational information source (rather than an appraisal
information source) and sense of workplace community may imply that employees enjoy
having coworkers nearby providing them with relational information, which can give
them greater certainty about the workplace. Coworkers are mutually influential with one

another and provide emotional support to each other (Posner & Powell, 1985). Moreover,

27

according to Morrison (1993b), new employees in general seek relational information
from coworkers while they seek instructions and performance information from
supervisors. Coworkers view their organization from a similar viewpoint (Louis, 1990)
and provide an insider’s perspective of their organizational culture (Morrison, 1993b)
while supervisors have a perspective different from coworkers and hold the positions that
do not allow them to be entirely open-minded (Louis, 1990). In addition, because seeking
relational information demands employees to be concerned about protecting their self-and
public images (Brickman & Bulman, 1977; Miller, 1976) and employees have the more
formal and evaluative relationship with their supervisors, employees tend to prefer to
seek relational information from their coworkers rather than from supervisors (Dalton &
Thompson, 1986; Falcione & Wilson, 1988; Kram, 1985; Louis, 1990).
Limitations

While this study revealed some interesting relationships between Korean
employees’ preferred use of information seeking tactics and sense of workplace
community, it was quite exploratory in nature. Thus, there are a few limitations and some
issues for future research. First, a longitudinal design would have allowed observation of
development of sense of workplace community over time and of the direction of
influence between information seeking tactics and sense of workplace community.
Second, future research should compare the differences in sense of workplace community
across different departments and organizations by being able to group participants by
their specific departmental or organizational membership, rather than by business type as
used in the current study. Third, this study is limited to information seeking tactics. The

impact of each information itself (e. g., quality and/or quantity of information) on

28

employees’ sense of workplace community was not assessed. Hence, if future research
reveals the relationship between the preferably sought information and the quality and
quantity of obtained information, it may increase our understanding of the workings of
organizational life.
Conclusion

In this study, the relationship between information seeking tactics and sense of
workplace community was tested. The result showed that the two information seeking
tactics, ‘overt tactic to supervisor’ and ‘overt tactic to coworker’ among the different
tactics came out statistically significant. This outcome is quite meaningful because many
research results have demonstrated the preference of indirect communication modes in
collectivistic cultures like South Korea. Thus, this study suggests future research issues
on the changes of cultural traits across the nations. In addition, this study emphasizes the
importance of sense of workplace community as a measure of organizational
socialization. Especially, as employees consider their supervisors as critical information
sources, this study emphasizes supervisors’ role to enhance sense of community at their
workplaces. Also, because employees tend to seek referent information and appraisal
feedback more than relational information through more direct information seeking
modes, organizations are recommended to devise a system or an environment to share

information relevant to works in more direct ways.

29

Endnotes

1. When the questionnaire was distributed, participants were asked to indicate the types
of organizations (i.e., main business type), rather than to reveal the names of their
organizations (i.e., employer). Consequently, employees of a few organizations with a
similar business type (e.g., banking) were not distinguishable for their specific
organizational membership. In those cases, information such as the exact name of the
departments/work teams to which employees belong was used to infer their
organizational membership. In essence, various ways to group participants (e.g., main
business type, organization, department type, and department, etc.) were employed to
determine the necessity of a multilevel analysis.

2. Only the two-way interaction terms were reported in the paper, because higher order

interactions were statistically insignificant and theoretically uninteresting.

30

TABLES AND FIGURES

31

Table l. Zero-Order Correlations among the Composite Variables

 

 

 

 

 

n = 240
.23 .24 .25 .48 .39 .41 .03 -.01 .30 -.03 .06
I — *IIUII *** *** *4"? *** *** ***
g .68 .49 .52 .39 .37 .16* .03 .33 .08 .15*
“ _ *** *** *** *** *lhk ***
.63 .48 .44 .37 .I7* .09 .34 .10 .I6*
3 *** *** *** *** ***
.48 .37 .35 .19** .06 .30 .19** .20**
4 - Hut tau: tan: *2”:
.49 .46 .22** .02 .34 .18" .22“
5 _ Mal: aunt: aunt
.29 .09 .11 .38 .l4* .l7*
6 — amt :HHI:
.02 -. l 3* .47 -.Ol .05
7 — nut:
.52 -.10 .74 .54
8 — an": inn: aunt
.01 .51 .55
9 " think at“
10 _ -.05 .00
.60
I I T “at:
12 —
Subscale
1 Sense of Workplace Community 7 Overt Tactic to Supervisor
2 Importance 8 Indirect Tactic to Supervisor
3 Likelihood 9 Third Party Tactic to Supervisor
4 Frequency 10 Overt Tactic to Coworkers
5 Supervisor Availability 1 1 Indirect Tactic to Coworkers
6 Coworker Availability 12 Third Party Tactic to Coworkers
Notes.

***p< .001, **p< .01, *p<.05

32

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Variables

 

Information Type

 

 

 

 

 

Referent Appraisal Relational

(n=58) (n=94) (n=88)

M so M so M so F(2, 237) 1’2
Importance 4.05, 0.57 3.67, 0.81 3.12c 0.77 29.48*** .20
Likelihood 3.80, 0.68 3.66, 0.84 2.91, 0.90 27.37*** .19
Frequency 3.29,l 0.68 3.36, 0.70 2.60, 0.85 26.37*** .18
SupervisorAvailability 3.40,I 0.84 3.43, 0.69 2.751, 0.76 21.49*** .15
CoworkerAvailability 3.45, 0.75 3.59, 0.63 3.10, 0.65 12.80*** .10
SenseofCommunity 3.34, 0.58 3.50, 0.50 3.43, 0.58 1.57 .01
ovenlacncm 3.59, 0.74 3.74, 0.72 3.28, 9.87 8.13*** .06
Superwsor
Ind‘reclTacucm 2.59, 0.87 2.92b 0.77 2.63,, 0.76 435* .04
Superv1sor
Th‘rd Early Tam") 2.77, 0.90 2.96, 0.77 2.92, 0.71 1.11 .01
Superwsor
oven Tame” 3.91, 0.60 3.82,, 0.64 3.56, 0.78 5.21** .04
Coworkers
Ind‘mctTaCUC’o 2.49, 0.92 2.83, 0.80 2.50, 0.81 439* .04
Coworkers
Th‘rd PmyTacm’" 2.51,, 0.93 2.81, 0.80 2.37, 0.69 7.31** .06
Coworkers
Notes.

***p < .001. **p < .01, *p < .05
Means sharing the same subscript horizontally do not differ at p < .05, according to
Tukey’s post hoc analyses.

33

Table 3. Comparisons of Preferred Use of Information Seeking Tactics

 

 

 

 

t-test p
df= 57
Referent Information Sm“ — Smm, 6.31 < .001
Sovcrt - Sthird party 4.89 < .001
Sindirect - 311nm party -1 .70 .095
Covert - Cindirect 9.46 < .001
Covert - Cthird party 10.16 < .001
Cindirect - Cthird party -0.1 7 .866
df= 93
Appraisal Feedback Sow, — Smdimc, 7.46 < .001
Sovert — Sthird party 6.78 < .001
Sindirect - Sthird party -0.61 .545
Coven — C indirect 8.83 < .001
Covert — C third party 8.59 < .001
Cindirect — Cthird patty 0.19 .854
(If: 37
Relational Information Swen — Sindm, 5.51 < .001
Sovert — Sthird party 2.90 .005
Sindircct - Sthird party -3.41 .001
Covert — Cindircct 8.74 < .001
Coven — Clhird party I 1.07 < .001
Cindirect - Cthird party 1.97 .052

 

34

Table 4. Moderated Regression Analysis for Information Seeking Tactics and Information
Sources

 

 

unstandardized Standardized
B SE [3 t p
Main effects
intercept 3.52 0.06
Sm,“ 0.24 0.05 .34 4.95 <.01
Sindm, 0.09 0.06 .13 1.39 .17
Sum, pm, -0.01 0.06 -.01 -0.10 .92
Coven 0.14 0.05 .17 2.49 .01
Cindircct -0. I l 0.06 -.17 -l .78 .08
C m my -0.06 0.05 .09 1.06 .29
Referent -0.22 0.09 -.17 -2.48 .01
Information
Appraisal -0.08 0.08 -.07 -0.99 .32
Information
Full model

intercept 3.52 0.06
Sm” 0.17 0.08 .24 2.16 .03
Smart-ct 0.08 0.10 .12 0.81 .42
Smird pm, 0.05 0.09 .07 0.58 .57
Cm” 0.09 0.08 .1 1 1.04 .30
Cindircc, -0.16 0.10 -.24 -1.54 .13
Cum my 0.23 0.1 1 .33 2.15 .03

 

35

Table 4 (cont’d).

