impact of culture on human resource management - mpopa.ro

Impact of Culture on Human ResourceManagement Practices:

A 10-Country Comparison

Zeynep AycanKocË University, Istanbul, Turkey

Rabindra N. KanungoMcGill University, Montreal, Canada

Manuel Mendonca

McGill University, Montreal, Canada

Kaicheng Yu

Dalian University of Technology, China

JuÈ rgen Deller

Daimler-Benz InterServices AG, Germany

GuÈ nter Stahl

University of Bayreuth, Germany

Anwar Kurshid

LUMS, Lahore, Pakistan

Le ModeÁ le de Culture Fit explique la manieÁ re dont l'environnement socio-culturel influence la culture interne au travail et les pratiques de la directiondes ressources humaines. Ce modeÁ le a eÂ teÂ testeÂ sur 2003 salarieÂ s d'entreprisespriveÂ es dans 10 pays. Les participants ont rempli un questionnaire de 57 items,destineÂ aÁ mesurer les perceptions de la direction sur 4 dimensions socio-culturelles, 6 dimensions de culture interne au travail, et les pratiques HRM(Management des Ressources Humaines) dans 3 zones territoiriales. Uneanalyse pondeÂ reÂ e par reÂ gressions multiples, au niveau individuel, a montreÂque les directeurs qui caracteÂ risaient leurs environnement socio-culturel defacË on fataliste, supposaient aussi que les employeÂ s n'eÂ taient pas malleÂ ablespar nature. Ces directeurs ne pratiquaient pas l'enrichissement des posteset donnaient tout pouvoir au controÃ le et aÁ la reÂ muneÂ ration en fonctiondes performances. Les directeurs qui appreÂ ciaient une grande loyauteÂ des

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2000, 49 (1), 192±221

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000. Published by Blackwell Publishers,108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

________________

* Address for correspondence: Dr Zeynep Aycan, Department of Psychology, KocË University,

5 Cayir, Istinye, Istanbul, Turkey 80860. [email protected]

employeÂ s supposaient qu'ils remplissent entre eux des obligations reÂ ciproqueset s'engagaient dans la voie donnant pouvoir aux pratiques HRM. Lesdirecteurs qui percevaient le paternalisme et une forte distance de l'autoriteÂdans leur environnement socio-culturel, supposaient une reÂ activiteÂ desemployeÂ s, et en outre ne pourvoyaient pas aÁ l'enrichissement des postes etaÁ la deÂ leÂ gation. Des modeÁ les speÂ cifiques aÁ la culture qui mettent en relation ces3 groupes de variables ainsi que les applications de ces recherches pour lapsychologie industrielles trans-culturellesont eÂ teÂ deÂ battus.

The Model of Culture Fit explains the way in which socio-cultural environ-ment influences internal work culture and human resource managementpractices. This model was tested using 1,954 employees from businessorganisations in 10 countries. Participants completed a 57-item questionnairewhich measured managerial perceptions of four socio-cultural dimensions,six internal work culture dimensions and HRM practices in three areas.Moderated multiple regressions at the individual level analysis revealed thatmanagers who characterised their socio-cultural environment as fatalistic alsoassumed that employees, by nature, were not malleable. These managers didnot administer job enrichment, empowering supervision, and performance±reward contingency. Managers who valued high loyalty assumed that em-ployees should fulfil obligations to one another, and engaged in empoweringHR practices. Managers who perceived paternalism and high power distancein their socio-cultural environment assumed employee reactivity, andfurthermore, did not provide job enrichment and empowerment. Culture-specific patterns of relationships among the three sets of variables, as well asimplications of this research for cross-cultural industrial/organisational psy-chology, are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

More than two decades ago, Barrett and Bass (1976) observed that `̀ mostresearch in industrial and organisational psychology is done within onecultural context. This context puts constraints upon both our theories andour practical solutions to the organisational problems'' (p. 1675). Thisobservation stems from the fact that, at the time of their review of cross-cultural industrial and organisational (I/O) psychology literature, culturewas not considered a critical contingency variable to explain organisationalbehaviour and human resource management (HRM) practices. Mostresearchers were primarily concerned with testing the generalisability ofNorth American behavioural theories and technologies in other countries.Since that time, however, the situation has changed on two fronts. First,because of the increasing demands of the globalised and liberalised (hencecompetitive) business environment, both researchers and practitioners havestarted paying more attention to the study of culture as an explanatoryvariable. Second, they have also come to realise that the uncritical adap-tation of HRM practices and techniques evolved in the context of Westerncultural values may not be effective in other socio-cultural environments.

CULTURE AND HRMPRACTICES 193

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.

These changes in the attitudes of I/O psychologists have resulted in morein-depth and systematic studies of culture and its dimensions. At the sametime, these changes have also triggered a search for culture-fit models whichprovide a better understanding of how cultural variables may explaineffectiveness of different HRM practices in different cultures. Althoughin the last two decades, I/O psychologists have examined how cultureinfluences HRM practices, research has remained exploratory with post hocexplanations of the influence of culture. The Model of Culture Fit presentedin this paper aims to remedy this situation by examining the impact ofdifferent levels of cultural variables (as represented in managerial percep-tions) on HRM practices in a number of industrially developed anddeveloping countries.

