An Exploration of the Indian Mindset - Springer Link

National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India Psychological Studies (March 2010) 55(1):3–17 ©

DOI: 10.1007/s12646-010-0001-x 3

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

An Exploration of the Indian Mindset Jai B. P. Sinha, Shailendra Singh, Parvinder Gupta, Kailash B. L. Srivastava, R. B. N. Sinha, Sanjay Srivastava, Anjali Ghosh, Roomana N. Siddiqui, Nachiketa Tripathi, Meenakshi Gupta, Sweta Srivastava, Zubin Mulla, C.Vijayalakshmi, Ashish Pandey

Received: 15 March 2009 / Accepted: 6 October 2009

Eight hundred and twenty-nine adults, drawn from 12 locations in all four parts of India, participated in a study that explored the joint effects of Indians’ discrepant mindset, context sensitivity, and quality of environment on their modes of behavior. Respondents also predicted how a person is likely to change his behavior when the conditions in which he works change from disabling to enabling. The findings showed that the two most dominant modes of behavior–self-serving calculative and achieving high positive goal – coexisted, but were differently caused. Context sensitivity facilitated both modes of behavior; but adequate infrastructure and friendly and helpful people in the neighborhood encouraged only achieving high positive goal behavior. On the contrary, duplicity in professing desirable but acting under realistic compulsions, poor quality of environment, and low levels of development were conducive to self-serving calculative behavior. As a situation changed from disabling to enabling, a person was likely to shift towards more positive behavior. Keywords: Discrepant mindset, Context sensitivity, Self-serving calculative and achieving high positive goal behaviour, Disabling and enabling situations

Introduction Indian mindset is conceptualized as a configuration of collectively held beliefs, preferences, and action orientations that let Indians to respond to their environment in particular ways (Sinha, 2009). The genesis of the Indian mindset goes back to the pluralistic tradition from the Vedic ages Jai B. P. Sinha1 • S. Singh2 • P. Gupta3 • K. B. L. Srivastava4 • R. B. N. Sinha5 • S. Srivastava6 • A. Ghosh7 • R. N. Siddiqui8 • N. Tripathi9 • M. Gupta10 • S. Srivastava11 • Z. Mulla12 • C.Vijayalakshmi13 • A. Pandey14 1 ASSERT Institute of Management Studies, D-143, S. K. Puri, Patna - 800 001, India 2 Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow; 3Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad; 4Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur; 5 ASSERT Institute of Management Studies, Patna; 6Amity Business; School, Noida; 7Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata; 8Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh; 9Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati; 10Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai; 11Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi; 12Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai; 13Institute for Financial Management Research, Chennai; 14Shailesh J. Mehta School of Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai e-mail: [email protected]

that prescribed welcoming diverse influences from varied cultural sources. The synthesizing process (Radhakrishnan & Moore, 1954, pp xxv) encompassed (Dumont, 1970) and enfolded (Schulberg, 1968) them integrating some and allowing the rest to coexist as inconsistent and even contradictory but valid beliefs, preferences and action orientations. The discrepancies - inconsistency and contradictions - constitute a core of the Indian mindset. For example, Indians are primarily collectivists (Hofstede, 1980; Sinha & Verma, 1987; Triandis & Bhawuk, 1997, among others) and ‘dividuals’ (Marriot, 1990); but they have a well-protected secret self that contains highly individualistic thoughts, feelings and fantasies (Roland, 1988). They are both collectivists as well as individualists (Sinha & Tripathi, 1994). They are primarily hierarchically oriented, status conscious (Sinha, 1990), and high on power distance (Hofstede, 1980). However, “…deep respect and veneration are only given to those who are indeed superior persons, no matter where they might be in the formal hierarchy” (Roland, 2005, pp 4). Spirituality is built into Indian psyche (Roland, 1988, pp 294), but the extreme materialism and

4

Psychological Studies (March 2010) 55(1):3–17

indulgence ‘in worldly pleasures of the Lokayat tradition of Charvak rules over daily behavior. Money motivates Indians like nothing else does (Varma, 2004). Brahmanical idealism in seeking perfection coexists with anarchical individualism that justifies any means for serving one’s purpose (Kumar, 2004) or fosters chalata hai (acceptance of indifferent quality) orientation. Indians keep talking of morality; but are keen to serve their self-interests (Sinha & Kanungo, 1997). They often get uncontrollably emotional (Carstairs, 1971), and yet they are known for their analytical acumen (Bhawuk, 2008), debating (sastrarth) ability (Sen, 2006) and verbosity (Chie, 1964). They believe in destiny as well as in the doctrine of karma. They are dependence prone (Sinha, 1970) despite a long record of entrepreneurship (Kumar & Sethi, 2005). In other words, they “do not mind seemingly intolerable contradictions” (Carl Jung quoted by Sinha & Tripathi, 1994, pp 125); nor do they experience any dissonance in having contradictory thoughts and behavior (Bharati, 1985). Instead of replacing the old by the new, they add them retaining both simultaneously (Ramanujan, 1989). We ask, “How do Indians select from such discrepant beliefs, preferences, and action orientations in order to organize their acts?” Probably, their high context sensitivity (Roland, 1988; Sinha & Kanungo, 1997) guides them. Contexts are conceptualized in terms of desha (place), kaal (time) and paatra (person), each having disabling and enabling potential. Indians are enthused by ideals and abstract universalistic norms and principles; but behave as demanded by a situation - being positive in enabling and negative in disabling contexts (Sinha, 2009). While disabling contexts are more pervasive in the country (Sinha et al., 2001, 2004), if and as they change into enabling ones, Indians are likely to shift from being negative to positive. The paper attempts to explore this joint impact of Indians’ discrepant orientations and their context sensitivity on their behavior by exploring the following propositions: Indians manifest high discrepancy in their beliefs, preferences, action orientations and high sensitivity to contextual cues. Discrepancy and context sensitivity jointly affect the ways Indians behave. While enabling contexts induce them to behave in positive ways, the disabling contexts make them behave in negative ways. In case a situation changes from disabling to enabling, Indians shift from being negative to positive in their behavior.