 

Referent -0.2 l 0.09
Information

Appraisal ~0.07 0.08
Information

Int-bet Ref. & 0.22 0.13
SOVCI’I

Int-bet Ref. & -0.04 0.16
Sindirect

Int-bet Ref. & 0.00 0.15
31mm party

Int-bet Ref. & 0.00 0.15
Covert

Int-bet Ref. & 0.14 0.16
Cindirect

Int-bet Ref. & -0.25 0.16
Cthird party

Int-bet App. & 0.05 0.12
SOVCI‘I

Int-bet App. & 0.04 0.15
Sindirect

Int-bet App. & -0.1 1 0.13
Sthird party

Int-bet App. & 0.17 0.13
COVCI'I

Int-bet App. & 0.02 0.14
Cindirect

Int-bet App. & -0.20 0.13

Cthird pm

-.16

-.06

.15

-.03

.00

.00

.11

-.21

.04

.03

-.09

.12

.02

-.19

-2.30

-0.85

1.80

-0.25

0.00

0.00

0.84

-1.61

0.42

0.24

-O.84

1.33

0.14

-l.53

.02

.40

.07

.80

.99

.99

.40

.ll

.68

.81

.40

.19

.89

.13

 

Sm“: Overt tactic for supervisor

Smdircct: Indirect tactic for supervisor

Smird party: Third party tactic for supervisor
Coven: Overt tactic for coworkers

Cindimtz Indirect tactic for coworkers
Cthird pany: Third party tactic for coworkers
Int: Interaction

Ref: Referent information

App: Appraisal information

36

Table 5. Moderated Regression A nalysis for Importance, Likelihood, and Frequency of
Information Seeking and Information Source Availability

 

 

unstandardized standardized
B SE fl t p
Main effects

intercept 3.62 0.06

Importance 0.01 0.05 .01 0.13 .90
Likelihood 0.00 0.05 .00 0.01 .99
Frequency 0.04 0.05 .06 0.82 .42
Supervisor Availability 0.29 0.05 .44 6.13 <.01
C oworker Availability 0.17 0.05 .22 3.40 <.01
Referent Information 037 0.09 -.29 -4.1 8 <0]
Appraisal Information 025 0.08 -.22 -3.17 <.01

Full model

intercept 3.53 0.06

Importance -0.17 0.09 -.26 -1.96 .05
Likelihood -0.08 0.09 -.12 -0.88 .38
Frequency 0.03 0.07 .05 0.45 .65
Supervisor Availability 0.28 0.08 .41 3.60 <.01
Coworker Availability 0.30 0.09 .38 3.50 <.01
Referent Information -0.38 0.10 -.30 -3.93 <.01
Appraisal Information -0.15 0.08 -.14 -1.98 .05

 

37

Table 5 (cont’d).

 

Int-bet Ref. & Importance
Int-bet Ref. & Likelihood
Int-bet Ref. & Frequency

Int-bet Ref. & Supervisor
Availability

Int-bet Ref. & Coworker
Availability

Int-bet App. & Importance

Int-bet App. & Likelihood
Int-bet App. & Frequency
Int-bet App. & Supervisor
Availability

Int-bet App. & Coworker
Availability

0.27

0.21

0.16

-0.11

-0.09

0.30

0.19

-0.07

0.10

-O.29

0.16

0.15

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.12

.17

.14

.10

-.08

-.06

.28

.18

-.06

.08

-.21

1.77

l .40

1.34

-0.95

-0.77

2.61

1.69

-0.68

0.86

-2.41

.08

.16

.18

.34

.44

.01

.09

.50

.39

.02

 

38

Figure 1. Slopes of Importance of Information Seeking on Sense of Workplace
Community for Three Information Types

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 1
4< ,3_35__5
U j is T-T-T‘T‘: ~;-;‘ ’ - - ' -ref€1‘ellt
a 3 1 ' ' appra1sal
_:_-__— rebtronab
2 1
l
I
l‘i TTT ”Itw—I-—‘Ifl*—*‘I—‘ —_7
1 2 3 4 5
Importance of Information Seeking

 

 

 

SWC: Sense of workplace community

39

Figure 2. Slopes of Coworker Availability as Information Source on Sense of Workplace
Communityfor Three Information Types

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 “I
I
I
4 I —
1 , , ’. . ,4 ______
o l ,wffr-n—r- ----referent
3 3 I ’ (.4-4’ ' ' appraisal
m
I : :Lelational
2 I
I
I
I
1 ,_._ e e .4. e_ , ---.__ 4- .- __,
1 2 3 4 5
Coworker Availability

 

 

 

40

APPENDICES

41

Appendix A

Assessing Psychological Sense of Community at Work (PSCW)
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement by circling an
appropriate number. Your honest answers are greatly appreciated.

Emotional Safm
1. It is safe enough to share my successes and strengths with others in this
department.
2. It is safe enough to share my personal limitation (e.g., areas in which I lack
competency) with others in this department.
3. I feel safe enough to ask for help from others in this department.
4. I am able to freely share my passion about my work to others in this department.
5. It is safe enough to share difficult emotion (e.g., hurt, loss, fear) with others in this
department. M
Coworker Support
I. I regularly stop and talk with people in this department.
2. I rarely visit with my co-workers throughout the workday.*
3. I am committed to my co-workers, even to those individuals who I don’t
personally like.
Team Orientation
1. This department takes time to reflect and discuss how we work together as a
whole. M
2. There is a real sense of community here. M
3. There is a sense of shared mission and common purpose among the people who
work here. M
4. There is good team spirit in this department. M
Sense of Belonging
1. I really care about the fate of this department.
2. I feel loyal to the people in this department.
3. There is a friendly atmosphere in this department. M
4. The friendships and associations I have with other people in this department mean
a lot to me. M
5. This department feels like a community. M
Tolerance for individual differences
1. In this department, people usually break-up into cliques.*
2. There is a high level of respect for others in this department. M
Neighborliness
1. If I needed advice about something I could go to someone in this department. M
2. I borrow things and exchange favors with my coworkers.
3. There are people who really care about me in this department. M
Sense of collectivism
1. If the people in this department were planning something I’d think of it as
something “we” were doing rather than “they” were doing. M
Korean workers’ activities
1. I enjoy going out for lunch with my coworkers in this department. M

 

 

42

2. In this department, people often go out to drink together after work.

3. People in this department take care of each coworker‘s family events (e. g.,
wedding ceremony, funeral).

4. In this organization, people actively participate in hobby clubs in the department.

5. I enjoy taking a trip with my coworkers in this department. M

6. I think that having lunch or dinner with my coworkers affects my sense of
community in the workplace. M

7. I think that participating in hobby club and other coworkers' family events
increases a sense of community in the workplace.

Note: * indicates reverse-scored item.

M indicates items retained to create sense of workplace community, according to CFA
result with unidimension solution.

Respondents answered these items on a five-point scale ranging from (1) = trongly
disagree to (5) = strongly agree.

43

Appendix B — l
Referent — information concerning job instructions

Importance
1. It is important for me to seek information concerning job instructions.

