type-a behavior in a multinational organization: a study of two countries

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

T y p e - A b e h a v i o r i na m u l t i n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n :a s t u d y o f t w o c o u n t r i e s

Muhammad Jamal*†

Department of Management, John Molson School of Business, Concordia UniversityMontreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8, Canada

* Correspondence to: Muhammad Jamal, Departmentof Management, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8,Canada.†E-mail: [email protected]/grant sponsor: Social Sciences ResearchCouncil of Canada.Contract/grant number: 410-99-0203; S00 802,2003–2006.Contract/grant sponsor: Fonds pour la formation dechercheurs de l’aide à la recherche from the Provinceof Quebec.Contract/grant number: 99-ER-0506.

S t r e s s a n d H e a l t hStress and Health 23: 101–109 (2007)

Published online 1 December 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/smi.1126Received 27 July 2006; Accepted 24 August 2006

SummaryThis study examined the relationship of global Type A and its components (time pressure andhard driving/competitiveness) with job performance, job satisfaction and health problems amongemployees working in a multinational company in Malaysia (N = 305) and Pakistan (N = 325).

Data were collected by means of a structured questionnaire from employees concerning Type-A behavior, job satisfactions and health problems. Job performance data were obtained from thecompany’s personnel files. The immediate supervisor provided the job performance rating annu-ally for all employees. Bivariate multiple regressions were used to analyze the data. Global TypeA and its two components were not related to job performance in either countries. Global TypeA and the components time pressure and hard driving/competitiveness were significantly relatedto job satisfaction and health problems in both countries. Some support for the differential effectsof Type-A behavior components on health problems was noted in both samples. Implications offindings are discussed for international and cross-cultural research. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley& Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

This study examined the relationship of Type-Abehavior with job performance, job satisfactionand health problems among employees workingin a Western-based multinational organization inMalaysia and Pakistan. Many constructs likeType-A behavior, job satisfaction, burnout, psy-chosomatic health problems, and job stress havebeen developed and empirically tested primarilyin Western industrialized countries (Glazer &Beehr, 2005; Jamal, 1999a, 1999b). Their porta-bility and usefulness to developing countries haverarely been tested despite repeated suggestions todo so (Jamal, 2005). A recent comprehensive

Key WordsType-A behavior; multinational organization; job performance; cross-cultural management

study of 24 nations suggested that cross-nationalmanagement research is now needed more thanever because it can no longer be assumed thatNorth American and Western concepts and theo-ries transcend cultural and national boundaries(Spector, Cooper, & Sanchez, 2002). In thisrespect, the present study contributes to cross-national management literature by examining therelationship of Type-A behavior with job perfor-mance, job satisfaction and health problemsamong employees in Malaysia (N = 305) and Pakistan (N = 325). Therefore, the present studyintended to provide empirical evidence on the con-vergence concepts in cross-cultural managementresearch (Pudelko, Carr, Fink, & Wentage, 2006).

Since the recognition of Type-A behaviorpattern (TABP) by two cardiologists, more than30 years ago (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974), alarge number of studies have been conducted bypsychologists, psychiatrists, behavioral scientists,health care professionals and managementresearchers in understanding the dynamics ofcoronary-prone Type-A behavior (Jamal, 2005;Jamal & Baba, 1991; Kunnanatt, 2003;Matthews, 1988; Schaubroeck, Ganster, & Kemmerer, 1994). Type-A behavior has beendescribed as an action emotion complex that canbe observed in any individual who is aggressivelyinvolved in a chronic, incessant struggle toachieve more and more in less and less time and,if required to do so, against the opposing effortsof other things and other individuals. Some of themain overt indicators of Type-A behavior includeexplosiveness, high achievement ambitions,heightened pace of living, accelerated speechpattern, polyphasic activities, a tendency to chal-lenge and to compete with others, impatiencewith slowness, free floating hostility and thegeneral appearance of tension (Matthews, 1988).Type B behavior is generally characterized byopposite attributes and qualities. Many of theabove-mentioned characteristics of Type-Abehaviors have been empirically supportedamong different samples of people in variousoccupational and cultural/national settings(Lavanco, 1997; Lee, Jamieson & Earley, 1996;Matthews, 1988). There are a large number ofempirical studies in existence, both from labora-tory and field stettings, relating Type-A and TypeB differences in physiological and health variables(Baba, Jamal, & Tourigny, 1998; Sibilia, Picozzi,& Nardi, 1995; Taylor & Cooper, 1989). Simi-larly, there are a number of laboratory studies andstudies with student samples in which differences