THE MODEL OF CULTURE FIT

Managing human resources in organisations requires understanding of theinfluence of both the internal and external environments of organisations.The internal environment is represented by its internal work culture,whereas the external environment is represented by the enterprise or insti-tutional culture (e.g. market characteristics, nature of industry, ownershipstatus and resource availability) as well as the socio-cultural environment(e.g. paternalism, power distance, etc.). Both of these environmental forcesare, in turn, influenced by the physical and the socio-political context(e.g. ecological, legal, social, political, and historical forces). The Modelof Culture Fit (see Fig. 1) as proposed by Kanungo and his associates(Kanungo & Jaeger, 1990; Mendonca & Kanungo, 1994) asserts that boththe socio-cultural environment and the enterprise environment affectinternal work culture and HRM practices.It may be noted that the term culture here is defined as common patterns

of beliefs, assumptions, values, and norms of behaviour of human groups(represented by societies, institutions, and organisations). In other words,cultural variables that may influence HRM practices can manifest at threedifferent levels. At the most basic level, organisational culture or the internalwork culture operating within the organisation, is construed as a patternof shared managerial beliefs and assumptions (Schein, 1992) that directlyinfluence HRM practices. These managerial beliefs and assumptions relateto two fundamental organisational elements: the task and the employees.Managerial assumptions pertaining to the task deal with the nature of thetask and how it can best be accomplished; those assumptions pertainingto the employees deal with employees' nature and behaviour. Managersimplement HRM practices based on their assumptions about the nature ofboth the task and the employees. However, these managerial assumptionsare shaped by two other levels of cultural forces.

194 AYCAN ET AL.


Physical &Socio-politicalEnvironment

Ecological ContextLegal & Political

ContextHistorical EventsSocialisation

Process

EnterpriseEnvironment

Market Characteristics(competitive vs.noncompetitive)

Nature of Industry(manufacturing, service, etc.)

Ownership / Control(private vs. government)

Resource Availability(technical & human resources)

Socio-culturalDimensions

Paternalism

Power Distance

Fatalism

Loyalty towardsCommunity

InternalWorkCulture

Task-driven Assumptions

Task Goal(profit vs. social gain)

Task Orientation(process vs. result)

Competitive Orientation(pragmatic vs. normative)

Employee-relatedAssumptions

Malleability

Proactivity

Obligation towards Others

Responsibility Seeking

Participation

HRMPractices

Job DesignFeedbackAutonomySkillVariety

Task Significance

Supervisory PracticeGoal SettingEmpowerment

Control

Reward AllocationPerformance^Reward

Contingency

!

"

!

~

"

FIGURE1. Themodel of culture fit (based on Aycan, Sinha, & Kanungo,1999).

#Intern

atio

nalAsso

ciatio

nforApplied

Psychology,2000.

CULTU

REAND

HRM

PRACTIC

ES19

5

On the one hand, task-driven assumptions are influenced by theinstitutional level culture as shaped by enterprise characteristics includingownership status (private versus public sector), industry (e.g. service versusmanufacturing), market competitiveness, and resource availability (e.g.human and technological resources). For instance, ownership status has abearing on assumptions and beliefs regarding the goal of task accomplish-ment: public organisations emphasise social gain, whereas private organis-ations emphasise profit as their goal. Market conditions and the nature ofthe industry may influence beliefs regarding the way in which tasks areaccomplished: in manufacturing industry, the process is more importantthan the results, whereas in service industry and R&D units, the emphasisis on results rather than the process (Hofstede, 1991). Similarly, marketcompetitiveness forces organisations to be pragmatic rather than normativein their task orientation (Hofstede, 1991).On the other hand, employee-related assumptions, which constitute the

main focus of this study, are influenced by characteristics of the societal-level culture, which is conceived as shared value orientations among peoplein a given society. A significant amount of research has been devoted to theidentification of salient value dimensions (e.g. individualism±collectivism)along which cultures differ (Bond, 1988; Hofstede, 1983; Triandis, 1982;Trompenaars, 1993; Schwartz, 1994; Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1996).Managerial assumptions about what employees are like and how they aresocialised to behave depend on managers' perceptions of how the society ischaracterised in terms of these value dimensions. It should be emphasisedthat, in this study, the socio-cultural environment and the internal workculture were conceptualised and operationalised as related but separate entities.Therefore, we refrained from using the same dimensions to conceptualiseculture at both the societal and the organisation level. The underlyingrationale is that the internal work culture refers to shared managerial beliefsand assumptions about employee nature and behaviour, whereas the socio-cultural environment refers to managerial perceptions of shared values amongpeople with respect to how a society is structured and how it functions.In addition, the internal work culture consists of two sets of managerialassumptions, employee-related and task-related, each of which is influencedby different forces (i.e. the perceived socio-cultural and the enterpriseenvironment, respectively).The above description of cultural variables manifested in three different

levels, and their influence on HRM practices, is incorporated into a Modelof Culture Fit as presented in Figure 1. This model was partly tested byMathur, Aycan and Kanungo (1996). The study reported here is a furthertest of the model by meeting the following objectives. The overarchingpurpose of this study was to examine the way in which managers' perceptionsof socio-cultural environment are related to managers' assumptions about

196 AYCAN ET AL.


employees in organisations and HRM practices. In order to accomplish thisobjective, we first identified several cultural characteristics of the 10 countriesincluded in this study: Canada, the USA, Romania, Russia, Germany,Israel, China, Pakistan, Turkey, and India. We then predicted and testeddifferences among the countries with respect to managers' perceptions oftheir own socio-cultural environment (Hypotheses 1 to 3 presented in thenext section). Next, we examined the relationship of managers' perceptionsof their socio-cultural environment with their assumptions about employeesand HRM practices in their organisations. Some pancultural generalisationsderived from the Model of Culture Fit were formulated and tested at theindividual level of analysis (Hypotheses 4 to 10 presented in the followingsection). Finally, data on these relationships were analysed for each countryto determine whether the country would moderate the relationships amongmanagers' perceptions of the socio-cultural environment, their assumptionsabout employee nature and behaviour, and HRM practices.