2. It is essential for me to find information concerning job instructions.
3. It is crucial for me to have information concerning job instructions.
4. Information concerning job instructions is not helpful for performing my job.*
Likelihood (the relative ease of acquiring information)
1. It is very likely for me to seek information concerning job instructions.
2. I probably try to obtain information concerning job instructions.
3. It is easy to obtain information concerning job instructions.
Frequency
1. I often seek information concerning job instructions.
2. I regularly look for information concerning job instructions.
3. I frequently obtain information concerning job instructions.
4. I rarely try to get information concerning job instructions.*
Availability of information source
1. My supervisor is easily available for me to ask information concerning job
instructions.
2. My supervisor regularly answers my questions on information concerning job
instructions.
3. My supervisor is always around so that I can ask him/her about information
concerning job instructions any time.
4. I do not see my supervisor often enough to ask about information concerning job
instructions.*
5. My coworkers are easily available for me to ask information concerning job
instructions.
6. My coworkers regularly answer my questions on information concerning job
instructions.
7. My coworkers are always around so that I can ask them about information
concerning job instructions any time.
8. I do not see my coworkers often enough to ask about information concerning job
instructions.*

 

Note: * indicates reverse-scored item.
Respondents answered these items on a five-point scale ranging from (1) = trongly
disagree to (5) = strongly agree.

44

Appendix C - 1

Assessing Information Seeking Tactics Used for Supervisor

The following statements are prepared to assess your attitudes and behaviors of seeking
information concerning job instructions from your immediate supervisor.

 

Overt
I .

I would ask specific, straight to the point questions to get the information I
wanted.

2. I would identify what I didn’t know and ask for information about the matter.
3. I would go directly to my supervisor and ask for information about the matter.
4. I would not “beat around the bush” in asking for the information.

Indirect

1.

2.

3.

4

I would make a vague reference to the point and wait for my supervisor to
continue discussing it.

I would indicate my curiosity about the topic without directly asking for the
information.

I would let my supervisor know indirectly that I would like to know the
information.

I would ask questions in such a way that they wouldn’t seem like questions.

Third Party

1.

2.

3.

4.

I would find another source other than my supervisor who could tell me the same
information.

I would find someone else besides my supervisor to serve as a sounding board for
the topic.

I would ask somebody who I knew was acquainted with my supervisor’s feelings
on the subject rather than ask my supervisor.

I would check with someone else before speaking to my supervisor.

Note: * indicates reverse-scored item.
Respondents answered these items on a five-point scale ranging from (1) = trongly
disagree to (5) = strongly agree.

45

Appendix D — 1

Assessing Information Seeking Tactics Used for Coworkers

The following statements are prepared to assess your attitudes and behaviors of seeking
information conceminggb instructions from your coworkers.

Overt
1 .

I would ask specific, straight to the point questions to get the information I
wanted.

2. I would identify what I didn’t know and ask for information about the matter.
3. I would go directly to my coworker and ask for information about the matter.
4. I would not “beat around the bush” in asking for the information.
Indirect
1. I would make a vague reference to the point and wait for my coworker to continue
discussing it.
2. I would indicate my curiosity about the topic without directly asking for the
information.
3. I would let my supervisor know indirectly that I would like to know the
information.
4. I would ask questions in such a way that they wouldn’t seem like questions.
Third Party
1. I would find another source other than my coworker who could tell me the same
information.
2. I would find someone else besides my coworker to serve as a sounding board for
the topic.
3. I would ask somebody who I knew was acquainted with my coworker’s feelings
on the subject rather than ask my coworker.
4. I would check with someone else before speaking to my coworker.

Note: * indicates reverse-scored item.
Respondents answered these items on a five-point scale ranging from (1) = trongly
disagree to (5) = stroggly agree.

46

Appendix B — 2

Appraisal —— feedback about job performance

Importance

1. It is important for me to seek information concerning feedback about job
performance.

2. It is essential for me to find information concerning feedback about job
performance.

3. It is crucial for me to have information concerning feedback about job
performance.

4. Information concerning feedback about job performance is not helpful for
performing my job.*

Likelihood (the relative ease of amuirigg information)
I. It is very likely for me to seek information concerning feedback about job
performance.
2. I probably try to obtain information concerning feedback about job performance.
3. It is easy to obtain information concerning feedback about job performance.
Frequency
1. I often seek information concerning feedback about job performance.
2. I regularly look for information concerning feedback about job performance.
3. I frequently obtain information concerning feedback about job performance.
4. I rarely try to get information concerning feedback about job perforrnance.*
Availability of information source
1. My supervisor is easily available for me to ask information concerning feedback
about job performance.
2. My supervisor regularly answers my questions on information concerning
feedback about job performance.
3. My supervisor is always around so that I can ask him/her about information
concerning feedback about job performance any time.
4. I do not see my supervisor often enough to ask about information concerning
feedback about job performance.*
5. My coworkers are easily available for me to ask information concerning feedback
about job performance.
6. My coworkers regularly answer my questions on information concerning
feedback about job performance.
7. My coworkers are always around so that I can ask them about information
concerning feedback about job performance any time.
8. I do not see my coworkers often enough to ask about information concerning
feedback about job performance.*

Note: * indicates reverse-scored item.

Respondents answered these items on a five-point scale ranging from (1) = trongly
disagree to (5) = strongly agree.

47

Assessi

Appendix C - 2

ng Information Seeking Tactics Used for Supervisor

The following statements are prepared to assess your attitudes and behaviors of seeking
information concerning feedback about job performance from Lour immediate supervisor.

Overt
1 .

ewe

I would ask specific, straight to the point questions to get the information I
wanted.

I would identify what I didn’t know and ask for information about the matter.
I would go directly to my coworker and ask for information about the matter.
I would not “beat around the bush” in asking for the information.

Indirect

1.

2.

3.

4

I would make a vague reference to the point and wait for my supervisor to
continue discussing it.

I would indicate my curiosity about the topic without directly asking for the
information.

I would let my supervisor know indirectly that I would like to know the
information.

I would ask questions in such a way that they wouldn’t seem like questions.

Third Party

1.
2.
3.
4.

Note: *
Respon

I would find another source other than my supervisor who could tell me the same
information.

I would find someone else besides my supervisor to serve as a sounding board for
the topic.

I would ask somebody who I knew was acquainted with my supervisor’s feelings
on the subject rather than ask my supervisor.

I would check with someone else before speaking to my supervisor.

indicates reverse-scored item.
dents answered these items on a five-point scale ranging from (1) = trongly

disagree to (5) = trongly agree.

48

Appendix D — 2

Assessing Information Seeking Tactics Used for Coworkers

The following statements are prepared to assess your attitudes and behaviors of seeking
information concerning feedback abougobfiperformance from your coworkers.

Overt
l .

2.
3.

4.

I would ask specific, straight to the point questions to get the information I
wanted.

I would identify what I didn’t know and ask for information about the matter.
I would go directly to my coworker and ask for information about the matter.
I would not “beat around the bush” in asking for the information.

Indirect

l.

2.

3.

4

I would make a vague reference to the point and wait for my coworker to continue
discussing it.

I would indicate my curiosity about the topic without directly asking for the
information.

I would let my coworker know indirectly that I would like to know the
information.

I would ask questions in such a way that they wouldn’t seem like questions.

Third Party

5.
6.
7.
8.

Note: *
Respon

I would find another source other than my coworker who could tell me the same
information.

I would find someone else besides my coworker to serve as a sounding board for
the topic.

I would ask somebody who I knew was acquainted with my coworker’s feelings
on the subject rather than ask my coworker.

I would check with someone else before speaking to my coworker.

indicates reverse-scored item.
dents answered these items on a five-point scale ranging from (1) = trongly

disagree to (5) = strongly agree.

49

Appendix B — 3

Relational — how others feel about me as a person

Importance
1. It is important for me to seek information concerning how others feel about me as
a person.
2. It is essential for me to find information concerning how others feel about me as a
person.
3. It is crucial for me to have information concerning how others feel about me as a
person.