in Type A and Type B were examined in terms ofshort-term and limited task performance, avariety of work attitudes and health variables(Barling & Charbonneau, 1992; Helmreich,Spence, & Pred, 1988). Both types of studies havebeen reviewed by Ganster (1987) and Matthews(1988). There are still only a limited number ofempirical studies in which Type A and Type B dif-ferences in job performance were examined inreal work organizations with proper and valid jobperformance measures (Jamal, 1985; Lee &Gillen, 1989; Matteson, Ivancevich, & Smith,1984; Taylor, Locke, Lee, & Gist, 1984). Theresults of these studies on Type-A behavior andjob performance are, at best, mixed. Some studiesfound a positive relationship between Type-Abehavior and some dimensions of job perfor-mance (Fisher, 2001). Other studies failed to findany significant relationship between Type-Abehavior and job performance. These studieswere generally conducted among employees inWestern industrialized countries (Begley, Lee, &Czajka, 2000; Jamal & Baba, 2003; Sager, 1991).

The present study was conducted among theemployees of a multinational company in twodeveloping countries, Malaysia and Pakistan. Thechoice of Malaysia and Pakistan as research set-tings was based not only on practical considera-tions but also on empirical findings that these twocountries differ from the Western countries (i.e.Australia, Canada, UK, US) on the most impor-tant dimension of national culture, individualismand collectivism (Hofstede, 2001; Noordin,Williams, & Zimmer, 2002; Triandis, 2004).While most of the Western countries in generaltend to be high on individualism and low on col-lectivism, countries like Malaysia and Pakistantend to be high on collectivism and low on indi-vidualism (Jamal, 2005; Spector et al., 2002).Cross-cultural management researchers have longsuggested that the work attitudes and behavior ofpeople in collectivist cultures are different fromthe work attitudes and behavior of people in indi-vidualistic cultures (Carpenter, 2002; Hoppe,2004; Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006; Triandis& Suh, 2002). In collectivistic cultures, theemphasis is belonging to an in-group. In returnfor their loyalty to different types of groups, indi-viduals are provided with security and protectionby these groups when things are difficult andunpleasant in employment. In contrast, in indi-vidualistic cultures, individuals are supposed totake care of themselves. The emphasis in thisculture is on individual initiative, achievement,

M. Jamal

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 23: 101–109 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/smi

102

and performance (Noordin et al., 2002). Thus, itappeared possible that individuals from individu-alistic and collectivistic cultures would exhibitdifferential levels of Type-A behavior and it mightalso reflect in their work attitudes and behavior.The present study provided some empirical evi-dence from two collectivistic cultures on a mainlyWestern, North American life style phenomenonlike Type-A behavior and its impact on job per-formance, job satisfaction and health problems.

Although global Type-A behavior has beenfairly consistent in showing a modest relationshipwith a number of physiological, health and workrelated variables (Jamal, 2002; Jamal & Bodawi,1995), it has been suggested that because of themultidimensional nature of TABP, the usage ofthe component measures of Type-A behaviormight improve the predictive validity of Type-Abehavior construct (Spence, Helmreich, & Pred,1987). Therefore, in the present study, globalType A and the components time pressure andhard driving/competitiveness were used as inde-pendent variables. Job performance, job satisfac-tion and health problems were used as threedependent variables in both countries.

Keeping in mind the extensive literature onType-A behavior and employee well-being for thepast three decades, a number of hypotheses weredeveloped. Specifically, the following hypotheseswere tested in this cross-cultural study:

Hypothesis 1: Global Type-A behavior and itscomponents (time pressure andhard driving/competitiveness) willbe positively related to job perfor-mance in both countries.