Method Sample The sample consisted of 829 adult respondents drawn from 12 locations in India. They were the ones who were conveniently available and were willing to participate. The locations with the percentage of respondents (in parenthesis) were as follows: Ahmedabad (14.80%), Aligarh (6.00%), Kozhikode (Calicut 6.00%), Chennai (5.30%), Guwahati (7.40%), Kharagpur (7.20%), Kolkata (8.70%), Lucknow (7.70%), Mumbai (13.30%), Noida (9.70%), Patna (11.50%) and Pune (2.40%). The respondents reported growing up in 121 towns distributed in 22 states and union territories. A few were born in foreign countries and had come over to India. A larger percentage of respondents belonged to the following towns: Mumbai (13.30%), Patna (11.50%), Kolkata (8.20%), Chennai (7.20%), Aligarh (6.30%), Guwahati (5.90%), New Delhi (5.30%), Noida (3.90%), Jamshedpur (3.70%), Haldia (3.60%) and Pune (3.10%). They were on average 36.75 (SD = 9.97) years old with the range of 20–62 years, predominantly male (71.90%), married (70.40%) having an average of 1.34 persons (SD = 0.47) living in the family, graduate (48.10%) or postgraduate education (50.30%), and urban background (70.40%). A larger percentage of them were working in central (24.40%) and state (15.30%) government, public sector (22.80%) or large private sector (18.70%) organizations. Six percent of them were not working, 5.11% had working experience of more than 30 years, and the rest of them had an average of 12.97 (SD = 9.97) years of working experience. Majority of their fathers were in government services (42.00%) while their mothers (66.90%) were not working. Measures A questionnaire was developed having three parts. Part 1 had 60 statements regarding the people at the place where the respondents were currently living. Of 60 statements, 18 pertained to discrepant beliefs, preferences, and action orientations, 12 about their context sensitivity, and 30 about the ways they behave. Examples of the statements appear in the results section. Respondents were asked to judge on a 5-point scale whether the statements were Quite False (1), False (2), True (4) or Quite True (5) for most of the people at the place where they were currently residing. If the respondents were not sure, they were to choose the Undecided (3) option. All statements were positively worded and, hence higher scores mean


higher discrepant orientations, higher context sensitivity and greater likelihood of behaving in particular ways. Part 2 of the questionnaire depicted four scenarios that were designed to examine the extent to which a manager was likely to shift his behavior as a function of the replacement of a disabling superior with an enabling superior (person effect) and the take over of a disabling organization by an enabling one (place effect). A brief description of the scenarios follows: Scenario 1: Disabling Superior The scenario described Kumar, who after graduating from a prestigious B-school, joined a white goods manufacturing company. On the completion of his induction period, he was called by his immediate boss, Raman, who said the following in a very patronizing (dominating) tone: Look, forget about what they told you during the induction. Here, I run this place the way I think is right. I go out of the way to help those who do the job well and keep me in confidence about what happens on the shop floor. But I make life hell for those who create problems or have fancy ideas. I do not like any bad name for the department. So, come to me if you need any help and keep me informed; but don’t disappoint me. Kumar learnt soon that Raman makes all major as well as minor decisions, demands personal loyalty, and favors those who run to him seeking guidance and directions even in small matters. He enjoys being the boss and expects everyone to obey him. There was a great deal of resentment against Raman in the department, but nobody wanted to say anything to him or even whisper to the higher ups in the management. Scenario 2: Enabling Superior After a while, Raman was transferred and Keshvan took over after being back from a leadership training course abroad. He had the reputation of being a highly dynamic person who was expected to revamp the production department and add an assembly line creating new opportunities for many. During the welcome ceremony, he said the following: I am looking forward working with you. We all have to work together and show increasingly higher levels of excellence. Let me know what we need to keep improving the performance of the department. If you have any new ideas, let us give them a try. If I can help you in any matter, my doors will always remain open to you all. I expect the best from you.

5

In both scenarios, the respondents were asked to predict what Kumar will do with respect to each of the following on a 5-point scale, ranging from Most Unlikely (1), Unlikely (2), Undecided (3), Likely (4) and Most Likely (5): 1.

Kumar will be highly motivated to perform his best.

2.

Kumar will flatter Raman/Keshavan by describing him as an ideal boss.

3.

Kumar will come up with innovative ideas and share them with Raman/Keshavan.

4.

Kumar will communicate employees’ feelings to Raman/Keshvan.

5.

Kumar will emulate Raman’s/Keshvan’s style and boss over his under employees (in Scenario 1)/encourage and inspire his subordinates (in Scenario 2).

Scenario 3: Disabling Organization The scenario described Bal Krishna Rao as a project head in the R&D department of a private pharmaceutics company, which had been growing very rapidly by re-engineering some of the most popular drugs by circumventing patents restrictions, and marketing them aggressively at cheaper rates. The company was paying the personnel higher than the market rate, although largely as variable pay depending on how quickly the R&D personnel re-engineered the drugs. Rao was working on a cancer drug that was not fully tested, but the management was adamant to market it at the earliest in order to make a huge profit that was to benefit the R&D personnel including Rao. The management had asked Rao to give the status report about the drug. Scenario 4: Enabling Organization Rao had prepared the report, but before he could submit it, the company was taken over by an Anglo-American pharmaceutical giant that was known for balancing health and well being of people with profit making. It operated in many countries and invested billions of dollars in inventing new drugs maintaining high scientific rigor and ethical standards. Immediately after the take over, the new management assured the employees to protect their job and service conditions and launched a training program for the managers, including Rao, which aimed to cultivate the importance of values-based practices. The management asked Rao to give the status report about the drug. In both scenarios, the respondents were asked to predict what Rao would report to the management with respect to each of the following on a 5-point scale, ranging from Most Unlikely (1), Unlikely (2), Undecided (3), Likely (4) and Most Likely (5):

6

1. 2.

3.

4. 5.


Rao will present the incomplete findings in such a way that the management can decide either way. Rao will testify that the drug is ready to be marketed and will, thus, earn a handsome bonus and possibly a promotion. Rao will work overtime – day and night - to get the tests on human beings completed and will then report the findings to the management truthfully. Rao will confidentially seek out his immediate superior’s guidance and report accordingly. Rao will caution the management of the human costs in marketing the drug.

Part 3 of the questionnaire asked for background information about the respondents and how they perceived the quality of the place they were living. The background information pertained to the respondents’ age, gender, marital status, education, number of family members living with them, parents’ occupation, rural-urban background, length of working experience, and type of organizations in which they were working or had worked earlier. There were 10 questions about the places the respondents were currently residing. The questions pertained to the quality of the environment; each was rated on a 5-point scale. Seven of them (educational institutions, healthcare facilities, job opportunities, telephone and communication, law and order, recreational facilities, and pollution level) were to be rated as either Very Bad (1), Bad (2), So-so (3), Good (4) or Very Good (5). The neighborhood was to be rated as Very Crowded (1), Crowded (2), So-so (3), Spacious (4) Very Spacious. People were to be rated twice. First as either Very Unfriendly (1), Unfriendly (2), So-so (3), Friendly (4) or Very Friendly (5); secondly, as Highly Selfish (1), Selfish (2), So-so (3), Helpful (4) or Very Helpful (5). Procedure The first author invited 14 social scientists holding faculty positions in nationally known academic institutions in the different parts of the country in the early part of January 2008 to participate in the study along with his paper containing conceptual formulation of the Indian mindset (Sinha, 2009). All of them agreed. A draft of the measures went through many rounds of consultations and revisions during February–March 2008. The final version was agreed upon by the end of March, 2008. It was circulated among the co-participants who agreed to complete data collection by September 2008. However, data collection could be completed only by the second week of November 2008. One of the participants dropped out due to a personal reason.