4. Information concerning how others feel about me as a person is not helpful for
performing my job.*
Likelihood (the relative ease of acmriring information)
1. It is very likely for me to seek information concerning how others feel about me

as a person.
2. I probably try to obtain information concerning how others feel about me as a
person.
3. It is easy to obtain information concerning how others feel about me as a person.
Frequency

1. I often seek information concerning how others feel about me as a person.

2. I regularly look for information concerning how others feel about me as a person.

3. I frequently obtain information concerning how others feel about me as a person.

4. I rarely try to get information concerning how others feel about me as a person.*

Availability of information source

1. My supervisor is easily available for me to ask information concerning how others
feel about me as a person.

2. My supervisor regularly answers my questions on information concerning how
others feel about me as a person.

3. My supervisor is always around so that I can ask him/her about information
concerning how others feel about me as a person any time.

4. I do not see my supervisor often enough to ask about information concerning how
others feel about me as a person.*

5. My coworkers are easily available for me to ask information concerning how
others feel about me as a person.

6. My coworkers regularly answer my questions on information concerning how
others feel about me as a person.

7. My coworkers are always around so that I can ask them about information
concerning how others feel about me as a person any time.

8. I do not see my coworkers often enough to ask about information concerning how
others feel about me as a person.*

 

Note: * indicates reverse-scored item.
Respondents answered these items on a five-point scale ranging from (1) = trongly
disagree to (5) = strongly gree.

 

50

Appendix C — 3

Assessing Information Seeking Tactics Used for Supervisor

The following statements are prepared to assess your attitudes and behaviors of seeking
information concerning how others feel about you as a person from your immediate

supervisor.

Overt
l .

 

I would ask specific, straight to the point questions to get the information I
wanted.

2. I would identify what I didn’t know and ask for information about the matter.
3. I would go directly to my supervisor and ask for information about the matter.
4. I would not “beat around the bush” in asking for the information.
Indirect
1. I would make a vague reference to the point and wait for my supervisor to
continue discussing it.
2. I would indicate my curiosity about the topic without directly asking for the
information.
3. I would let my supervisor know indirectly that I would like to know the
information.
4. I would ask questions in such a way that they wouldn’t seem like questions.
Third Party
1. I would find another source other than my supervisor who could tell me the same
information.
2. I would find someone else besides my supervisor to serve as a sounding board for
the topic.
3. I would ask somebody who I knew was acquainted with my supervisor’s feelings
on the subject rather than ask my supervisor.
4. I would check with someone else before speaking to my supervisor.

Note: * indicates reverse-scored item.
Respondents answered these items on a five-point scale ranging from (1) = trongly
disagree to (5) = strongly agree.

 

51

Assessi

Appendix D — 3

ng Information Seeking Tactics Used for Coworkers

The following statements are prepared to assess your attitudes and behaviors of seeking
information concerning how others feel about the newcomer as arperson from your

cowork

Overt
1 .

2.
3.

4.

CI’S.

I would ask specific, straight to the point questions to get the information I
wanted.

I would identify what I didn’t know and ask for information about the matter.
I would go directly to my coworker and ask for information about the matter.
I would not “beat around the bush” in asking for the information.

Indirect

l.

2.

3.

4

I would make a vague reference to the point and wait for my coworker to continue
discussing it.

I would indicate my curiosity about the topic without directly asking for the
information.

I would let my coworker know indirectly that I would like to know the
information.

I would ask questions in such a way that they wouldn’t seem like questions.

Third Party

1.
2.
3.
4.

Note: *
Respon

I would find another source other than my coworker who could tell me the same
information.

I would find someone else besides my coworker to serve as a sounding board for
the topic.

I would ask somebody who I knew was acquainted with my supervisor’s feelings
on the subject rather than ask my coworker.

I would check with someone else before speaking to my coworker.

indicates reverse-scored item.
dents answered these items on a five-point scale ranging from (1) = trongly

disagree to (5) = strongly agree.

52

Appendix E

Demographic Information

1. Age
2. Gender: Male Female
3. How long have you worked in the current company?.

e.g., 3 years and 2 months

 

.5

. In your current job, how many hours do you work per week? e.g., 40 hours

5. The name of the department in which you are working

 

6. How would you describe your current job (you may check more than one)?

_ Admin/Management
_ Engineering/Science/Research
__ Information Technology/ Internet
__ Sales/Marketing

__ Professional

__ Services

__ Others (please specify

 

7. What title / position do you hold in your company? e.g.,
supervisor, etc.

 

8. What kind of company do you work for?
e.g., advertising company, telecommunication company, etc.

 

9. What is the highest level of education that you have completed?

 

e.g., high school, some college, college degree, master’s degree, doctoral degree, etc.

10. Marital Status:
single married (no children) _ married with children divorced

53

31811118881881th 88

 

88888
1. L18 311/11 11101111 L191 ”8831 881—8 1:18 1118-8371 ‘8 0181-8 8101
81°18}
2. 1188111101114171888918101188 .11188101 8888818
13183: 4118181718 ”I 0131801 310161881111.
3. 88-8- 888 318 01218 801888 882.18
4. 11811133711013/111114118183’1111 801 01888888 81111.
5. 1-‘-- 311/11 111011411 8113 81119111801 1137181, ”2141131171 I.T3I’E‘)%
E18111.18 8801218 80188812100
881’ X181
1. L18- 811 1110111111 8183108111818 11101 :18 418811017188.
2. L18- ‘13?— 88 82181 :18 888 8- 88821 81801.1
3. 1111:: 711?. —1 03’: 8018121 ‘38: 88133215 391-8111.
1:39. .2 61:
1. 01111 1- 88710187188801 88188 88 882180.818

§§61;E~]] A1713: 0 1210]] flq.A/\

2. 0I Jib/‘1 LIIC’IIIZ 117‘ 7881313311 WQrFII7cl°I $31131.
3. Oil 7I"I 9851'“ b18395 *I'OIOJI 31331. 41°16 7:134 33101 3151/“
4- OI *TJIOIIE 388.61 Eel—88101 91151.?“
311817,}
LL11: {IFS—(lg OI E4191 11.“:8011 131131141 2178 {5.151.
2. LIE- OI "Iii-410"" €348} 0" l:IITSII 381515131 3:115}.
3. 1511:1311 11101153 .11-E813: T817171 011:},M
4. 14171013341LHEIEAI'333133E3183181‘3338-L10117" “18—8-78?
8888.M
5 C’I lib/‘1 71' ZSIL’I‘O’IO "“‘% 81121:: 8’ L”ARIEL?"

711‘337—‘11 X101011 I1118.811”;
. 013*1111011/1181—‘8—9: E8— WMWIEI 0188111131

01 841111 11888 11 8 8888.00

801 8.801 8888.118— 01 811 .11 01 8 0181011 7111118 7111 .88—8- :18
8 9.18.00
118 1:18 888 017188718 88 88 9.1318 ' 8 8888 91:1.

:10 01 AA

a M

01811111018 81811-8 2182118818

1:0,,
9’!“ :‘IOIN
)..

54

8888
1. 1119-1 01 8A1 11148180181118.1718 711816161111 118 1718—“:1801”
618 80161718111” 11171” 61: 8.18 A3218} 7101111.AA
2. 7117—18 A1818 01889188011816.1818 816181118°718 78.1. 9.151.
8161 6162181818
1. H:— 01161 11188811 711711 A—1A161‘—*- 71° 8.821111 A
2. 01 81811188888111? 01 81711 €11E1211'2F‘;<1_q
3. 01818111488888.8111718887118711 5112.112H0118
511872111161).
<11 881114818181 [61711111881 01161161288016.1AAU1
1: —.—A1 111 A181811111118-861: 7,38 87.1111AA
6. 1:“ 8111888111818 01117118617118- 80161871 A 0‘61 A1111
19111180118671.1610 .88 0.1818 811131 A§Z16JE1AA
7. 11: A1111888117318 88881881617188 .8891 7187218711011
80161: 710] 8A1 11111- ° 8101} 871.161.980.188 81:13. 82181161.