Dimensions of the Socio-cultural Environment

Included in this study were four socio-cultural dimensions. The first dimen-sion was power distance (Hofstede, 1980). This dimension concerns theextent to which status hierarchy and power inequality exist and are acceptedin society and its institutions. Consistent with Hofstede's findings (1980) andrelated literature, we expected the following country profiles on powerdistance.

Hypothesis 1: Managers from India, Pakistan, China, Turkey, Russia, andRomania will score high, managers from Canada, the USA, and Germanywill score in the middle and managers from Israel will score the lowest withrespect to their perceptions of power distance in their respective countries.

The second cultural dimension was paternalism. Being paternalisticimplies (a) a dyadic and hierarchical relationship between a superior andhis or her subordinates, and (b) a role differentiation in this relationship.In order for paternalism to occur, the relationship has to be hierarchical.However, paternalism does not necessarily occur only in high power dis-tance cultures. It is possible to observe a paternalistic relationship betweendoctor and patient, student and teacher, or manager and employee in lowpower distance cultures (e.g. Kjellin & Nilstun, 1993; Padavic & Earnest,1994; Reed, 1996).

In a paternalistic relationship, the role of the superior is to provideguidance, protection, nurturance and care to the subordinate, and the roleof the subordinate, in return, is to be loyal and deferent to the superior. Theidea of paternalism mainly stems from state welfare ideology, where the roleof the state is to act in a benevolent way to protect and provide for itscitizens (cf. Kim, 1994). Paternalism is one of the most salient characteristics



of many Asian cultures (Redding, Norman, & Schlander, 1994) such asChina, Japan, Korea, and India. Kim asserted that the basis for paternal-ism in Asian cultures was the traditional value of familism with a strongemphasis on patriarchal, patrilocal, and patrilineal relationships withinthe family unit (Kim, 1994, p. 253). In time, paternalistic relationshipswent beyond family boundaries, and vertical relationships in the family wereextended to those based on seniority and gender in the workplace and sociallife (Kim, 1994; Redding & Hsiao, 1995).Although in Eastern cultures paternalism is one of the most desired

characteristics of people in authority, it is viewed very negatively in Westernsocieties. In a Western cultural context, paternalism implies authoritarian-ism. For instance, Northouse (1997) depicted a paternalistic manager asa `̀ benevolent dictator'' (p. 39). However, a recent study by Aycan andKanungo (1998) showed that paternalism was strongly negatively correlatedwith authoritarianism. Although, there is no systematic cross-cultural re-search on paternalism, guided by the existing literature on India (e.g. Sinha,1995), Turkey (e.g. Aycan & Kanungo, 1998; Kabasakal & Bodur, 1998),China (e.g. Dorfman & Howell, 1988), Russia (Hickson & Pugh, 1995; Puffer,1996; Trompenaars, 1993), Romania (e.g. Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars,1996), we expect to find the following cross-cultural differences.Hypothesis 2: Managers from India, Pakistan, Turkey, and China will

score higher on their perceptions of paternalism compared to managersfrom Russia, Romania, the USA, Canada, Germany, and Israel.The third cultural dimension was loyalty towards community. This is one

of the subdimensions of the individualism±collectivism dimension (Kim,Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994). It describes the extent to whichindividuals feel loyal to their communities and compelled to fulfil theirobligations towards in-group members (relatives, clan, organisations) evenif in-group members' demands inconvenience them. Guided by Hofstede'sresults on individualism±collectivism, the following hypothesis was for-mulated.Hypothesis 3: Managers from India, Pakistan, China, Turkey, Russia, and

Romania will score highest, managers from Israel and Germany will score inthe middle, and managers from Canada and the USA will score lowest ontheir perceptions of loyalty towards community in their respective countries.The last socio-cultural dimension was fatalism. Fatalism is the belief that

whatever happens must happen (Bernstein, 1992, p. 5). Fatalism does notnecessarily denote religiosity. In this study, it is conceptualised as the beliefthat it is not possible to fully control the outcomes of one's actions. There-fore, trying too hard to achieve something, making long-term plans, andtaking preventative action are not worthwhile exercises. This dimension, in away, is the combination of `̀ locus of control'' (Rotter, 1966) and `̀ futuristicorientation'' (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Triandis, 1984). Due to lack

198 AYCAN ET AL.


of prior data on cross-cultural differences on fatalism, this part of our studyremained exploratory.

Dimensions of the InternalWork Culture as they Relateto the Socio-cultural Environment

This section will present hypotheses regarding the relationship of managers'perceptions of societal culture and their assumptions about employees intheir organisations representing the internal work culture. The hypothesesin this and the following sections (Hypotheses 4±10) are formulated onthe basis of findings of the previous studies that partially tested the Modelof Culture Fit (e.g. Aycan, Sinha, & Kanungo, 1999; Mathur, Aycan, &Kanungo, 1996). It should be pointed out that although the hypotheses werepresented as pancultural generalisations, they were tested at the individuallevel, and for each country separately, to see if the generalisations wouldhold in different countries. Due to possible lack of conceptual and/orstructural equivalence, the pattern of relationship between the predictor andthe criterion may differ across countries. Consequently, our analysis willalso be conducted separately for each country to test whether countrymoderates the relationship among variables or not (see the Type IIhypothesis description of Brett, Tinsley, Janssens, Barsness, & Lytle, 1997).