Hypothesis 2: Global Type-A behavior and itscomponents (time pressure andhard driving/competitiveness) willbe negatively related to job satis-faction in both countries.

Hypothesis 3: Global Type-A behavior and itscomponents (time pressure andhard driving/competitiveness) willbe positively related to healthproblems in both countries.

Method

Research setting

The present study was conducted among theemployees of a large North American based

multinational corporation in two countries:Malaysia and Pakistan. In both countries, thesubsidiary of the multinational was located in alarge metropolitan city having several millioninhabitants as well as having some world-classuniversities. In both locations, the multinationalorganization employed more than 1000 employ-ees at the time of the survey.

Procedures

In both countries, data were collected by meansof a structured questionnaire. With the help of themanagement, copies of the questionnaire weregiven to potential respondents with their pay-check, with the instructions to mail back the com-pleted questionnaire directly to the researcher atthe university address. In the Malaysian sample,approximately 450 questionnaires were given torandomly selected employees. With two follow-ups, 305 completed questionnaires were returned,yielding a response rate of 68 per cent. In the Pak-istani sample, approximately 450 questionnaireswere given to randomly selected employees. Withtwo reminders, 325 completed questionnaires werereturned, yielding a response rate of 72 per cent.

Sample characteristics

In the Malaysian sample, the majority of respon-dents were male (78 per cent) and were married(82 per cent). The average respondent was 38years of age, had 15 years of education, 11 yearsof seniority in the company and had four depen-dants to support. In the Pakistani sample, themajority of respondents were male (88 per cent)and were married (86 per cent). The averagerespondent was 43 years of age, had 14 years offormal education and had six dependants tosupport. In both samples, respondents were quitesimilar to total employees in the company withregard to a number of background and socio-demographic variables.

Measures

In both countries, the same standardized scaleswere employed to assess the study’s variables, rec-ommended for cross-cultural research (Schaffer& Riordan, 2003). Descriptions of the scales arepresented later.

Type-A behavior, job performance, cross-cultural management


103

Type-A behavior. TABP was assessed with theFramingham scale (Haynes, Feinleib, & Kannel,1980). This scale has 10 items with variedresponse options. The scale has been used fre-quently in health and behavioral sciences and isvalidated against coronary heart diseases(Edwards & Baglioni, 1991). A higher score onthis scale indicated the Type-A behavior and alower score indicated the Type-B behavior. In linewith recent suggestions (Jamal & Baba, 2003),the Framingham scale was divided into two com-ponents; time pressure and hard driving/compet-itiveness. Thus, there was one global Type-Abehavior scale and two subscales of Type-Abehavior based on two components. The two sub-scales of time-pressure and hard driving/compet-itiveness are drawn from the same questionnaireitems as the global measure of TABP and there-fore are not independent and would be expectedto be correlated with the global measure.

Job performance. Job performance data wereobtained from the personnel files of the multina-tional subsidiary in each country. Although theorganization tends to employ an elaborategraphic rating scale for annual performanceappraisal of all employees, overall global perfor-mance ratings were used in the present study.Overall global rating assessed each employee’sperformance annually from excellent to poorwith a rating 5 for excellent and 1 for poor. Inboth countries, the same performance ratingswere used for all employees.

Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was assessedwith the Job Description Index (JDI) developedby Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1985). The JDIassesses job satisfaction in five areas: nature ofwork (17 items), pay (seven items), coworkers (18items), supervision (18 items), and promotionopportunities (12 items). The JDI is scored on athree-point scale consisting of y = yes (3), n = no(1) and ? = undecided (2) as possible responses.A higher score on this scale indicated a higherdegree of job satisfaction. The JDI is consideredto be one of the most thoroughly researched and developed measure of its kind, and it hasmaintained excellent factorial clarity and psycho-metric soundness over the years (Roznowski,1989).