The analyzes and drafts made many rounds from November 2008 to February 2009, before the paper was ready for submission. All interactions were made through emails.

Results The findings were organized in four parts. Part 1 presented the patterns of relationships between the facets of discrepant beliefs, preferences and action orientations, context sensitivity, behavior and perception of the quality of the places respondents were currently residing. Part 2 examined the impact of the 12 places where the respondents were residing on the factors of discrepant beliefs, preferences and action orientations, context sensitivity, behavior and quality of the environment. Part 3 assessed the shifts in the behavior of a manager as a result of the replacement of a disabling superior with an enabling superior and the takeover of a disabling organization by an enabling organization. Part 4 examined the respondents’ background. As the respondents were put in informers’ role, perceiving not their own, but the people at the place they were residing, their background was neither expected nor found to affect the pattern of relationships among the people’s mindset, context sensitivity, and behavior (except a few exceptions). The few significant ones were either trivial or due to a chance factor. They were briefly mentioned.

Patterns of Relationships A striking feature was that almost all ratings of the statements were above the mid-point of the 5-point scale: Discrepancy scores (mean = 3.60, SD = 0.99, Skewness = –0.67, Kurtosis = 0.10), context sensitivity (mean = 3.55, SD = 0.96, Skewness = –0.63, Kurtosis = 0.01), behavior (mean = 3.51, SD = 0.99, Skewness = –0.59, Kurtosis = 0.00), quality of the environment (mean = 3.46, SD = 0.92, Skewness = –0.49, Kurtosis = 0.14) and situational scenarios (mean = 3.35, SD = 0.06, Skewness = –0.44, Kurtosis = –0.01). However, the skewness and kurtosis did not indicate any gross deviations from the normal distribution. The items of the discrepant orientations, context sensitivity, environmental quality and behavior were separately factor analyzed by the method of Principal Component Analysis and rotated to the Varimax solution. On the criterion that the Eigenvalue should not be 0.30) on 12 out of 18 items. Duplicity in the mindset of the people means that they dislike corrupt persons but tend to remain close to them for personal gains; want to remain honest but may bribe if necessary; make promises but may not keep them; are likely to favor as well as exploit friends, believe in science but may behave

Table 1 Factor structures of discrepant orientations, context sensitivity, behavior and quality of environment Factor 1. Duplicity in mindset Eigenvalue 3.07, variance 16.16%, alpha 0.70 mean (SD) 3.75 (0.47) People dislike corrupt persons, but are likely to remain close to them for personal gains

Loadings 0.59

People make promises, but may give excuses for not keeping them

0.56

People favor their friends and may use them for personal gains also

0.56

People believe in science but are likely to be superstitious in behavior

0.54

People talk ideals, but may behave in selfish manners

0.50

People don’t like to be supervised, but are likely to work hard only when they are supervised

0.48

People avoid working hard for others, but may work diligently for themselves

0.44

People want to remain honest, but may bribe to get done what they want

0.43

People run after power and positions, although they want peace of mind

0.41

People, who offer pooja and prayers regularly, are also likely to indulge in unethical practices

0.41

People believe that hard work pays, but may not exert enough

0.38

People over react emotionally, but are also likely to calculate their gains and losses carefully

0.34

Factor 1. Context sensitivity: judging people and time Eigenvalue 3.44, variance 28.70%, alpha 0.74, mean (SD) 3.40 (0.65)

Loadings

People know when to delay a decision or action and when to rush into it

0.79

People know when to remain silent and when to say what

0.78

People are alert to opportunities and work timely to utilize them

0.58

People intuitively know whom to trust and whom to distrust

0.54

People distinguish genuine friends from opportunists

0.53

People have ability to figure out what others expect, and behave accordingly

0.43

Factor 2. Context sensitivity: sensing other’s mindset Eigenvalue 1.38, variance 11.49%, alpha 0.59, mean (SD) 3.63 (0.64)

Loadings

People are concerned about what others think of them

0.75

People sense what future holds for them at the place they work

0.72

People sense what others mean and intend

0.57

People intuitively know whom to trust and whom to distrust

0.43

Factor 3. Context sensitivity: watching for opportunities Eigenvalue 1.09, variance 9.09%, alpha 0.56, mean (SD) 3.63 (0.62)

Loadings

Cont'd on next page...

8


...Cont'd from previous page People watch out the mood of others before asking for a favor

0.68

People have a knack to figure out who can be useful in future

0.68

People watch for situations when they can strike back at the person who has been harming them

0.62

People have ability to figure out what others expect, and behave accordingly

0.43

Factor 1. Self-serving calculative behavior Eigenvalue 4.57, variance 15.23%, alpha 0.72, mean (SD) 3.72 (0.57)

Loadings

People say only what powerful persons want to hear

0.62

People surrender to powerful persons and exploit the weak ones

0.61

People hide their intentions and behave in socially desirable ways

0.59

People take undue advantage of innocent persons

0.56

People hide their intention to please others in order to get undue favors

0.52

People work very hard when they expect to get amply rewarded

0.40

Highly spiritual people turn materialistic on many occasions

0.36

People throw garbage at public places, though keep their premises clean

0.34

Factor 2. High positive goal achieving behavior Eigenvalue 2.92, variance 9.75%, alpha 0.59, mean (SD) 3.48 (0.54)

Loadings

People set ambitious goals and work diligently to achieve them.

0.76

People accommodate others’ views to live together peacefully.

0.65

People make small sacrifices in order to achieve long-term results.

0.45

People become quite creative when they get challenging opportunities.

0.39

People remain optimist in adverse situations hoping that they will soon pass.

0.38

People rally around a common cause that a dedicated leader undertakes.

0.35

People make sacrifices to help those who are in distress.