J

 

111111

01 888

:‘6

I

fill

111

81313 ... £2.15 3.1661611 1#75101 €38} 3.13% 451%.

AA 8711:- 889.8811 (CFA) 8111. 711841 8811181118 888 1.2.81

1188 888 11118.

88 8871188 5 8 21.1.2. (1) = 118 886121 988(5)1111—?- 8918 8011
7111191 017.18 888.

55

—1r:
.1
CF

'29:}?— 231.1- %? 1H} — ‘21—? X] M EH25} 23y.
‘7. A‘]

£3.ka

‘31—‘11 21%.‘011 tHélfi£§TTTE 33%T36W}.
2 $15.1 2171101] tHfsl 231% ‘ : A—E’: JET-751015}.

3 04—,— xlzlofl tag} 2432 77%:— fi€~€7é31015k

4. °JT 1113011 5116;. 23513:: CQ—‘ul-E—T }—- H]: 12%0] E11] E’é—EEH
moi/.4

l

 

 

1. L}E“HT‘§TZV‘°11KHz-stéE—Z‘iJé-‘Ziolq.
2.1415 0W} ‘ET 117301] UN} 231% 5‘ 23431552323 33011:}
3. ‘ET Zl'flofl EH25} 2351: ‘25.: 3%} £5}.
E3154.
1. ‘41:: *aT—ar‘iiT 71*‘011 EHLZJEE- $8511}.
2- LHf: ofizjuoi‘flTzlé‘OflqlfiJzé '37;qu
3. LR“: 4T ‘flT 7‘12“)“ EHJ “gig—$55}.
4 ‘4: £1134 OJT 7‘17“" EHGJ fiif‘é‘ 9249—3431 J1] $1514“
MEL 917}%*é
1. W4 $13—3- LH7} $.15?“ 111301151123 231% é‘l-‘atfl “HT %§3}C’r.
2. ”M ’JE’J" 7‘ofi‘31 £1qu ‘iiT 11%‘011511132‘4'3011 BRET—‘3: ‘35}.
3. 14.4 ”81—8- ?JXHUrLH THO" “01121.45— HIP/JrE 3’51?- 7‘153011 l4123
23518 $0153.45)“ 01
4. 1H7} (fiT X1140“ 33?} 231513 'ék—Tl élé- “HRH ”EWJ-E‘ 1:3?- 10111 9%qu
5. ‘49} %.§-: 1H7}%1TZ]1I:}O" EH‘EEXJES 335 H] UHT T’rfififi}.
6. ‘44 %Et’ T310942] 9117.212101]qu QTOHEH‘I’J" 2&5}.
7. 1+9] %‘§.‘:°1:11]L}IHT$4°H “014.4% LfllflE @T 11901] EMS}

zéE—E: E01% 31: 9.15}.
8. LH7}°J¥ZI%J°"3J§} RAE-3%.]? flé‘ufl, LH%i—X}Z,Ep_o]x]O}Eqac

iLfl; * 1C3 111075! 0] 1536‘} %L%% LJrEP’g

22,5: Max} 52;, 243(1): non %946}x19.—.<5> Duo 542.2} .4011
4214 912.1% :Q-clz‘g}

56

L147}°115}-E zggggfl THE/21 #4414144?" 2?. @933

2. b’rE-LHflfiak‘czéié44°}LHE,1T21]°11EH§}7§EE7%

3 4221232340 .lo}7}:L—ra—zuonnnwg vii-H04 2.10m.

4. LP‘ ZJEEU HOW. 1315595017194° 723015}.

134T?

1. LIE-9.7301]EHQOHvflfiflfi-%%$,%4fl°1 22.441461124144712}
aOflqaflmq.

2. Ur:aaaggzzgioucnangomxwLag—211011424494
i214.” 51042 2401a}.

3. QEIH%%¥°H7HLH7}ZLZ dig-03. QNQQEZflé-{4EZ4—‘li‘é‘fllél

 

740]|:}
4. 4%:- 417%}:- QE—EOI 43—34% 7 2184 30110471] %01% 33011:}.
24142}2%23 Ere—7-
1. 14:744eq L112" 42-9: 283i... ‘Qfii% 1437311" - :2: 7.4015}.
2. 14—1:— LH %%—% 7419] 431.2%71101] Engage] a r43 24%}0 2;;0
EMU}.

LH‘: 44 4.413314% :1 4241011un 4 22.132221 29230114423 14% 44011211
$015. 2301:}.
4:: 44 4.133011 74} ‘346M 2.4011 new 4%.. 44.441211 2:421 {5; 35011:}.

L»

z“

2;“ {'31 (1:4.

r: Hm H
010 -x-

49111‘1 m
>4

57

4130-1
48-3041 4% 7314.47? 74%- 7451 7.454.

4 71:11
'3
:5. H 70} 46‘}: 73;: 0471946147474741841 7.473742% 55.9.6.4

7§%%% 24301:}.
2 4—:- L147} 7: 73:27 7.4310414 25411011464745; 741—73740154.
3, 1.457473% 6;: 7.4474147410446473373 %04%740144.

4. 9E23E%%O4EEE41“50171042 740144.
1.4g

1

0+1
...é
>4

. L4: 9.4404] 51443014444143} (31:91—3- @$,%§L7}1340415H€7H 741—1.h 011713.} 314%

71544374 740144.

2. L}: 7.47474 2.3:. :1 7412011 man 501% 9.41.27414 '47.} 42
E7114% $04: 7240144

3. L}: 4%.3011741144741WE'.
740“}.

4. Ur: LH7‘HSH: “641-50 I 4%.] Zd7ii’éi0171‘34741%01%330

7111347}_%;—"F-?
1. 443% 3114: 47417.4? 731: “.4714? 343 743.44% 4% 74015}.

0

Ti

2. 14E 44% EE- 741916431 $174414] EH43}E%°I a 44%- 434 7% 7‘ 2%-
3240144.

3. 14%: 44%;?in 1 43741041441341 LH ”2344.494 @23419441-53 14%.- 74434041741
$0157 340144.

4. 1+: 4%:0114736471 71011 22424 14:: 47.401171] 7.421 7.4 2401:}.

7.44: * sat-.4 1.4701 71.0.7.4 7.7—2.- 4%.
.33— %%7}£=.—.<2-5 574 74.4 ()1 = 44— %9474719.4%<5>un4~ 7917:} 24011
747121 9173—2- %2.47.}.

58

2.2-2- 1.2—2

22171 7.12. — 2.12.2 4271121121221 722.

 

 

%° M94
1. LH‘€J~‘T”‘3H°H EH334fl%-%‘L404§~‘334%%334E4
2. LH‘ij—‘fi 4:3qu EH34‘L4—8-%7~‘534—8: {ET—401414
3. LH‘EH‘T T324241 347344214%~%%4E 7.4%?3733401134
4. LH ‘34? T3H°H 4344144373.”: ‘fi—?%T3H'4‘i- EHL.1_%01 517] 044541“
7M?!“
1. L4—:UH—‘?—LH%44’——’F3H OH EH34E14%% 34%743134.
2. L}: 0434LH‘23‘4- T' I 343.443.4%%74334112‘43L47404E4
3. LH‘S‘T "3H3H 43.431333. (341% 74% 721414.
4313:
1. LE%%~LH%j-‘%T3H°H 43.744444373- 34354.
2. L4-E741’4343ELH‘QT'3H EH34491%%%4EI‘4
3. L354 7443442344 T3H<>H EH3.4 J%%@E—E4.
4. 1.1277122 21122-211211 211212.122- 222231 7171 22221.2
7222212171274
1. L44 3424—9.- LH74LH‘fl—‘14 T324211 EH3.“4 J%% 4331412447 °3§134E4
2. L494 ”243340 744434034 ‘43—‘11T3H0H EH34 LJTOH EH34" 34414.
3. L494 241.23 L7HL4144—713940H 040474, 14E94 74134ELH‘E4T T3HOH EH3L4
E’l%% %04%:"°‘E4.
4. LH74444‘33TT3H3H EH3. 34 L4%%774“4 3273.44.44 ”2,4214% 7443 54.0171
03-3241}, :1:
5. L49 8.34.43 LH ?JT T3H°H EH3434 ~8--% 343.3124] 344-?- 91-38434.
6. LIE—0H EH%4% 3.44:4.