Dimensions of the internal work culture have been identified by Schein(1992) and further elaborated by Kanungo and Jaeger (1990) and Mendoncaand Kanungo (1994). The internal work culture includes prevailingmanagerial assumptions about malleability (McGregor, 1960; Kanungo &Jaeger, 1990; Schein, 1992). Managers who believe in malleability assumethat employees, by nature, can change and improve their skills given theappropriate training and development opportunities. In this study, we expectthat this assumption will be influenced by fatalistic beliefs. In societies whichvalue fatalism, managers are more likely to assume that employees, bynature, are not changeable, and therefore, investment in training and devel-opment programmes for long-term benefits is unnecessary.

Hypothesis 4: Managers' perceptions of fatalism in society will negativelyinfluence the assumption of employee malleability.

The second internal work culture dimension is proactivity (Kanungo &Jaeger, 1990; Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982). Proactivity is concernedwith whether employees take personal initiative to achieve their jobobjectives or simply react to external demands. It is predicted that whenmanagers perceive their society as being paternalistic and as having highpower distance they will assume their employees to be more reactive thanproactive. In these societies, managers enjoy higher status due to theirknowledge and wisdom. Therefore, they are expected to provide guidanceand advice as to what and how things have to be done. Subordinates are

CULTURE AND HRM PRACTICES 199


expected to be loyal followers. In effect, managers assume that employeesare not capable of or willing to take initiative and to act independentlywithout guidance.Hypothesis 5: Managers' perception of paternalism and high power

distance will negatively influence the managerial assumption of proactivity.Responsibility seeking is the third internal work culture dimension

(McGregor, 1960). It is the managerial assumption regarding whether ornot employees accept and seek responsibility in their job. We expect thisassumption to be influenced by fatalism. In fatalistic cultures, people mayshy away from taking responsibility, expecting that their extra effort will notnecessarily yield desired outcomes. Therefore, managers who perceive highfatalism in their cultures are likely to assume that employees, by nature, arenot willing to accept and seek responsibility.Hypothesis 6: Managers' perception of fatalism will negatively influence

the managerial assumption of employee responsibility seeking.The fourth dimension of internal work culture is participation (Bass, 1981;

Cotton, 1993; McGregor, 1960). This dimension is about whether or notmanagers assume that employees prefer delegation at all levels and like to beconsulted in matters that concern them. Fatalism and paternalism are thecultural dimensions that we expect to influence the assumption of employeeparticipation. Employees wish to participate in decision making only if theybelieve that they have the power to control matters.Hypothesis 7a: Managers' perception of fatalism is expected to have

negative influence on the managerial assumption of employee participation.Although paternalism and participation do not seem to be compatible,

recent research on ideal leader style showed that paternalistic managersare those who ask opinions of employees (e.g. Kabasakal & Bodur, 1998).As mentioned previously, paternalism is not authoritarianism. One of theresponsibilities of a paternalistic superior is to seek opinions of his or hersubordinates. However, he or she reserves the right to give the final decisionwhich is acceptable to subordinates. Moreover, the caring component ofpaternalism requires that managers consult employees in matters that con-cern them, so that the result of managers' actions is satisfactory for allparties involved. While paternalism requires participation at the opinion-formation level, decision making is not entirely participative. In our con-ceptualisation, participation is considered at this initial level of opinionseeking.Hypothesis 7b: Managers' perception of paternalism will positively

influence the assumption of employee participation.Finally, the last dimension of internal work culture is obligation towards

others (Bailyn, 1978; Schein, 1978). It is the managerial assumption thatemployees feel obliged to fulfil their responsibilities towards others in theworkplace. The obligation assumption is expected to be influenced by

200 AYCAN ET AL.


paternalism and loyalty towards the community. In paternalistic cultureswhere loyalty towards community is of great importance, fulfilment ofobligations to one another in society as well as in organisations is among theprimary responsibilities of individuals. To act in accordance with groupneeds, and to compromise your own wishes for the group, is of more valuethan individual achievement. Therefore, managers who value paternalismand loyalty towards community are more likely to assume that employeesdo not hesitate to help one another in times of need and to cooperatetowards accomplishment of tasks.

Hypothesis 8: Managers' perception of paternalism and loyalty towardscommunity will positively influence the managerial assumption of obliga-tion towards others in the workplace.

HRM practices. HRM practices in three areas are addressed: jobenrichment, empowering supervision, and performance±reward contingency(Kanungo & Jaeger, 1990; Mendonca & Kanungo, 1994; Mathur et al.,1996). Following Hackman and Oldham's (1980) conceptualisation ofenriched jobs, feedback, autonomy, task significance and skill variety aremeasured. Empowering supervision and control are examined through goal-setting practices (the extent to which managers and subordinates jointly setspecific goals as well as develop specific plans to achieve the goal) (Erez &Earley, 1987; Locke & Latham, 1984), empowerment practices (the extent towhich managers encourage and provide support to employees to handledifficult assignments on their own) (Conger & Kanungo, 1988), opportunityfor self-control (orientation of employees to work hard even in the absenceof their superiors), and supervisory control (whether managers provideappropriate supervision rather than adopt a `̀ laissez-faire'' style) (Likert,1961). Reward management is measured through performance-extrinsicreward contingency and performance-intrinsic reward contingency (theextent to which these rewards, intrinsic or extrinsic, are contingent uponperformance) (Kanungo & Hartwick, 1987).