Health problems. Psychosomatic health prob-lems were assessed by adopting measures fromMichigan studies of workers health (Jamal,

1997). Health problems examined in the presentstudy included headaches, upset stomach, gas andbloated feelings, trouble getting to sleep, lost ofappetite, changes in bowel movements, earlymorning sickness, dizziness during the day, ner-vousness or shakiness inside and inability torelax. Each health problem has 1–5 responseoptions, 1 representing having to face theproblem less than once in a month and 5 repre-senting having to face the problem several timesa week. Individuals’ responses on various healthproblems were combined to create the index ofhealth problems. A higher score on this indexindicated a higher degree of health problems. Thescale is frequently used in behavioral sciences andhas excellent psychometric properties in cross-cultural research (Jamal, 2005; Xie, 1996).

Results

The means (M values), standard deviations (SDvalues) and reliability coefficients of all variablesare presented in Table I. Reliabilities (Chronbachsalpha) varied from 0.70 (hard driving/competi-tiveness) to 0.90 (job satisfaction) in theMalaysian sample. In the Pakistani sample, relia-bilities varied from 0.72 (global Type A) to 0.92(job satisfaction). In both countries, reliabilitieswere considered to be fairly good for survey-typeresearch.

Intercorrelations among study’s variables werecomputed and are presented in Table II. GlobalType-A behavior was moderately correlated withtime pressure and hard driving/competitiveness inboth countries. The two subscales of time pres-sure and hard driving/competitiveness are drawnfrom the same questionnaire items as the globalmeasure of TABP and therefore are not indepen-dent and would be expected to be correlated withthe global measure. Job performance, satisfac-tion, and health problems were marginally corre-lated with each other in both countries. Theaverage correlation among the three dependentvariables was 0.16 for the Malaysian sample andwas 0.14 for the Pakistani sample. Since none of the intercorrelations were alarmingly high, all dependent variables were kept for furtheranalyses.

Bivariate multiple regressions were computedafter controlling for age, gender, education, expe-rience, and marital status between the measuresof Type-A behavior and the three dependent vari-ables. Results are presented in Table III. Global

M. Jamal


104

Type A and the components of time pressure andhard driving/competitiveness were not signifi-cantly related to job performance in both coun-tries. Thus, hypothesis 1 was not supported.

Global Type A and its two components (timepressure and hard driving/competitiveness) weresignificantly related to job satisfaction in bothcountries, thus clearly supporting hypothesis 2.



105

Table I. Means (M values), standard deviations (SD values) and reliability coefficients for Malaysian (M) andPakistani (P) samples.

Variable Sample Number of items M SD Reliability*

(1) Global Type-A M 10 2.36 0.55 0.73P 10 2.45 0.73 0.72

(2) Time pressure M 5 2.19 0.66 0.75P 5 2.23 0.44 0.78

(3) Hard driving/competitiveness M 5 2.49 0.47 0.70P 5 2.38 0.53 0.74

(4) Job performance M 1 4.27 1.23 —P 1 4.01 1.09 —

(5) Job satisfaction M 72 2.21 0.44 0.90P 72 2.13 0.27 0.92

(6) Health problems M 10 1.98 1.11 0.88P 10 2.11 1.03 0.90

* Reliability coefficients for scale with multiple items are Cronbach’s alpha.

Table II. Intercorrelations among study’s variables for Malaysian (M) and Pakistani (P) employees.

Variables Sample (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

(1) Global Type-A M* —P† —

(2) Time pressure M 0.68 —P 0.59 —

(3) Hard M 0.58 0.44 —driving/competitiveness P 0.56 0.36 —(4) Job performance M 0.07 0.03 0.11 —

P 0.05 0.06 0.06 —(5) Job satisfaction M −0.29 −0.34 −0.27 0.15 —

P −0.33 −0.27 −0.35 0.12 —(6) Health problems M 0.44 0.48 0.36 0.09 −0.24 —

P 0.36 0.44 0.27 0.13 −0.18 —

* N = 305, r = 0.09, p < 0.05, r = 0.14, p < 0.01.† N = 326, r = 0.08, p < 0.05, r = 0.13, p < 0.01.