L12122: 72472122211224: 211 :11

7. L494 0%34‘; (24.74444144 T9404] 040434.445"
15%? %04%—’F°4E}.

8. 4H74444%15?‘31:‘§°H EH64 ‘4 L}%% 3331 34% “H,LH%EE 1431’; 114.0473]

{271.
(€4.7Ha4E LH $4314 T324044 EH34

211—2— 2212171 222151212 2212 24211

59

41:
J44“
O
1'»

)'
1—1
J

0H EH34 “HE. 7’47? 3434—4441474 744414.

O
r

 

 

31714347377?-
1. L434 LH74 31643:- 354.737 9.474943H44144443431-343'3423. 34.33}
“AH—37377373334344.
2. 4757144743343 33.727 434441.1717344244 3434337:— 347373434344.
3. L43:- 3433 3.434% 34247414714424] 343.433: 334% 742444.
4. L43: 3.13—3.— 337343.:- r44 Eye-73414 047:2:- 7.40434.
2.43434 43744
1. 15.9.2401]ma1onunq1g—ggég3,g1x1g101 17424 E14314 744372147434
3&7 744% 7434E4.

2. L41. 4 43.4334 OE: 2H5124] £44614 £04512] 0411—3211011 1:11:33 L191
374347"- 51343477404414
3. L4—:7 LH ”3444.404474] LH74 :1— ?‘HES 3.451 3404344143.- 3472: 1433 34.93 224744 3.4
7.42121.
4. L443 ”117} 347:7'a4 73772334 34.73704 34 143.4 130424 047H 5% 340434.
244 3414-3: 373.4 73744
1. L4: 3.434 E347:- LH744 Q7°7 2.43.7:— ‘H3Hé E4fi 2H3} 75-34% .
2. 212: .11 442.33 241216134. 24211211216124.2213 21:2- 213-222—2-
740]1:}_
3. L43.- LH 3.435.454.4144:— :1 437244044 EH3H 144 33441494 QZH 044 944.734 414% 44342447444
321—3.— 2421121.
L127: 111 32.1211 211 2122171 7.44211 221.424 213.- 4121011711 212.1 2.1 242121.

761011§06J$4E£ qqlé‘}
444253 734E (1)— - 344T %4347<4us 04° (5) UHT %°4§4 474044
64-.

:43

of}.

:1:
.9.
O

9,]

2

fi‘

.24.. mi: 13:43
r41: H

42‘.

49394411
ml.

EL.
2
.9.
a

010 410::

60

42.14011 41123 2.414. 2242- 2.122-2371 23:

2321242—

1. 1311711415233-7141411412141411414443g4441
243g~§2401c1

 

2. L4:LH71Le—‘a2g§.% 20111131253414]22.223322452224012.

3. 442242322 253201712241214123231—2 01% 240:1.

4. 4222222y~m22222°2mq

232324 222

1 1: 024011 Manama} 9.143% 2.12%37122401 EH21} 7412401712.} 24%
711424. 24011:}

2. Pa 2122210i124aofltH2H %01EZ] 94.11.2544]
3217]”3’3251043 723015}.

3. 1.121114534411711 0471:1233: 03‘"? 251012.142:— zd~.%zl'fl242§. Cebu 2.}
2011:}.

4 4—3- 141712-125.- 21%;2012—3-21

21232122212?

1. w:- HERE} 14121124202242: 221% E1%23y.%% 24% 24011:}.

2. L’r—‘ELH%§£% 211912231 :L—1—2nofl EH§EE%°1%E}E- 1%}

3. 115.14% aiqtzwflldlmwmfiflA 2:}2'1011942‘4
—%01% 2101:}.

4. LR; 111 %—Eon2n 2342171 2M 29-1-9} ‘44—? 21214011211 2291 2.} 3301:}.

5124 412.401 559.22.} 242-3.— 421444.

9f} *
é—E— 2;- 21—2—% 5 2: 245 (1) = une— 252212121 94—2— <5> 111.4. %9421% 21011
21 ~3— 24132.21.

61

~‘1’2-‘EB - 3
EWHEE-EEN2HEHWE4EEEE4

Egg/H

1.EE4EEML%EWE4EEEEEEWEWH£§EEEEEE
EREE.

2. DE 4%“:01 LP: 01E?“ 2§E6}E210HEHE 23EE EE EE-
EEENE.

3.EE }EENWEEE4EEE EEWEEEEEEEE
2‘; 24 24011;}.

4.EE2W*0H+2EE4EEEE4EUWPWfiEEEEEETE

1112c -2241 00] 512] 9;?qu

 

7MB
1. 4E L‘E} 4%‘E01 WE 0%“ 71] 2§E6}E2l°fl LHE 241E EE E015}.
2. LEE 0M LEE 4% E0] NE 0W 2n 2)} Z1r6H: 21°11 LHE2 31E E28213.
lnEE 71015}.
3. GE 4%}EOI L}E OJEHI 23 E6}E2loil LHE 235E EE 33% E5}
L313
1. L}E ~o-—- Li’rE 4EEOI 4E- Oit-Efll 2§E6}E 2101] LH6.}2 311E EEC}.
2. LR:- EEEQE 01E 4%‘E -0] 4E 012E711 2§E6}E2l°fl LHE. 6L EEE
EEC}.
3. L}E4—1-C}E4%EOILJrEOiEHI23E6¥E21011LHE233EEEW
4. LE EE‘E 14E 4%}E01LJ1E01E7H23E6PE21011 LHEEEE

EOEEEEEEE
EH lqflgg
L1+JEEEELMEE14~E24EEE2EEEE2EE E4
“H212 Trig—fit}
szrw4°2anaqE2mlohEEEEmEEEEMEuEL
EEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEL
3.4EEEEQUMHHEEENW4,L¥E 4EEEE4EEML£§
EE4EEEEEEWEEEEEME 22w+.
4. L117} WE: *}%’2E01L]r2§201m711*§z}{5}:210"EH53 23112: 7E1 ”$12.9? “H, LH
”$23232 747 E01110}:5} *
5. 491 %.§E2 WE 4%}50] WE 019517" *3 q5V2‘27‘10" CHE} 51E EEG]
””212 Tr§5}q
aL+4EEE2E2OEqE2HEwhr2EEmEuE2fl4m2-
2EEEEEqE EEmmEE ;m.
ItEaEEEEwwuvflwwwwqu 4WLJEE4EEEEE
EE4E4EE4EWEEEEEEE 22m}
8.m4qE2wLohraEmmEadEflmuhmezEnngmm

EEE4+Efl4°%fiL*

62

OO 5 ..er
W or 20
1 E E
co flu E
E. E E

* 30.9.

1 E E
E E 4.

63

-{u:
JR“
C3

 

 

”8601M? 73.19%? 1635—1711735

$1169.???
I.HLH7}1‘}:-4E%%7]%6H*11V116}313—12J751£E%&§}

:‘%%% @740]?

2. L15} LH7}EE: —.: 73E;— 77%6Mfl,:1—E—711011LH6} 23:2 7:166; 73616}.
3. L+-;- 707:} E72}7&% 3&6}7}:L€~7fl°fl £116.} @12- %61% 74616}.
4. L17}: -— $31.6;— a] %%0171 9263— 7MB}.

334%?g
1. LE} £17301] EH6J°HUH6J6%%61$,%4%°I 174011 616R 741*‘31171‘21

74 .9. 711;}? 74 011:].