0.32

Factor 1. Environmental quality: infra-structural adequacy Eigenvalue 3.72, variance 37.23%, alpha 0.84, mean (SD) 3.55 (0.70)

Loadings

Educational facilities

0.76

Healthcare

0.84

Job opportunities

0.80

Telecommunication

0.73

Law and order

0.57

Recreational facilities

0.74

Factor 2. Environmental quality: friendly and helpful people Eigenvalue 1.97, variance 19.72%, alpha 0.65, mean (SD) 3.52 (0.71)

Loadings

Friendly people

0.89

Helpful people

0.87

Factor 3. Environmental quality: clean and spacious neighborhood Eigenvalue 1.01, variance 10.06%, alpha 0.78, mean (SD) 3.12 (0.89)

Loadings

Neighborhood spacious

0.80

Pollution free

0.84


9

Table 2 Coefficients of correlation among major variables

1.

Duplicity mindset

2.

Judging time and people

3.

Sensing other’s mindset

4.

Watching for opportunities

5.

Self-serving calculative behavior

6.

Achieving high positive goal behavior

7.

Infrastructure adequacy

8.

Clean and spacious neighborhood

9.

Friendly and helpful people

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0.11**

0.16**

0.34**

0.60**

0.06

–0.13**

–0.16**

–0.22**

0.53**

0.54**

0.12**

0.38**

0.06

0.03

0.07*

0.40**

0.26**

0.28**

0.07

–0.05

–0.03

0.37**

0.35**

0.01

–0.08*

–0.05

0.12**

–0.12**

–0.14**

–0.20**

0.13**

0.01

0.12**

0.16**

0.26** 0.36**

N = 829, ** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05

in superstitious ways; talk of ideals but may behave in selfishly; prefer autonomy but would work hard only under pressure; shirk work when working for others but tend to work diligently for their own interests; want peace of mind but are likely to run after power and positions, and so on. The three factors of context sensitivity were judging time and place, sensing other’s mindset, and watching for opportunities. Judging means a time sense in knowing when to keep silent and when to say what, when to delay action and when to rush, remaining alert to opportunities and start working right on time to exploit them. Judging also involves distinguishing genuine friends from opportunists. Sensing includes what others think and expect, what they mean and intend in their behavior, and what future prospect the work place holds. Watching involves waiting patiently for a resourceful person to get into a good mood before asking him for a favor, having a knack to figure out who can be useful in future, as well as waiting for the right moment to strike back at the adversaries. The item “intuitively knowing whom to trust and whom to distrust” appeared both in judging and sensing. Similarly, the item, “ability to understand and meet their expectations” appeared in both judging and watching. The dominant facet of people’s behavior was recognized as self-seeking calculative. The second one was of the opposite nature: Achieving high positive goals. The first factor signified that people carefully calculate how they can serve their self interests. They say what powerful persons want to hear, exploit the weak ones, take undue advantage of innocent persons, and hide their intentions and behave in socially desirable ways to please others in order to get undue favors from them. They keep their own premises clean, but do not hesitate to throw garbage at public places. On the other hand, they serve their interests by working hard if they expect to be amply rewarded and get materialistic on many occasions by glossing over their spiritual orientation.

The second factor suggested that people combine in their behavior high goals and people orientations. They set ambitious goals and work diligently to achieve them. They make small sacrifices to achieve such long-term goals, and accommodate others to live together peacefully. They get creative to avail of challenging opportunities and are optimist even in adverse situations, expecting the situation to change soon. They rally around a dedicated leader who takes up a common cause, and even make sacrifices to help those in distress. The quality of the places where the respondents were currently residing manifested three neat configurations. The most striking was the infra-structural adequacy consisting of good to very good quality of educational facilities, healthcare, job opportunities, telecommunications, law and order, and recreational facilities. The second was friendly and helpful people. The third was clean neighborhood that was spacious and pollution free. Zero order coefficients of correlation among the nine factors were quite revealing (Table 2). Understandably, the three factors of context sensitivity were inter-correlated (average r = 0.49, p < 0.001), the coefficients might be slightly accentuated because of two items loading on two factors. Similarly, the three factors of environmental quality were also inter-related (average r = 0.26, p < 0.001). More revealing were the findings that duplicity in the mindset was highly related to self-serving calculative behavior but was uncorrelated to achieving high positive goal behavior. Duplicity was also positively associated with the factors of context sensitivity, but negatively with the quality of environment. Self-serving calculative behavior too was significantly and negatively correlated with the three indices of the quality of environment. It was indeed noteworthy that self-serving calculative and achieving high goal behaviors were significantly

10


Table 3 Predictors of self-serving calculative behavior Predictors

Std. Beta

(Constant)

Std. Error

t-ratio

p

0.18

4.24

.00

Duplicity in mindset

0.49

0.03

16.70

.00


–0.13

0.03

–3.78

.01


0.16

0.03

5.03

.00


0.18

0.03

5.28

.00

Infra-structural adequacy

–0.05

0.02

–1.76

.08


–0.01

0.02

–0.50

.68

Helpful and friendly people

–0.06

0.02

–1.11

.20

R = 0.41; F (7/821) = 72.67; p < 0.0001 2

inter-correlated substantiating our proposition that opposite modes of behavior coexist in the people’s repertoire. Both were positively correlated with the factors of context sensitivity. However, they were differently correlated with the quality of environment – while self-serving calculative behavior was reinforced in the poor quality of environment; high goals achieving behavior was fostered by infrastructural adequacy and helpful and friendly people. Regression equations specified the predictive values of duplicity, context sensitivity and environmental quality for self-serving calculative (Table 3) and high positive goal achieving behavior (Table 4). Duplicity emerged as the most dominant contributor to the selfserving calculative behavior. Sensing other’s mindset and watching for opportunities also contributed positively to self-serving calculative behavior. Judging time and people, which was positively associated with self-

serving calculative behavior in the zero order correlation, turned as a negative predictor. Relatively inadequate infrastructure, crowded and polluted neighborhood, and unhelpful and unfriendly people, which seemed to lead to self-serving calculative behavior in the zero order correlations, failed to reach the significant level in predicting self-serving calculative behavior, although the trend in terms of beta weights were indeed negative, and at least one, inadequate infrastructure, attained a low level (p = 0.08) of significance. On the contrary, high positive goal achieving behavior was facilitated by the presence of adequate infrastructure and helpful and friendly people as well as by all three indices of context sensitivity, particularly judging time and people and watching for opportunities. Duplicity in the mindset, understandably, did not encourage high positive goal achieving behavior.