Table III. Multiple regression between the measures of Type-A behavior and dependent variables for Malaysian(M) and Pakistani (P) samples.

Variable Sample Global Type-A Time pressure Hard driving/competitiveness

(1) Job performance M 0.06 0.05 0.06P 0.07 0.03 0.10

(2) Job satisfaction M 0.26* 0.24* 0.31*P 0.31* 0.27* 0.33*

(3) Health problems M† 0.41* 0.55* 0.37*P† 0.34* 0.44* 0.27*

*p < 0.01.† The difference in correlation between two components is significant (p < 0.01).

Global Type A and the components of time pres-sure and hard driving/competitiveness were sig-nificantly related to health problems in Malaysianand Pakistani samples, thus supporting hypothe-sis 3. However, in both countries, significant dif-ferential effects (p < 0.01) were found betweenType-A components and health problems. Ingeneral, the effect of time pressure on healthproblems was greater than the effect of harddriving/competitiveness. However, the relation-ship of the two component with health problemswas significant and in the predicted direction inboth countries.

Discussion

The results of the present study derived fromemployees working in a large multinationalcompany in Malaysia and Pakistan did notsupport the hypothesized positive relationshipbetween Type-A behavior and job performance.However, global Type A and its components timepressure and hard driving/competitiveness weresignificantly related to job satisfaction (JDI) andhealth problems in both countries. The two com-ponents of Type-A behavior (time pressure andhard driving/competitiveness) showed differentialeffects with health problems in both countries.Before the findings are discussed any further, anote of caution is warranted about the limitationsof this study which might include perceptual mea-sures of Type-A behavior, job satisfaction, andhealth problems, a modest response rate in bothcountries and the cross-sectional research design.For future research, it will be desirable to usesome objective measures or multiple subjectivemeasures of the same construct, and to use a lon-gitudinal research design for greater confidence inobserved results.

The absence of a significant positive relation-ship between Type-A behavior and job perfor-mance, though contrary to intuitive appeal, isconsistent with studies that failed to find suchrelationship (Begley et al., 2000; Jamal, 1985;Jamal & Baba, 2000; Jamal & Baba, 2001; Lee,Earley & Hanson, 1988; Matteson et al., 1984;Sager, 1991). Most of these studies were done inWestern industrialized countries with strongemphasis on individualistic culture orientation(Hofstede, 2001; Kirkman et al., 2006). Since theindividualistic cultures tend to emphasize initia-tive, achievement and performance, it might be asurprise to many that Type-A people were still not

found to be high on job performance. Forexample, in a study of life insurance sales per-sonnel, Matteson et al. (1984) reported no sig-nificant relationship between Type-A behaviorand three objective measures of sales perfor-mance. Similarly, in two other studies conductedin the US in a variety of organizational settings,no significant relationships were found betweenType-A behavior and the measure of quality andquantity of performance (Lee & Gillen, 1989; Leeet al., 1988). In an earlier study among white-collar employees in Canada (Jamal, 1985), no sig-nificant difference was found between Type A andType B on the quantity of performance. On thecontrary, Type-B persons were significantly higherthan Type-A persons on the quality of perfor-mance (Jamal, 1985). In a more recent study ofcollege professors in Canada (N = 420), it wasfound that Type-A behavior was not related tothree measures of job performance; teachinghours, number of course preparations per semes-ter and number of students per semester (Jamal& Baba, 2001). In a recent study of governmentemployees in Kuwait (Alkhadher, 1999), no con-sistent relationships were found between globalType-A behavior and overall job performance andon 13 of the 14 different dimensions of job per-formance assessed in the study.

In sum, at this time, available empirical evi-dence concerning the superiority of Type-A’s overType-B’s in job performance, at best, appears tobe inconclusive despite its intuitive appeal tosome. The lack of support for the relationship ofglobal Type A and its two components (time pres-sure and hard driving/competitiveness) with jobperformance in two collectivist cultures likeMalaysia and Pakistan lends further support tothe earlier conclusion.