2. LP“: 7473749.: fl 231°11LH2‘5H%°1E?<]9§31, :1 E61101] EHQLW]
35:71’87-3- 301% 33015}.

3. LIE ‘4} @7130“ 71] 1H7} 3- Zéig-a 0 513901231415: 33% {HS 312—31 (347112}
7401:}.

4 L}: 1417} 6H? 34355.70] 75-91%:0‘71 A7134 1017‘] °}711%01% 33015}.

11] $ng %‘6l 21‘"?

1. Ur: ”Eh—’3: EDP-.3 LH74] Q19: 231% ‘36“: 141-3: Zéfl" °§lr% 723015}.

2. LFE 141 ’5‘33-% 111916Hl, 1 $6“ 01131162} E%°1 % '43 4%% §l—%
723015}.

3. 4% 1),] ’b‘TIErEq-‘E: :1 51561101] EH61} LR @3391 7:}23011914‘7 I. ‘3}% 4%MMI
%°1% 33015}.

4. Uri? LR ’SWEOH 7" ‘36P] 751°“ 11?}94 CLE- 4%}01171] 339.] 5:3 723015}.

Ol

an. * 31% 157301 3536.} 642.2: L’rEPé.
a—rz- %%x}%% 5 a 245 (1) = 6H—?— %916}719%%(5)UH% %916} 2401]
47.194 94751-3 8436:}

64

 

 

 

€63. EH6} 6351—641 6.6?- “5.741636
66711 641
1143474616}: 6.41663 671 9461161 46416431 66.364 26 65.8. 6}
§E%%§ 26015}.
2. LP:- 41636: 64.6.6: 666MB. ,16-61611 L116} 646‘ 6‘66 7,3616}.
3. LIE—:- 6462 6666-36 764616671161] 6116.16.46: 60”;- 74016}.
4 LR: 63516} 6016.63 616-6601619663..— 724016}.
7&3 4 *1"?
1. L}: 41.640110 CH6} 6116146} 61.66% 23666613461] 61614 741—56 011716; 23%-
716463 74616}.
2. LR: 616,364.66. 1635161] 6161601166] 61.166161] 616.1169]
671616—6646 64611:}.
3. WE LH 6526161] 711 L147} :1 6366-6. 0 516101631435 311% 36363.36 6‘71]?
740]]:Jr
4. Lh: 4166}: 76-3-30] 66161—6174 21646616106616 624616}.
61166461666311
1. : %§66.EH6 UM] 76.48 63.6%- 64% 66-72416—66- 71546 26616}.
2. 36-41666 611916}Jl,16‘-7410116H6. 666166664666 6-
36016}.
3. L6—- LH%EEE+:16610116H6HLH .6661 66611646664646.6614]
6616 36616}.
4. L46: 64 6661616667} 6161116360 6646611711661 6 6616.
61:6 5.16} 6.7361636} 6 66%.- L466}.
66’: 96 663-6; 5 64 645 (1) = 66-11 %946}61‘6%(5)6H6 69164 9461]
6 6.1 9173.63: %%6}.

6S

 

 

1 L} O]. 41]

2 *3 L5: 6} 01

16463616711: 61])3k127H6’é
4.41%‘(1 671616.)~E.1~‘€66]Z.: 6])40 61?}

 

:1”- H . .
5. ..6- 66163 .

6. 61-6661 6 2H 6166-:- 6161611 366}4.11477}?(61 r6661 2 71161619166662: 666.! 6
616L166)

646/6661 6!
7162/66/63? 6!
746%61/616161/1T
03 66674163 6!

 

6161:: 6!
7166666161 6662.- 61664.6. )
7. 26 6 61w6.66). 6164.66, 66.66.6146

 

s. 616676 6666616 6446-..- 616. 6661146}?
611)%‘31616},%6l616}.%

 

9.616 6661: 6:1):66, 64%61,6i—E-6H%,6H7H,EH%.
64 616461 :4, 64*}6416461666461166617116446166616 6

10. 616(6L1)64 6:
616:— 7163mm 31%) 716mm 91%) 616

66

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahlbrandt, R. S., & Cunningham, J. V. (1979). A new public policy for neighborhood
participation. New York: Praeger.

 

Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177-181.

Ashford, S. J ., & Taylor, M. S. (1990). Adaptation to work transitions: An integrative
approach. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personal and
human resource management, 8, 1-39. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ashford, S. J ., & Tusi, A. S. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The
role of active feedback seeking. Academy of Management Joumgl, 34, 251-280.

Bachrach, K. M., & Zautra, A. J. (1985). Coping with a community stressor: The threat
of hazardous waste facility. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 26, 127-141.

Baik, S. K. (1988). A study on the interorganizational coordination mechanism of the
Korean firms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University,
Seoul, Korea.

Beach, L. R., Mitchell, T. R., Deaton, M. D.,& Prothero, J. (1978). Information
relevance, content and source credibility in the revision of opinions.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 1-16.

Beamer, L. (1994). Teaching English business writing to Chinese-speaking business
students. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 57, 12-18.

Beamer, L. (2003). Directness in Chinese business correspondence of the nineteenth
century. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 17(2), 20] , 237.

Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the
development of interpersonal relationships. In H. Giles & R. N. St, Clair (Eds.),
Language and social psychology (pp. 122-144). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and
beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human
Communication Research, 1, 99-112.

 

Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal and curiosfl New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brickman, P., & Bulman, R. J. (1977). Pleasure and pain in social comparison. In J. Suls
& R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical
perspectives (pp. 149-186). Washington, DC: Halsted-Wiley.

67

Brown, R, & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Political phenomena. In
E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp.
260-289). London: Cambridge University Press.

Burroughs, S. M., & Eby, L. T. (1998). Psychological sense of community at work: A
measurement system and explanatory framework. Journal of Community
Psychology, 26, 509-532.

 

Campos, A. L. (1996). How sense of community relates to recycling participagion.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

 

Cha, J -H. (1994). Aspects of individualism and collectivism in Korea. In U. Kim, H. C.
Traindis, C. Kagitcibasi, S-C. C, & G. Yoon (Eds), Individualism and
collectivism: Theory, method, and Applications (pp. 1 57-1 74). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Chang, H-J. (1995). The discourse of community agd the contested past: A case study of
medium-sized Korean conppam. Unpublished master’s thesis, Seoul National
University, Seoul, Korea.

 

Chavis, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban
environment: A catalyst for participation and community development.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 55-81.

Chen, G-M., & Chung, J. (1994). The impact of Confucianism on organizational
communication. Communication Quarterly, 42, 93-105.

C ho, E-Y. (1999). Formation process of corporate culture and comparison on Korean,

US, and Japan corporate culture properties. 73 03 03, :IL [Korean Business Studies],
I, l97-225.

 

Christie, P. M. J., Kwon, I. G., Stoeberl, P. A., & Baumhart, R. (2003). A cross-cultural
comparison of ethical attitudes of business managers: India, Korea and the United
States. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 263-287.

 

Cochrun. S. E. (1994). Understanding and enhancing neighborhood sense of community.
JOLLILal of Flaming Literature, 9, 92-99.

Cohen, J ., Cohen, R, West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
LEA.

 

Comer, D. R. (1991). Organizational newcomers’ acquisition of information from peers.
Management Communication Quarterly, 5, 64-89.

68

Cusella, L. (1980). The effects of feedback on intrinsic motivation. In D. Nimmo (Ed.),
Communicationggearbook, 4 (pp. 367-387). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Press.

Dalton. G. W., & Thompson, P. H. (1986). Novations: Stratefigies for career mangment.
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Dawar, N., Parker, P. M., & Price, L. J. (1996). A cross culture study of interpersonal
informational exchange. Journal of Intematioryal Business Studies, 3, 497-516.

Edelstein, M. (1988). The enabling response: Community development and toxic
exposure. Neighborhood and Community Environment. New York: Plenum
Press.

Etzioni, A. (1994). The spirit of community: The reinvention of American society. New
York: Touchstone.

Evan, W. M. (1963). Peer group interaction and organizational socialization: A study of
employee turnover. American Sociological Review, 28, 436-440.