Table 4 Predictors of high positive goal achieving behavior Predictors

Std. Beta

(Constant)

p

0.21

7.60

0.00

–0.02

0.04

–0.69

0.49


0.21

0.03

5.16

0.00


0.07

0.03

1.96

0.05


0.22

0.03

5.52

0.00

Infra-structural adequacy

0.08

0.03

2.61

0.01


–0.04

0.02

–1.14

0.25

Helpful and friendly people

0.11

0.03

3.17

0.00

R = 20; F (7/821) = 29.81; p < 0.0001 http://sampark.chd.nic.in/images/statistics/SDP2005R6.pdf http//www.undp.org.in/hdrc/hds/HDFct/India/HDI991States.htm 4 http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=27990514#post27990514 5 http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=27990514#post27990514 6 http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=27990514#post27990514 3

t-ratio


2

2

Std. Error


Impact of Respondents’ Place of Residence, Towns and States In the preceding section, perception of the quality of environment was examined independently of the 12 places where the respondents were residing at the time of data collection. It was of interest whether the ratings of the respondents’ perception of the factors of people’s orientations, context sensitivity, behavior, quality of environment were nested with the places at which they were currently residing. There were two other contexts of our interest: The towns and the states in India where the respondents grew up. While the places of residence were the proximate, the towns, and the states were the distant sources of influence. One hundred and twenty-one towns and 22 states where these towns were located were sorted into five and four levels of socio-economic development, respectively. In the absence of objective indices in many cases, the towns were sorted on the basis of their image of being less or more developed. The states were sorted on the basis of the average rankings on the levels of income (year 2003–042), human resource development (HRD, year 20013), less of corruption (year 20074), consumption of electricity (year 20055) and investment friendly atmosphere (year 20076) that included percentage of state GDP spent on administration, per capita capital expenditure, commercial bank credit, capital formation, number of factories and industrial disputes, sick small scale industries, and the number of industrial workers in urban population. The developmental levels of the towns and the states were highly correlated (r = 0.77, p < 0.001) lending credibility to the subjective ratings of the towns. People’s perceptions of the quality of environment were examined for their correspondence with the development indices of the towns and the states where they grew up. Infra-structural adequacy was significantly related to both the towns (r = 0.41, p < 0.001) and the states (r = 0.34, p < 0.001). On the other hand, the more developed towns were low on being spacious and pollution free neighborhood (r = –0.13, p < 0.001) that was unrelated to the development levels of the states (r = –0.03, p > 0.05). The extent to which the people were perceived to be friendly and helpful were unrelated to the developmental levels of the towns (r = 0.01, 0 > 0.05) as well as the states (r = 0.05, p > 0.05). Thus, only the adequacy of infrastructure had clear correspondence with the levels of the development of the towns and to a lesser extent of the states where the respondents grew up. The developmental levels of the towns and the states were negatively, although only marginally, related to the duplicity in the mindset (r = –0.08, p < 0.05 in both), and

11

the towns with self-serving calculative behavior (r = –0.07, p < 0.05) indicating that a lesser degree of development at the places the respondents grew up was weakly associated with a greater degree of duplicity and self-serving calculative behavior. The levels of development were unrelated to the indices of context sensitivity p > 0.05. Respondents’ perceptions, however, were significantly affected by the proximate context, 12 places, where they were currently residing. One way analysis of variance disclosed significant F-ratios for all major variables, except the sensing of other’s mindset. As the sample size varied greatly across 12 locations generating a large degree of freedom, the F-ratios, although highly significant (p < 0.01), were interpreted with three conditionality. First, only the extreme groups of three highest and the three lowest scoring places out of 12 were compared (Table 5). Second, the comparisons were examined to identify the contrasts (indicated in bold in Table 5) that were relatively more consistent across the nine variables. Third, the t-ratios were computed to confirm that the contrasts indeed had significant mean differences. Table 5 revealed that Aligarh and Patna presented contrasts to Ahmedabad and to some extent to Guwahati. The contrasts corresponded to the developmental levels of the states where these places were located. Ahmedabad is located in Gujarat, which in the year 2007 was one of the highly developed states (ranked 5th) while Aligarh and Patna are located in the least developed states of UP and Bihar (ranked 17th and 20th). Guwahati was reported to be located in the low but fast developing state of Assam (ranked 14th) in the year 2007. Ahmedabad contrasted with Aligarh on six and with Patna on four out of nine comparisons. In fact the mean differences between Ahmedabad and Aligarh were very highly significant (p < 0.001) in four and highly significant (p < 0.01) in one variables. Ahmedabad and Patna differences were very highly significant (p < 0.001) in three and highly significant (p < 0.01) in one variables. Guwahati and Aligarh differences were very highly significant (p < 0.001) in two and mildly significant (p < 0.05) in one variables. Guwahati and Patna differences did not come out quite significant. Aligarh had the highest mean scores on the duplicity in the mindset, self-serving calculative behavior, sensing other’s mindset, and watching for opportunities and the second highest in judging time and people. On the contrary, Ahmedabad had the lowest score on duplicity in the mindset, the second lowest in self-serving calculative behavior as well as on all three indicators of context sensitivity. While Aligarh was lowest in having helpful and friendly people and the third lowest in infra-structural adequacy on which Ahmedabad was the second highest. Patna was close

12


Table 5 F-ratios and three highest and three lowest scoring locations with their mean scores (SDs in parenthesis) Variables

F (11/817)

Locations Highest scoring

Lowest scoring


3.50**

Aligarh, 3.89 (0.47) Kolkata, 3.88 (0.44) Patna, 3.85 (0.46)

Ahmedabad, 3.57 (0.50) Kozhikode, 3.64 (0.45) Kharagpur, 3.69 (0.47)


2.84**

Kolkata, 3.59 (0.71) Aligarh, 3.58 (0.55) Kharagpur, 3.55 (0.54)

Guwahati, 3.19 (0.55) Ahmedabad, 3.22 (0.59) Pune, 3.34 (0.62)


0.96

Aligarh, 3.79 (0.54) Kharagpur, 3.76 (0.65) Kolkata, 3.70 (00.77)

Mumbai, 3.54 (0.66) Guwahati, 3.57 (0.56) Ahmedabad, 3.63 (0.51)


2.68**

Aligarh, 3.85 (0.49) Patna, 3.75 (0.61) Chennai, 3.71 (0.50)

Noida, 3.45 (0.80) Ahmedabad, 3.47 (0.60) Guwahati, 3.55 (0.50)

Self-serving calculative behavior

4.03**

Aligarh, 4.03 (0.40) Patna, 3.88 (0.49) Chennai, 3.85 (0.48)

Guwahati, 3.57 (0.56) Ahmedabad, 3.61 (0.55) Noida, 3.61 (0.61)

Achieving high positive goal behavior

3.15**

Kolkata, 3.63 (0.53) Patna, 3.60 (0.54) Kozhikode, 3.59 (0.52)

Noida, 3.25 (0.64) Guwahati, 3.37 (0.34) Chennai, 3.37 (0.58)

Infrastructure adequacy

13.75**

Kozhikode, 4.07 (0.45) Ahmedabad, 3.85 (0.62) Chennai, 3.81 (0.64)