It is predicted that managers who assume that employees, by nature, aremalleable, proactive and eager to take responsibility are more likely to enrichjobs, empower employees, and reward them based on high performance. Onthe other hand, if managers believe that employees have limited capacity,then the above-mentioned HRM practices that aim at improving employeeskills and performance are considered to be ineffective and unnecessary.

Hypothesis 9. Managerial assumptions of malleability, proactivity, andresponsibility seeking will positively influence job enrichment, empoweringsupervision, and performance-based reward allocation.

In addition, empowering supervision is more likely when managers assumethat employees wish to cooperate with others in the workplace, and thatthey seek participation and delegation. The rationale behind the former



expectation is that managers may consider it a part of fulfilling their obligationtowards employees to provide empowering supervision. Alternatively (or inaddition), they may provide empowering supervision to enable employees tofulfil obligations towards others. As mentioned above, empowering super-vision includes joint decision making on job-related issues. Therefore, in thelatter case, it is natural to expect that managers engage in empoweringsupervision only if they assume that employees wish to be consulted.Hypothesis 10: Managerial assumptions of employee participation and

obligation will positively influence empowering supervision practices.

Method

Sample. A total of 1,954 respondents from 10 countries participatedin this study: 227 from Canada, 139 from the USA, 287 from Turkey,175 from China, 123 from Pakistan, 498 from India, 169 from Germany,107 from Romania, 88 from Israel and 141 from Russia. Participants wereemployees of various public and private sector business organisations.Sample characteristics for each country are presented in Table 1.As can be seen from Table 1, sample characteristics vary among the 10

countries with respect to gender, age, educational attainment and sector.Although lack of equivalence in sample characteristics is a potential threat

TABLE 1Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

Canada USA Romania Germany Israel Russia Turkey China Pakistan India

Gender

Male 45.9 45.3 56.5 72.8 47.7 39.7 45.6 85.3 79.7 86.6

Age

525 45 64 60 10.1 17 28.8 25.3 30 18.6 21.3

26±35 35.6 26.3 27.5 51.6 53.5 34.5 47.3 44.6 26.4 41.6

365 19.4 9.6 12.5 38.3 29.5 36.7 27.4 25.4 55 37.1

Education

High School 5.2 35.9 12.6 9.5 8 24.6 30.1 10.4 14.3

College 48 41.7 46.3 11.2 39.8 10.2 61.8 22 47.1

University 36.2 15.2 30.2 77.5 27.3 52.3 8.1 54.4 37.3

Graduate 10.6 7.2 10.9 ± 24.9 12.9 ± 13.2 1.3

Sector

Public 43.2 45.3 40.2 22.5 53.9 51.8 11.3 89.3 63.4 60.5

Percentages are presented in each cell.

Data on individual educational attainment are not available for the Russian sample. It is

known, however, that the majority of the sample had college education and above.

202 AYCAN ET AL.


to validity of results in cross-cultural studies, we tried to minimise thisproblem by statistically controlling the influence of gender, age, education,and sector in subsequent analyses.

Questionnaire. The questionnaire had four parts. The first part asked fordemographic information. In the second, third, and fourth parts, dimen-sions of socio-cultural environment, internal work culture and HRMpractices were assessed, respectively, using a total of 57 statements.Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed witheach statement by using a six-point Likert-type scale (1= strongly disagree;6= strongly agree). One-third of the items were reverse-coded to minimiseresponse bias. Subscales were coded in such a way that high scores reflectedthe variable name (e.g. a high score on the paternalism scale indicated highpaternalism). Psychometric properties of the measures were reported byMathur, Aycan, and Kanungo (1996). For this study, the adequacy ofpsychometric properties of scales (especially internal consistency) weretested and confirmed for each of the 10 samples. The range of internalconsistency of scales (i.e. maximum and minimum Cronbach's alphas) foreach sample are presented in parentheses below.

Among socio-cultural dimensions, paternalism was assessed by fivequestions (aUSA= .72±aRussia= .60). Sample questions were `̀ The ideal bossis like a parent in our society'' and `̀ People in authority in our society shouldtake care of their subordinates as they would take care of their children''.Power distance was assessed by four questions, such as `̀ There needs to bea hierarchy of authority in our society'' and `̀ Inequality of status amongindividuals is not acceptable in our society'' (reverse coded) (aIsrael= .65±aChina= .50). Four questions were used to measure loyalty towards com-munity (aIsrael= .67±aIndia= .51). A sample question was `̀ In our culture,one is expected to be loyal to his or her community even if one isinconvenienced by the demands of the community''. Finally, fatalism(aIndia= .78±aRussia= .54) was assessed by five questions such as: `̀ Whenbad things are going to happen, they just are going to happen no matterwhat you do to stop them'', `̀ The wise person lives for today and letstomorrow take care of itself''.

Participants evaluated the internal work culture of their organisations byreporting prevailing managerial assumptions on five dimensions. Malle-ability (aGermany= .72±aCanada= .55) was assessed by five questions. Sampleitems include `̀ There is no limit for those employees who really want toimprove their skills'', `̀ You cannot train people to change their work habits''(reverse coded). There were four questions to measure obligation towardsothers (aRussia= .68±aUSA= .50) in the workplace: `̀ Employees should beevaluated on the basis of their concern for their coworkers'', `̀ Inorganisational context, helping others is more important than helping



oneself''. Participation (aIsrael= .71±aChina= .55) was measured by fourquestions, such as `̀ As a matter of policy, employees should have a say in alldecisions which affect them'', `̀ In organisations, employees should beencouraged to comply to the decisions made by authorities at the top''(reverse coded). Proactivity (aTurkey= .66±aRomania= .51) was assessed byfive questions. Sample items were `̀ Employees achieve task objectives whenthey do the job in their own way rather than being told how to do it'',`̀ People must be controlled and directed in order to make them work''(reverse coded). Finally, responsibility seeking (aIsrael= .68±aChina= .45) wasassessed by four questions: `̀ Employees not only accept but seek responsi-bility on the job'', `̀ People lack ambition and initiative and avoid responsi-bility on the job''.Human resource management practices were assessed in three areas.