Falcione, R. L., & Wilson, C. E. (1988). Socialization processes in organizations. In G.
M. Goldhaber & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational
communication (pp. 151-169). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Fan, P., & Zi gang, Z. (2004). Cross-cultural challenges when doing business in China.
Singapore. Magyagement Review, 26(1), 81-90.

Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 21, 433-452.

Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members. Academy
of Management Review, 6, 309-318.

F ranke, R., Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1991). Cultural roots of economic performance:
A research note. §_tr_ategic Mamgement Journa_l, 12, 165-173.

Gardner, J. (1992). Building community. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.

Gary, K. R., & Marshall, K, P. (1998). Kenyan and Korean management orientations on
Hofstede’s cultural values. Multiryatiorgl Business Review, 6, 79-88.

Gersberger. P. G., & Allen, T. J. (1968). Criteria used by research and development

engineers in the selection of an information source. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 52, 272-279.

69

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday.

Greller, M. M., & Herold, D. M. (1975). Sources of feedback: A preliminary
investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 244-256.

Gudykunst, W. (1994). Bridging difference. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. (1988). Uncertainty and anxiety. In Y. Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds),
Theories in intercultural communication, (pp. 123-156). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Gudykunst, W., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Tooney, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S.
(1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and

individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human
Communication Research, 22 (4), 510-543.

 

Guzley, R. M., Araki, F., & Chalmers, L. F. (1998). Cross-cultural perspectives of
commitment: Individualism and collectivism as a framework for
conceptualization. The Southern Communication Journal, 64, 1-19.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.

 

Hanser, L. M., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1978). Work as an information environment.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 47-60.

Harrison, G. L. (1995). Satisfaction, tension and interpersonal relations: A cross-cultural
comparison of managers in Singapore and Australia. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 10(8), 13-19.

 

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

 

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Sofiware of the mind. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of
Management Executive, 7, 81-94.

 

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to
economic growth. Organizatio_nal Dynamics, 16, 4-21.

70

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1991). Cultural roots of economic performance: A research
note. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 165-173.

 

Jablin, F. M. (1984). Assimilating new members into organizations. In R. N. Bostrom
(Ed.), Communication yearbook, 8, (pp. 594-626). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

 

Jones, G. R. (1983). Psychological orientation and the process of organizational
socialization: An interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 8,
464-474.

Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language
Learning, 16, 1-20.

Kim, J. G. (2000). A study on the influence of iob satisfaction on the organizational
climate in congany. Unpublished master’s thesis, Sogang University, Seoul,
Korea.

 

Kim, M. S., & Sharkey, W. F. (1995). Independent and interdependent construals of self:
Explaining cultural patterns of interpersonal communication in multi-cultural
organizational settings. Communication Quarterly, 43(1), 20-38.

Klein. K. J ., & D’Aunno, T. A. (1986). Psychological sense of community in the
workplace. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 365-377.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational
m. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

 

Lambert, R. P., & Hopkins, K. (1995). Occupational conditions and worker’s sense of
community: Variations by gender and race. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 23, 151- 179.

 

Lanzetta, J. T. (1971). The motivational properties of uncertainty. In H. 1. Day, D. E.
Berlyne, & D. E. Hunt (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation: A new direction in education
(pp. 134-147). Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada.

Lester, R. E. (1987). Organizational culture, uncertainty reduction, and the socialization
of new organizational members. In S. Thomas (Ed.), Studies in communication
(Vol. 3): Culture and communication: Methodologygbehavior, artifacts, and
institutions. Selected proceedings from the F ifih International Conference on
Culture and Communication, Temple University, 1983 (pp. 105-113). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.

Littlejohn, S. W. (1996). Theories of human communication. New York: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.

71

Louis. M. R. (1990). Acculturation in the workplace: Newcomers as lay ethnographers.
In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

 

Ma, R., & Chuang, R. (2001). Persuasion strategies of Chinese college students in
interpersonal contexts. Southern Communication Journal, 66(4), 267-278.

 

Macleod, R. (1988). China Inc.: How to do business with the Chinese. New York:
Bantam.

Maclntyre, A. (1981). After virtue. South Bend, IN: University of Norte Dame Press.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

McMillan D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory.
Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23.

Miller, D. T. (1976). Ego involvement and attributions for success and failure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 901-906.

 

Miller, V. D. (1996). An experimental study of newcomers’ information seeking
behaviors during organizational entry. Communication Studies, 47, 1-24.

Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry:
Influences, tactics, and a model pf the process. Academy of Management Review,
16, 92-120.

Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual
difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 16, 127-142.

Morgan, A. (1943). The small community. New York: Harper.

Morrison, E. W. (1993a). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on
newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 173-183.

Morrison, E. W. (1993b). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes,
sources, and outcomes. Academy of Marglgement Joumpfl, 36, 557-589.

 

Morrison, E. W., & Bies, R. J. (1991). Impression management in the feedback-seeking
process: A literature review and research agenda. Academy of Management
Review, 16, 522- 541.

Nelson, D. L (1987). Organizational socialization: A stress perspective. Journal of
Occupational Behavior, 8, 31 1-324.

72

Nord, W. E. (1980). The study of organizations through a resource-exchange paradigm.
In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds). Social exchange:
Advances in theory and practices (pp. 119-140). New York: Plenum Press.

 

 

O’Reilly, C. A., III. (1982). Variations in decision makers’ use of information sources.
Academyof Management Journal, 25, 756-771.

Pelto, P. J. (1968). The difference between “tight” and “loose” societies. Transaction,
April, 37-40.

Posner, B. Z., & Powell, G. N. (1985). Female and male socialization experiences: An
initial investigation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 81-85.

Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates.
Academy of Management Review, 12, 278-287.

 

Roloff, M. E. (1981). Interpersonal communication: The social exchange approach.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rothman, J. (1982). Taking account of the workplace in community organization
practice. In. S. Akabas, & P. Kurzamn (Eds.), Work, works, and work
organizations: A view from social work (pp. 176-196). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

 

 

Sarason, S. (1974). Psychological sense of community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schneider, S. (1989). Strategy formulation: The impact of national culture.
Organizational Studies, 10, 149-168.

 

Schneider, S., & DeMeyer, A. (1991 ). Interpreting and responding to strategic issues: The
impact of national culture. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 307-320.

Senge, P. M., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., Smith, B. J., & Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth
discipline fieldboolg New York: Doubleday.

Shane, S. (1994). Cultural values and the championing process. Entrepreneurship Theory
& Practice, 18.

Shankarmahesh, M. N., Ford, J. B., & LaTour, M. S. (2003). Cultural dimensions of
switching behavior in importer-exporter relationships. Academy of Marketing
Science Review, 1-17.

 

 

Shinn, M. (1987). Expanding community psychology’s domain. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 15, 555-574.

73

Solomon, D., Watson, M., Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Delucchi, K. (1996). Creating
classrooms that students experience as communities. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 24(6), 719-748.

 

Stewart, E. C., & Bennett, M. J. (1991). American cultural patterns: A cross-cultural
perspective. Yannouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Managing intercultural conflicts effectively. Intercultural
Communication: A reader. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Belmont, CA:
Wadworth.

Trandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press,
Inc.

 

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of
Management Journal, 37(4), 765-802.

Van Maanen, J. (1975). Police socialization: A longitudinal examination of job attitudes
in an urban police department. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 207-228.

Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Ed.), Handbook
of work, organization and society (pp. 7-130). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Van Maanen, J ., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization.
In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior, 1, (pp. 209-264).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Walster, E.. Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.

Yeh, R., & Lawrence, J. (1995). Individualism and Confucian dynamism: A note on

Hofstede’s cultural root to economic growth. Journal of Internatitml Business
Studies, 26, 655-669.

74

Iii.‘ ‘II.

II. -l‘l ’1

   

v ~--- 'le‘s‘v3|' - ..-,...v.u. ‘

Mll MILAN SYAI JNIWEIID IIV IIUH AH lE

Ill lll Ill lllll H

1293 02504 2940