The findings of the adverse effects of Type-Abehavior or employee health and well-being areconsistent with the bulk of the literature on thetopic, thus supporting the convergence asopposed to the divergence perspective in cross-cultural management research (Carr & Pudelko,2006; Jamal, 1999a, 1999b; Jamal & Baba,1991, 2001; Lavanco, 1997; Rosenman, 1991;Schaubroeck et al., 1994). For example, in astudy of college teachers in a developing country,it was found that Type-A behavior was positivelyrelated to burnout and negatively related to worksatisfaction (Jamal, 1999a, 1999b). Similarly, inanother study conducted among college teachersin Canada, it was found that Type-A behaviorwas negatively related to work satisfaction (Jamal

M. Jamal


106

& Baba, 2001). In a recent study of nurses inSicily, Italy, global Type-A behavior was found tobe significantly related to burnout and job satis-faction (Lavanco, 1997). Finally, in a longitudi-nal study conducted in the US among police andfire department employees, it was found thatType-A behavior predicted cardiovascular disor-der over time (Schaubroeck et al., 1994).

As mentioned earlier, some support was foundfor the differential effects of the component mea-sures of Type-A behavior on outcome variablesused in the present study. There are only a fewempirical studies in existence in which bothglobal and component measures of Type-Abehaviors have been used to examine their impacton employee health and well-being (Jamal &Baba, 2003). Barling and Charbonneau (1992), ina sample of undergraduate students (N = 113)found that achievement striving predicted gradepoint average and proofreading performance andthat impatience and irritability predictedheadaches and sleep habits. In another study ofundergraduate students, time pressure was foundto be related to somatic complaints, anxiety, andsevere depression, but competitiveness was gen-erally unrelated to such symptoms (Lee et al.,1996). In both above studies, correlations ofglobal Type-A behavior with outcome variableswere not reported. In a comprehensive study ofexecutives, Edwards and Baglioni (1991) foundsome support for the differential effects of Type-A behavior components on mental and physicalhealth problems. They used 10 different measuresof mental and physical health and also providedcorrelations of global Type-A and its componentswith the measures of health. The Framinghamscale of global Type-A behavior showed signifi-cant relationships with five of the 10 measures ofhealth. The component of time pressure was alsosignificantly related to five of the 10 measures,whereas the component of hard driving/competi-tiveness was significantly related to only one ofthe 10 measures of health. In two of the previousstudies involving college teachers, health careprofessionals and telecommunications employeesin Canada, some support for the differentialeffects of component measures was noted only forpsychosomatic health problems among variousoutcome variables assessed (Jamal & Baba, 2001,2003).

In the present cross-cultural study, differentialeffects of component measures were found forhealth problems in both Malaysian and Pakistanisamples. Thus, at this time, evidence of differen-

tial effects of global versus component measuresof Type-A behavior tends to be somewhat sup-portive with regard to only health-related out-comes. However, more rigorous research with avariety of outcome variables in different nationaland cultural settings has to be conducted in realwork organizations before more definitive con-clusions can be drawn. It is recommended thatthis type of research is needed to fully compre-hend the dynamics of coronary-prone TABP inwork settings with ever increasing globalizationin recent times (Al Roubaie, 2002; Rosenman,1991). In general, the results of the present studyfrom two collectivistic cultures tend to be sup-portive of the convergence perspective in cross-cultural management research.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by grants from the Social Sci-ences Research Council of Canada (410-99-0203; S00802, 2003–2006) and Fonds pour la formation dechercheurs de l’aide à la recherche from the Provinceof Quebec (99-ER-0506). The author acknowledgesthe cooperation and help of Dr Amer Al-Roubaie, DrMuhammad Anwar, Dr Muhammad Ismail and manyresearch assistants in data collection and analysis.Requests for reprint should be made to Dr MuhammadJamal, Department of Management, John MolsonSchool of Business, Concordia University, Montreal,Quebec, H3G 1M8, Canada.

References

Alkhadher, O. (1999). Association of Type A behavior and jobperformance in a sample of Kuwaiti workers. Psychologi-cal Reports, 85, 189–196.