Patna, 3.11 (0.66) Guwahati, 3.24 (0.71) Aligarh, 3.28 (0.68)


8.16**

Guwahati, 3.48 (0.78) Kharagpur, 3.48 (0.74) Lucknow, 3.38 (0.87)

Chennai, 2.48 (1.02) Kolkata, 2.78 (0.81) Patna, 2.79 (0.78)

Friendly and helpful people

3.09**

Kozhikode, 3.70 (0.65) Kharagpur, 3.68 (0.78) Guwahati, 3.66 (0.62)

Aligarh, 3.24 (0.72) Chennai, 3.32 (0.84) Patna, 3.36 (0.63)

**p < 0.01, Contrasts are shown in bold. Kozhikode is the new name for Calicut

to Aligarh in having the second highest in self-serving calculative behavior and watching for opportunities and the third highest in duplicity. Further, Patna had the lowest in infrastructure and the third lowest in having clean and spacious neighborhood and friendly and helpful people. Guwahati was closer to Ahmedabad in having the lowest mean score in self-serving calculative behavior and judging time and people and the third lowest on sensing other’s mindset. It had the highest mean score on spacious and clean neighborhood and the third highest on having friendly and helpful people. The contrasts were somewhat blurred with regard to infra-structural adequacy where Guwahati, along with Patna and Aligarh, had the lowest mean scores. Although Ahmedabad had the second highest mean scores on infra-structural adequacy, it had moderate mean scores on the variables of clean and spacious neighborhood and friendly and helpful people.

The trend indicating associations between brand images of the cities and major variables had a few exceptions. Chennai, located in Tamil Nadu (ranked 4th in development), was the third highest in infrastructure but also in self-serving calculative behavior and watching for opportunities. It had the lowest mean score on clean and spacious neighborhood and the second lowest on having friendly and helpful people. Kolkata, located in West Bengal (ranked 15th in development), was on the higher side in duplicity in the mindset, judging time and people, sensing other’s mindset, and understandably lower in clean and spacious neighborhood. However, it had the highest mean score on achieving high goals of life, on which Patna scored, unexpectedly, the second highest. Kharagpur, located in West Bengal (ranked 15th in development), was on the higher side in judging time and people, sensing other’s mindset, clean and spacious neighborhood, and friendly and helpful


13

Table 6 Impact of disabling and enabling superior The subordinate will:

t-ratio

Boss Disabling

Enabling

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Be highly motivated to perform his best

2.48

1.18

4.21

0.95

32.63***

Flatter boss by describing him as an ideal boss

2.86

1.15

2.92

1.13

1.17

Come up with innovative ideas and share them with boss

2.73

1.18

4.26

0.89

29.87***

Communicate employees’ feelings to boss

2.78

1.13

3.74

1.01

19.69***

Emulate boss’s style and boss over his under employees/ encourage and inspire his subordinates

2.75

1.15

4.11

0.90

25.89***

n = 829, ***p < 0.001

people, but on the lower side in duplicity in mindset. The exceptions somewhat diluted the contrast effects between the places located in the more and less developed States.

innovative ideas and share them with the boss, communicate employees’ feelings to the boss, and emulate the boss’s style, but changing from imposing on his subordinates under the disabling boss to encouraging and inspiring them under the enabling boss. The means and SDs of the scores in disabling and enabling conditions along with correlated t-ratios were given in Table 6.

Impact of Disabling and Enabling Bosses and Organization The first two scenarios were compared to see how a manager was likely to shift his behavior in case a disabling boss was replaced with an enabling one. The correlated "t" tests of the mean differences between disabling and enabling conditions disclosed that the manager was likely to shift his behavior significantly ( < 0.001) in all respects, except one - flattering the boss, the mean scores of which remained lower than the mid-point in both conditions. The manager was more likely to turn highly motivated to perform well, come up with

The next two scenarios described a project head who was asked to report about a cancer drug that was not fully tested and hence was not ready for being marketed. He had five alternative ways to report. Respondents rated the likelihood of the alternative reports first in the disabling and then in the enabling condition of the organization. The mean scores and SDs under two conditions, along with correlated t-ratios were entered in Table 7.

Table 7 Impact of disabling and enabling organization Project head will:

t-ratio

Organization Disabling

Enabling

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Present incomplete findings in such a way that the management can decide either way

2.93

1.19

2.84

1.32

1.85*

Testify that the drug is ready to be marketed and will, thus, earn a handsome bonus and possibly a promotion

2.61

1.16

2.48

1.23

3.19***

Work overtime – day and night - to get the tests on human beings completed and will then report the findings to the management truthfully

3.95

0.94

4.00

0.94

1.51

Confidentially seek out his immediate superior’s guidance and report accordingly

3.33

1.03

3.40

1.12

1.99*

Caution the management of the human costs in marketing the drug

3.85

1.01

4.06

0.93

5.48***

n = 829, ***p < 0.001, *p < 0.05

14

Table 7 showed that there were significant shifts in the project head’s likelihood of choosing alternatives. He was significantly less likely either to present incomplete findings in such a way that the management could decide or to testify that the drug was ready to be marketed in order to earn a handsome bonus and possibly a promotion. Instead, he was much more likely to confidentially seek out his immediate superior’s guidance and report accordingly, and even more likely to caution the management of the human costs in marketing the drug that was not yet fully tested. In both disabling and enabling conditions, there was a great deal of likelihood of his working overtime to get the tests completed and then report the findings to the management truthfully, although the likelihood was a shade greater in the enabling condition. Impact of Respondents’ Background Respondents’ background had either trivial or chance association with how they perceived the people, and hence not much can be read in them. Older respondents perceived people striving to achieve high positive goals (r = 0.08, p < 0.05), their neighborhood more spacious and pollution free (r = 0.07, p < 0.05), and the people helpful and friendly (r = 0.10, p < 0.01). Better educated respondents perceived higher levels of infra-structural adequacy (r = 0.08, p < 0.05). Those having longer urban than rural background perceived higher levels of infra-structural adequacy (r = 0.09, p < 0.05), but had a more congested and polluted neighborhood (r = –0.12, p < 0.01). Respondents having longer experience of work perceived the people at their place more helpful and friendly (r = 0.12, p < 0.01). Females had higher mean scores than males in duplicity of the mindset (X (SD) = 3.82 (0.42) vs 3.72 (0.48), F (1/827) = 7.31, p < 0.01) and watching for opportunities (X (SD) = 3.70 (0.63) vs 3.60 (0.61), F (1/827) = 4.61, p < 0.05).