Feedback, autonomy, skill variety, and task significance were dimensions ofjob design. Two questions were used to measure the first two dimensions,whereas a single item was used to assess the last two dimensions. In the areaof supervision and control, there were four variables, each of which wasassessed by two questions: goal setting, empowerment, self-control, andsupervisory control. Finally, in the area of performance±reward contin-gency, there were three questions: two for performance-intrinsic rewardcontingency and one for performance-extrinsic reward contingency.Although there were few questions to measure each HRM practice, thiswas done to keep the questionnaire to a manageable length. The tenvariables that were used to measure HRM practices were factor-analysed.This provided three reliable subscales: the job design (aCanada= .71±aChina= .60) scale consisted of six items such as, `̀ My job requires me to do thesame routine, repetitive tasks'' (reverse coded), `̀ I do not know how theresults of my work affect other people'' (reverse coded); supervision andcontrol scale (aCanada= .78±aTurkey= .65) consisted of eight items such as`̀ My supervisor and I jointly set specific goals (what and how to do myjob)'', `̀ My supervisor encourages and provides me with support to handledifficult assignments'', and performance±reward contingency scale consistedof three items (aUSA= .54±aChina= .49) such as `̀ Although I put in moretime and effort in my job than my peers, I am paid the same as my peers''(reverse coded).

Procedure. The questionnaire was developed in English, and adminis-tered in its original language in all countries, except for Turkey, China,Russia, and Germany. For these countries, the questionnaire was translatedinto native languages and back-translated into English to ensure linguisticas well as conceptual equivalence. In countries where the questionnaire wasadministered in English, respondents did not report any difficulty in under-standing the statements either because English was one of the official languages

204 AYCAN ET AL.


(e.g. in India), or respondents were highly competent in using the language.The questionnaire was self-administered, and it took approximately 20±25minutes on average to complete.

Results

The main objective of this research was to examine the ways in which vari-ance in managers' perceptions of their socio-cultural environment wasreflected in variance in their assumptions about employees (internal workculture) and HRM practices. Prior to testing the model, it was necessary toensure that there was sufficient amount of variance in the specified culturaldimensions across the 10 countries. For that purpose country scores on eachvariable were calculated and differences among country scores were computed.

In cross-cultural studies, it is difficult to attribute observed mean dif-ferences between country scores to real cultural differences, because suchdifferences may be products of methodological artifacts, such as differencesin response style, unequal distribution of scores, and sample inequivalence(cf. van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). In some cultural contexts (especially morecollectivistic ones), responses are given in a more socially desirable way toplease the researcher, even though anonymity of responses is guaranteed.The tendency to be in agreement with the statement causes response biasand may result in spurious differences among country scores. In addition,it is possible that scores within each country are not distributed in thesame way.

These problems in cross-cultural studies are minimised to a certain extentby employing data standardisation methods (Leung, 1989; Leung & Bond,1989; Smith & Peterson, 1996; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). This methodis administered in two steps. In the first step, within-subject standardisationwas conducted to minimise response bias, and in the second step, a within-country standardisation was employed to minimise the effect of differen-tial distribution of country scores. Standardised scores for 10 countries arepresented in Table 2. The range for standardised scores was between 24 to210 (mid-point is 117).

Another methodological difficulty in cross-cultural studies is to establishsample equivalence. As described earlier, there were significant differenceswith respect to demographic characteristics of participants in the 10 countries.In order to control the effect of sampling variability on results, standardisedmean scores were compared by analysis of covariance (ANCOVAs) withage, gender, education, and sector as covariates. Having employed all theseadjustment procedures, differences among country scores could be con-sidered as conservative estimates of true differences.

As can be seen from Table 2, ANCOVA results were significant for allvariables included in this study. In order to evaluate the proportion of total



TABLE 2Standardised Country Scores on StudyVariables, ANCOVA Results, andVariance Estimated

Canada USA Romania Germany Israel Russia Turkey China Pakistan India F (9,1994) Omega

Square

Socio-cultural Dimensions

Paternalism 97 112 101 79 65 105 129 123 118 137 83.01 0.27

Power Distance 96 110 82 99 70 116 111 117 112 123 36.38 0.14

Loyalty Towards Community 105 111 109 117 86 132 130 125 122 127 25.31 0.1

Fatalism 62 52 58 45 55 92 56 51 51 95 46.32 0.02

Internal Work Culture

Malleability 149 147 155 145 164 147 141 143 141 127 9.45 0.04

Proactivity 124 113 102 131 128 144 90 76 86 99 54.13 0.22

Obligation Towards Others 106 119 106 110 82 124 97 124 135 125 27.89 0.13

Responsibility Seeking 138 133 139 152 161 132 133 106 127 131 22.02 0.1

Participation 159 143 172 148 106 174 133 151 141 159 48.69 0.14

HRM Practices

Job Enrichment 129 120 138 139 160 105 124 136 128 112 34.85 0.14

Supervision 133 136 128 123 124 126 141 133 138 128 9.32 0.04

Reward Allocation 102 103 103 117 141 101 113 93 98 100 7.26 0.03

Figures are means multiplied by 100, following first individual-level and then country-level standardisation.