Al-Roubaie, A. (2002). Globalization and the Muslim World.Kuala Lumpur: Malita Jaya Publishing House.

Baba, V.V., Jamal, M., & Tourigny, L. (1998). Work andmental health: A decade in Canadian research. CanadianPsychology, 38, 94–107.

Barling, J., & Charbonneau, D. (1992). Disentangling therelationship between the achievement striving and impa-tience-irritability dimensions of type A behavior, perfor-mance and health. Journal of Organization Behavior, 3,369–377.

Begley, T.M., Lee, C., & Czajka, J.M. (2000). The relation-ship of Type-A behavior and optimism with job perfor-mance and blood pressure. Journal of Business andPsychology, 15, 215–227.

Carpenter, S. (2002). Effects of cultural tightness and collec-tivism on self-concept and causal attributions. Cross-Cultural Research, 34, 38–56.

Carr, C., & Pudelko, M. (2006). Convergence of managementpractices in strategy, finance and HRM between USA, Japanand Germany. International Journal of Cross Cultural Man-agement, 6, 75–100.



107

Edwards, J.R., & Baglioni, A.J. (1991). Relationship betweenType-A behavior and mental and physical health symptoms:A comparison of global and components measures. Journalof Applied Psychology, 75, 440–454.

Fisher, R.T. (2001). Role stress, the Type-A behavior pattern,and external auditor job satisfaction and performance.Behavioral Research in Accounting, 13, 143–171.

Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R.H. (1974). Type-A behaviorand your heart. New York: Knopf Publication.

Ganster, R. (1987). Type A behavior and occupational stress.In J.M. Ivancevich, & D.C. Ganster (Eds), Job stress: Fromtheory to suggestion (pp. 61–84). New York: HaworthPress.

Glazer, S., & Beehr, T.A. (2005). Consistency of implicationsof three role stressors across four countries. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 26, 467–487.

Haynes, S.G., Feinleib, M., & Kannel, W.B. (1980). The rela-tionship of psychosocial factors to coronary heart diseasein the Framingham study. American Journal of Epidemiol-ogy, 111, 37–58.

Helmreich, R.L., Spence, J.T., & Pred, R.S. (1988). Making itwithout losing it: Type A, achievement, motivation and sci-entific attainment revisited. Personality and Social Psychol-ogy Bulletin, 14, 495–504.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hoppe, M.H. (2004). An interview with Geert Hofstede.Academy of Management Executive, 18, 75–79.

Jamal, M. (1985). Type-A behavior and job performance:Some suggestive findings. Behavioral Medicine, 11(2),60–68.

Jamal, M. (1997). Job stress, satisfaction and mental health:An empirical examination of self-employed and non-self-employed Canadians. Journal of Small Business Manage-ment, 35, 48–57.

Jamal, M. (1999a). Job stress, Type-A behavior and wellbeing: A cross-cultural examination. International Journalof Stress Management, 6, 57–68.

Jamal, M. (1999b). Job stress and employee well-being: Across-cultural empirical study. Stress Medicine, 15,153–158.

Jamal, M. (2002). Type-A behavior and job burnout: A crosscultural study. Arab Journal of Administrative Sciences, 9,441–456.

Jamal, M. (2005). Burnout among Canadian and Chineseemployees: A cross-cultural study. European ManagementReview, 2, 224–230.

Jamal, M., & Baba, V.V. (1991). Type-A behavior, its preva-lence and consequences among woman nurses. HumanRelations, 44, 1213–1228.

Jamal, M., & Baba, V.V. (2000). Job stress and burnoutamong Canadian managers and nurses: An empirical examination. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 91,454–458.

Jamal, M., & Baba, V.V. (2001). Type-A behavior, job per-formance and well being in college teachers. InternationalJournal of Stress Management, 8, 231–240.

Jamal, M., & Baba, V.V. (2003). Type-A behavior, compo-nents, and outcomes: A study of Canadian employees.International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 39–50.

Jamal, M., & Badawi, J.A. (1995). Job Stress, Type-A behavior and employees’ well-being among Muslim immi-grants in North America: A study in workforce diversity.International Journal of Commerce and Management, 5,6–23.