Discussion We cannot claim that Indians actually think, feel, and behave the way the respondents have reported in this study. However, what we have is the collective construction of 829 adult Indians located at 12 far flung places in the country ranging from Ahmedabad in the west to Guwahati in the east, Noida in the north to Chennai in the south. A construction by such a widely spread sample of adults substantiating the theoretical formulation derived from a thorough review of literature (Sinha, 2009) lends a reasonable degree of credibility to our findings.


The higher than the mid-point ratings across most of the items reflect possibly the presence of a culturally conditioned response set that substantiate, but also probably over estimates, how the Indians’ mind works and might had even restricted the size of variations, but did not seem like compromising either the emergence of meaningful configurations or the patterns of their relationships. A dominant feature of the Indian mindset was recognized to be its duplicity. Duplicity means that people profess to believe and prefer what they consider to be desirable, but tend to behave in contrary ways due to realistic compulsions. The desirables are honesty, keeping promises, believing in science, working diligently, and having peace of mind, but the compulsions are to remain close to corrupt and powerful persons for personal gains, bribe if necessary, take advantage of friends, and wilfully forget promises – the compulsions over ride the desirables. It may be worthwhile to note here that there was a second meaningful configuration of discrepant mindset that was dropped out of analyzes due to low its alpha coefficient (rii = 0.35). It reflected a positively tilted balancing of the opposites. The items (with loadings in parenthesis) showed that people believe in destiny but struggle hard to succeed in life (0.56), work hard to acquire material wealth and also remain concerned for spiritual growth (0.44), live in metropolitan cities, but remain rooted in their native culture (0.42), and over react emotionally, but also calculate their gains and losses carefully (0.31). A similar combination of negative and positive factors emerged out of the respondents’ perception of people’s behavior. Out of eight factors, only two had acceptable or near acceptable levels of reliability, although three others also had meaningful configurations. The first factor signified self-serving calculative behavior that is opportunistic in yielding to and appeasing powerful persons and exploiting the weak and the innocent ones, hiding intention, turning materialists from spiritualists, and working hard only for rewards. A more positive configuration of behavior in the second factor suggested that people tend to achieve high positive goals not only by working diligently, availing of challenging opportunities, and remaining optimist even in adverse situations, but also by making sacrifices, accommodating others, rallying around a dedicated leader, and helping those in distress. The three other factors having low reliability but meaningful configurations (loadings in parenthesis) were shifting, collective and pragmatic behavior (alpha coefficients = 0.48, 0.48 and 0.50, respectively). That is, people easily shift their loyalty from old to new boss (0.62), express opposite views on different situations


(0.56) and even corrupt ones genuinely turn pious on religious occasions (0.48). They are collectivistic in getting remarkably united for a common cause (0.69) and forgetting their differences and helping each other during disasters (0.64). They are pragmatic in struggling hard in order to get ahead in achieving something important (0.64), keeping important information secrets even from friends (0.54), and suppressing their dishonesty and behaving honestly when they are being watched closely (0.52). Exclusion of these low in reliability but meaningful factors from the rest of the analyzes raises a doubt whether inter-items consistency is a legitimate criterion to accept factors, particularly of discrepant orientations and behavior that, by the very definition, imply the presence of inconsistent beliefs, preferences, action orientations and behavior. The doubt is reinforced by the finding that the factors of discrepant mindset could not be rotated, probably because the ideas underpinning the items, although enmeshed with each other, were too inconsistent to get clustered into orthogonal factors. Interestingly, an earlier attempt (Sinha et al., 1994) to map Indian mindset also failed to produce rotated factors. The presence of duplicity in the mindset that correlated with self-serving calculative behavior that correlated with high positive goal achieving behavior supported our proposition that Indians tend to think and behave in discrepant ways. There is some evidence (Boucher, Peng, Shi & Wang, 2009; Choi & Choi, 2002; Peng & Nisbett, 1999) that east Asians too hold the belief that the reality is full of contradictions requiring them to compromise in which both sides of the contradiction are retained. The source for holding contradictory ideas is often traced to Taoism (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Indian source of discrepant thoughts and behavior is traced to the cultural cognitive style to welcome new and alien ideas, add them to the old ones rather than replacing the old by the new, retain an amalgam of diverse, discrepant, and even contradictory beliefs and action orientations, and reorganize them in varied combinations in order to act to various contextual demands. Thus, Indians do compromise, but they also balance one extreme thought or behavior by its opposite that may be equally extreme (Sinha & Kanungo, 1997). They also use one set of beliefs and action orientation as means to realize subsequently the opposite. Collectivistic behavior, for example, is used to achieve individualistic goals and vice versa (Sinha et al., 2002). Although self-serving calculative and high positive goal achieving behaviors were positively correlated, the factors impacting them were differently organized. Duplicity indeed

15

reinforced self-serving calculative, but it did not influence high positive goal achieving behavior. Duplicity and selfserving calculative behavior were so strongly coupled together not only in zero order correlation but also in having an identical pattern of relationships with the factors of context sensitivity, environmental quality of the places the respondents were currently residing, and the levels of development of the towns and the states where they grew up that we wonder whether the respondents distinguished people’s mindset from their behavior. Context sensitivity and environmental quality also impacted people’s behavior differently. All three factors of context sensitivity – sensing other’s mindset, judging time and people, and watching for opportunities - facilitated both self-serving calculative and high positive goal achieving behaviors. In fact, the factors were inter-related and seemed like cognitive, affective and conative facets of context sensitivity that facilitated whichever way people decided to behave. The only exception was the ability to judge time and people that was positively correlated with self-serving calculative behavior, but surprisingly turned into a negative predictor in the regression equation. On the other hand, two of the three factors of environmental quality - infra-structural adequacy and friendly and helpful people – facilitated high positive goal achieving behavior. The third factor of quality environment - clean and spacious neighborhood – was unrelated to it. The poor quality of all three factors of environment was significantly correlated with self-serving calculative behavior, but they failed to come out as significant predictors, although the trend of inverse relationships was maintained. There were two other factors that facilitated self-serving calculative behavior, although the effects were varying in strength. The less developed towns and states where the respondents grew up had a weak and the less developed places where the respondents were residing (such as Aligarh and Patna) compared to the more developed ones (such as Ahmedabad) had strong positive impact on duplicity of mindset and selfserving calculative behavior. The levels of development of the towns and the states were correlated with infra-structural adequacy. In sum, the higher developmental levels of the places where the respondents grew up or were residing by and large facilitated high positive goal achieving behavior while lower developmental levels resulted in cultivating duplicity in mindset and self-serving calculative behavior. There is a growing literature on mapping cultural values associated with developed and developing nations (Allen et al., 2007). Strong economies, for example, are found to be associated with individualism (Hofstede, 1980). The richer