All F values are significant at p5.001 level.

#Intern

atio

nalAsso

ciatio

nforApplied

Psychology,2000.

206

AYC

AN

ETAL.

population variance that is attributable to variation among countries (i.e.the explained variance), the index of effect size (omega square) (Keppel,1991) is also reported in Table 2. A `̀ small'' effect size is .01, a `̀ medium''effect size is .06, and a `̀ large'' effect size is .15 or greater (Cohen, 1977,pp. 284±288). As seen from Table 2, paternalism and proactivity had thelargest effect sizes; power distance, loyalty towards community, obligationtowards others, responsibility seeking, participation, and job enrichmenthad medium effect sizes; and fatalism, malleability, supervision, and rewardallocation had small effect sizes. A graphical representation of countrypositions on the four cultural dimensions can be seen in Figure 2.

As was shown by the omega-square results, there was a larger range ofcountry scores (65 to 137) on paternalism. The results confirm Hypothesis 1in that India, Pakistan, China, and Turkey scored highest, whereas Israeland Germany scored lowest with Romania, Russia, Canada, and the USAin the middle. Countries also differed substantially with respect to theirposition on power distance; the range was 70 to 124. Hypothesis 2 was alsoconfirmed except for Romania. The highest scoring countries on powerdistance were India, Pakistan, China, Turkey, and Russia; in the middlewere Germany, the USA, and Canada; the lowest scoring countries wereIsrael and Romania. The range of scores on loyalty towards community waslarge: 86±132. Hypothesis 3 was partially confirmed. As expected, India,Pakistan, China, Turkey, and Russia scored highest on loyalty towardscommunity. Germany, Romania, the USA, and Canada were in the middle,and Israel was the lowest. Our expectation for Romania and Israel to scorehigher, and Canada and the USA to score lower, was not confirmed.Finally, the majority of countries scored low on fatalism, except for Indiaand Russia whose scores were higher than other countries, but still slightlybelow the mid-point.

The extent to which country positions with respect to managers'perceptions of socio-cultural environment explained variance in managerialassumptions about employees and HRM practices was next examinedthrough a series of multiple regression analyses. For each hypothesisedrelationship between socio-cultural and internal work culture dimen-sions, we regressed each managerial assumption on each socio-culturaldimension for the overall sample. In cross-cultural studies, it is possiblethat the strength and/or direction of relationship between two variablesvaries from one country to another. In other words, culture may act asa moderator (cf. Baron & Kenny, 1986). Moderated multiple regressionanalyses (Cohen & Cohen, 1975; Holden, 1994) were therefore conductedto see whether multiple regression analysis results obtained from the overallsample held true for all countries. This procedure was recommendedparticularly for cross-cultural research by van de Vijver and Leung (1997,pp. 116±117):



In cross-cultural applications of regression analysis, we are often interested

in the question of whether a single regression equation can capture the rela-tionship between the independent and dependent variable in each group. . . . .The first step, in this technique is to obtain a pan-cultural regression equation

Paternalism Power Distance Loyalty Towards FatalismCommunity

Canada

USA

Romania

Germany

Israel

Russia

Turkey

China

Pakistan

India

FIGURE 2. Country positions on the four socio-cultural dimensions.

208 AYCAN ET AL.


of Y on X, in which data from all cultures are included. In the second step,

culture is added as a dummy variable, and another regression analysis iscarried out including predictors X, the dummy variable, and the interaction ofX and the dummy variable. The multiple correlations of the two equations arethen tested for equality.

To test the moderation effect of culture, a total of nine dummy variableswas created for the 10 countries (cf. Cohen & Cohen, 1975). Our resultsillustrated that, for each of the hypothesised relationships (i.e. Hypotheses4±10), the inclusion of dummy variables and interaction terms significantlyincreased the squared multiple correlation in the second equation (resultsnot shown). Recall that a significant difference between the multiple cor-relations in the first and second equations indicates that a cross-culturaldifference exists in the relation between dependent variable and the predictor,and thus, pancultural generalisations are not appropriate. Accordingly, wepresent these results for each of our hypotheses. Specifically, in order tofurther elaborate the way in which predictions differed across cultures, eachhypothesised relationship was tested separately for each country (Tables 3and 4). The results pertaining to the relationship between socio-cultural andinternal work culture dimensions are presented in Table 3.

The hypothesised negative relationship between fatalism and malleabilitywas replicated in all countries. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was confirmed. The secondrelationship that was found in all but two countries was between loyaltytowards community and obligation towards others in workplace. As ex-pected, loyalty positively predicted obligation in all countries except forthe USA and China (Hypothesis 8). Another widely replicated relationshipwas between power distance and proactivity. Consistent with Hypothesis 5,large power distance predicted less endorsement of proactivity assumption inall but three countries: Russia, China, and Turkey.

In seven countries, high paternalism predicted more obligation towardsothers (Hypothesis 8). In the USA, Romania, and China, this relationshipwas not observed. Again, in seven countries (Canada, Israel, Romania, China,Turkey, Pakistan, India), fatalism was negatively related to assumptionsrelated to employee responsibility seeking (Hypothesis 6). In all but fourcountries (Germany, Israel, Russia, Pakistan), fatalism negatively influencedthe assumption of employee participation (Hypothesis 7a). Finally, in halfof the countries (Germany, Israel, Romania, Russia, and China) paternal-ism predicted less likelihood of the assumption of employee proactivity(Hypothesis 5). A managerial assumption of employee participation wasfostered by paternalism in Israel, China, Turkey, Pakistan, and India(Hypothesis 7b).