Kirkman, L.B., Lowe, K.B., & Gibson, C.B. (2006). A quartercentury of culture’s consequences: A review of empirical

research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values frame-work. Journal of International Business Studies, 37,285–320.

Kunnanatt, J.T. (2003). Type A behavior pattern and managerial performance: A study among bank executivesin India. International Journal of Manpower, 24, 720–735.

Lavanco, G. (1997). Burnout syndrome and Type-A behaviorin nurses and teachers in Sicily. Psychological Reports, 81,523–528.

Lee, C., & Gillen, D.J. (1989). Relationship of Type-A behav-ior pattern, self efficacy perceptions on sales performance.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 75–81.

Lee, C., Earley, P.C., & Hanson, L.A. (1988). Are Type-Asbetter performers? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9,263–269.

Lee, C., Jamieson, L.F., & Earley, P.C. (1996). Beliefs and fearof Type-A behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior,17, 151–177.

Matteson, M.T., Ivancevich, J.M., & Smith, S.V. (1984). Rela-tion of Type-A behavior to performance and satisfactionamong sales people. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 25,203–214.

Matthews, K.A. (1988). Coronary heart disease and Type-Abehavior: Update on and alternative to the Booth-Kewleyand Friedman (1987) quantitative review. PsychologicalBulletin, 104, 373–380.

Noordin, F., Williams, T., & Zimmer, C. (2002). Career com-mitment in collectivist and individualist cultures: A com-parative study. International Journal of Human ResourcesManagement, 13, 35–54.

Pudelko, M., Carr, C., Fink, G., & Wentage, P. (2006). Theconvergence concepts in cross cultural managementresearch. International Journal of Cross Cultural Manage-ment, 6, 15–18.

Rosenman, R.H. (1991). Type-A behavior pattern: A personaloverview. In M.J. Strube (Ed.), Type-A Behavior (pp. 1–24).Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication Company.

Roznowski, M. (1989). Examination of the measurementproperties of the job descriptive index with experimentalitems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 805–814.

Sager, J.K. (1991). Type A behavior pattern among salespeo-ple and its relationship to job stress. Journal of PersonalSelling and Sales Management, 11, 1–14.

Schaffer, B.S., & Riordan, C.M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research. Orga-nizational Research Methods, 6, 169–215.

Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D.C., & Kemmerer, B.C. (1994). Jobcomplexity, Type-A behavior and cardiovascular disorder:A prospective study. Academy of Management Journal, 37,426–439.

Sibilia, L., Picozzi, R.P., & Nardi, A.M. (1995). Identifyingpsychological profile of Type-A behavior pattern. StressMedicine, 11, 263–270.

Smith, P., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. (1985). The measurementof satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago, IL: RandMcNally.

Spector, P.E., Cooper, C.L., & Sanchez, J.I. (2002). Locus ofcontrol and well being at work: How generalizable arewestern findings? Academy of Management Journal, 45,453–466.

Spence, J.T., Helmreich, R.L., & Pred, R.S. (1987). Impatienceversus achievement striving in the Type A pattern: Differ-ential effects on students’ health and academic achievement.Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 522–528.

Taylor, H., & Cooper, C.L. (1989). The stress-prone person-ality: A review of the research in the context of occupa-tional stress. Stress Medicine, 5, 17–27.

M. Jamal


108

Taylor, M.S., Locke, E.A., Lee, C., & Gist, M. (1984). Type-A behavior and faculty research productivity: What are themechanisms? Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-mance, 34, 402–418.

Triandis, H.C. (2004). The many dimensions of culture.Academy of Management Executive, 18, 88–93.

Triandis, H.C., & Suh, E.M. (2002). Cultural influences onpersonality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133–160.

Xie, J.L. (1996). Karasek’s model in the People’s Republic of China: Effects of job demands, control and individualdifferences. Academy of Management Journal, 39,1594–1618.



109

type-a behavior in a multinational organization: a study of two countries

Documents