16

nations were reported to endorse Dionysianism (i.e. selforiented values such as mature love, exciting life, secure), autonomy and egalitarianism while the poorer nations tended to value submission (i.e. society oriented values of obedience, politeness and national security), embeddedness and hierarchy (Allen et al., 2007). The present study goes beyond the exercise of simply mapping social values by first assuming that high and low levels of development constitute enabling and disabling contexts (respectively), and then reporting that enabling contexts encouraged people to set high and positive goals and realize them by integrating task and people needs while the disabling contexts induced them to profess to believe in desirables but practice the opposite by way of engaging in calculative behavior that served their self-interest. A support for our the finding is drawn from an old theory of Merton (Adler, Laufer & Merton, 2000; Merton, 1938) suggesting that anomic societal conditions press people to adopt ways that are socially undesirable. While enabling and disabling potential of the levels of development is taken for granted, we have evidence to show that a person is likely to shift to a more positive behavior when he realizes that the disabling situation has changed into an enabling one. The evidence shows that a manager, finding that his disabling boss has been replaced with an enabling one, is more likely to manifest positive work and people oriented behavior. Similarly, when a manager finds that his somewhat unethical and marketdriven organization has been taken over by a values-driven organization, he is much less likely to indulge in unethical practices and is more likely to perform work and people oriented behavior.

Conclusion The evidence indicates the presence of a high degree of duplicity in the mindset of Indians. Duplicity is coupled with self-serving calculative behavior that coexists with goal achieving behavior in people’s repertoire. Context sensitivity facilitates both, but adequate infrastructure and friendly and helpful people in the neighborhood encourage only high positive goal achieving behavior. On the contrary, poor quality of environment and low levels of development has a tendency to breed self-serving calculative behavior. As a disabling context changes into an enabling one, people are likely to shift towards more positive behavior. The findings thus broadly support the theoretical formulations (Sinha, 2009), but are based on only verbal predictions of respondents and hence, are susceptible to response contaminations. Further studies are needed


to establish their external validity by anchoring verbal responses into samples of observed behavior and by collecting evidence from different sets of respondents.

References Adler F, Laufer WS & Merton RK (2000). The legacy of anomie theory. New York: Transaction Publishers. Allen MW, Ng SH, Ikeda K, Jawan JA, Sufi AH, Wilson M & Yang KS (2007). Two decades of change in cultural values and economic development in eight East Asian and Pacific island nations. J Cross-Cultural Psychol, 38:247–269. Bharti A (1985). The self in Hindu thought and action. In Marsella AJ & DeVos G Hsu FLK (Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and western perspectives (pp 185–230). New York: Tavistock Publications. Bhawuk DPS (2008). Science of culture and culture of science: Worldview and choice of conceptual models and methodology. The Social Engineer, 11(2):26–43. Boucher HC, Peng K, Shi J & Wang L (2009). Culture and implicit self-esteem: Chinese are “good” and “bad” at the same time. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 40:24–45. Carstairs GM (1971). The twice born. Bombay: Asia Publishers. Chie N (1964). Logic and the smile: When Japanese meet Indians. Japan Quarterly, 11:434–438. Choi I & Choi Y (2002). Culture and self-concept flexibility. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 28:1508–1517. Dumont L (1970). Homo hierarchicus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hofstede G (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Kaiser HF (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20:141–151. Kumar R (2004). Brahmanical idealism, anarchical individualism, and dynamics of Indian negotiating behavior. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 4:39–58. Kumar R & Sethi A (2005). Doing business in India. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Marriott K (Ed.), (1990). India through Hindu categories. New Delhi: Sage. Merton RK (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3:672–82. Peng K & Nisbett RE (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54:741–754. Radhakrishnan S & Moore CA (1954). A source book in Indian philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ramanujan AK (1989). Is there an Indian way of thinking? An informal essay. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 25:41–58. Roland A (1988). In search of self in India and Japan: Towards a cross-cultural psychology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Roland A (2005). Multiple mothering and the familial self. Paper


presented during an international conference on understanding India, at the Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus, Denmark, November 3–5. Schulberg L (1968). Historic India, great ages of man: A history of the world culture series. Amsterdam: Time-life international. Sen A (2006). The argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian history, culture and identity. New York: Oxford University Press. Sinha D & Tripathi RC (1994). Individualism in a collectivist culture: A case of coexistence of opposites. In U Kim, HC Triandis, C Kagitcibasi, SC Choi & G Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and application (pp 123–136). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

17

(2001). Social beliefs, organizational climate and managers self-perception. Vikalpa, 26(1):33–47. Sinha JBP & Kanungo RN (1997). Context sensitivity and balancing in organizational behavior. International Journal of Psychology, 32:93–105. Sinha JBP & Pandey A (2007). Indians mindsets and the conditions that evoke them. Psychological Studies, 52:1–13. Sinha JBP, Sinha RBN, Bhupatkar AP, Anand Gupta P, Gupta R Panda A, Singh S, Singh-SenGupta S & Srinivas ES (2004). Facets of societal and organizational cultures and managers work related thoughts and feelings. Psychology and Developing Societies, 16:1–25.

Sinha JBP (1970). Development through behavior modification. Bombay: Allied Publishers.

Sinha JBP, Sinha TN, Verma J & Sinha RBN (2001). Collectivism coexisting with individualism: An Indian scenario. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4:133–145.

Sinha JBP (1990). The salient Indian values and their socio-ecological roots. Indian Journal of Social Sciences, 3:477–488.

Sinha JBP & Verma J (1987). Structure of collectivism. In C Kagitcibasi (Ed.), Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology (pp 123–129). Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Sinha JBP (2009, in press). The shifting mindset of Indians. In G Misra (Ed.), Discipline of psychology in the series “The History of Indian Science, Philosophy and Culture” (General Editor DP Chattopadhyaya).

Sinha JBP, Vohra N, Singhal S, Sinha RBN & Ushashree S (2002). Normative predictions of collectivist-individualist intentions and behavior of Indians. International Journal of Psychology, 37:309–319.

Sinha JBP, Daftuar CN, Gupta RK, Mishra RC, Jayseetha R Jha, SS Verma J & Vijayakumar VSR (1994). Regional similarities and differences in people's beliefs, practices, and preferences. Psychology and Developing Societies, 6:131–150.

Triandis HC & Bhawuk DPS (1997). Culture theory and meaning of relatedness. In PC Earley & M Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology (pp 13–54). San Francisco: New Lexington Press.

Sinha JBP, Gupta P, Singh S, Sriniwas ES & Vijaykumar VSR

Varma PK (2004). Being Indian: The truth about why the 21st century will be India’s. New Delhi: Viking.