The influence of managerial assumptions on HRM practices wasexamined using the same method. Hypothesised relationships were tested



TABLE 3Multiple Regression Analysis Results with Socio-cultural Dimensions

Criterion: Malleability Obligation Towards Others

Predictor: St.b R2 Mult.R F St.b R2 Mult.R F

Paternalism

Canada ±.22*** .05 .22 14.25***

USA .12 .01 .12 2.00

Germany .34*** .12 .34 22.03***

Israel .45*** .21 .45 22.07***

Romania ±.02 .00 .02 .03

Russia .46*** .22 .46 38.01***

China .10 .01 .10 1.58

Turkey .24*** .06 .24 17.37***

Pakistan .17* .03 .17 3.70*

India .23*** .06 .23 10.73***

Fatalism

Canada ±.32*** .11 .32 31.97***

USA ±.49*** .24 .50 42.37***

Germany ±.31*** .10 .31 18.13***

Israel ±.38*** .15 .38 14.29***

Romania ±.57*** .32 .57 50.23***

Russia ±.28*** .08 .28 11.33***

China ±.33*** .11 .33 20.87***

Turkey ±.31*** .10 .31 30.13***

Pakistan ±.39*** .16 .39 22.21***

India ±.68*** .50 .67 155.94***

Loyalty

Canada .17** .03 .17 8.13**

USA .09 .01 .03 1.04

Germany .31*** .10 .31 18.04***

Israel .38*** .14 .38 14.38***

Romania .36*** .14 .36 15.82***

Russia .49*** .24 .49 42.49***

China .01 .00 .01 .01

Turkey .12* .03 .12 3.72*

Pakistan .22** .05 .22 6.20**

India .24*** .06 .24 11.26***

Power Distance

Canada

USA

Germany

Israel

Romania

Russia

China

Turkey

Pakistan

India

St.b=Standardised Beta weight, * p5.05, **p5.01, *** p5.001

210 AYCAN ET AL.

as Predictors and Managerial Assumptions as Criteria

Proactivity Responsibility Seeking Participation

St.b R 2 Mult.R F St.b R 2 Mult.R F St.b R 2 Mult.R F

±.29*** .08 .29 24.64*** .08 .00 .08 1.62

±.43*** .19 .43 31.57*** ±.02 .00 .00 .05

±.01 .00 .00 .01 .04 .01 .04 0.24

±.13 .02 .13 1.57 .25* .07 .25 5.51*

±.01 .01 .10 0.89 ±.01 .00 .00 .01

.04 .01 .04 0.19 .10 .01 .10 1.39

±.09 .01 .09 1.22 .17* .03 .17 4.92*

±.16** .03 .16 7.13** .12* .02 .12 4.06

±.57*** .32 .57 57.39*** .44*** .20 .44 29.13***

±.46*** .21 .46 48.65*** .36*** .13 .36 27.23***

±.24*** .06 .24 16.25*** ±.16** .02 .16 7.45**

±.12 .02 .12 2.01 ±.18* .04 .18 4.75*

±.10 .01 .10 1.51 ±.05 .00 .06 0.50

±.35*** .12 .35 11.65*** ±.10 .01 .10 0.82

±.32*** .11 .33 12.39*** ±.19* .04 .19 3.70*

±.14 .02 .14 2.63 .05 .01 .05 0.35

±.14* .02 .14 3.70* ±.20** .05 .20 7.23**

±.26*** .07 .26 19.76*** ±.22*** .05 .22 14.74***

±.27*** .07 .26 9.48*** .15 .02 .15 2.70

±.50*** .25 .50 60.34*** ±.29*** .03 .29 16.21***

±.29*** .08 .30 25.04***

±.19** .04 .19 5.20**

±.21** .05 .21 7.64**

±.26*** .07 .26 5.70***

±.17* .04 .17 4.03*

.09 .01 .09 1.19

±.09 .01 .09 1.24

±.01 .00 .00 .01

±.41*** .17 .41 24.01***

±.20** .04 .20 7.69**

CULTURE AND HRM PRACTICES 211


TABLE 4Multiple Regression Analysis Results with Managerial Assumptions as Predictors and HRMPractices as Criteria

Criterion: Job Enrichment Empowering Supervision Performance Reward Contingency

Predictor: St.b R2 Mult.R F St.b R2 Mult.R F St.b R2 Mult.R F

Malleability

Canada .03 .01 .03 .31 .09 .01 .09 2.01 .01 .00 .01 ±.02

USA .06 .01 .06 .51 .13 .02 .13 2.26 .08 .01 .08 .96

Germany .18** .03 .18 5.51** .10 .01 .10 1.57 .07 .01 .07 .94

Israel .19* .05 .19 3.23* .39*** .17 .39 15.18*** .17* .03 .17 2.37*

Romania .25** .07 .25 6.8** .19* .04 .19 3.87* .28** .08 .28 8.60

Russia ±.13 .02 .13 2.51 .13 .02 .13 2.67 ±.10 .01 .10 1.41

China .17* .03 .17 5.29* .20** .04 .20 7.15** .03 .01 .03 .12

Turkey .27*** .09 .27 22.91*** .29*** .09 .29 25.48*** .21*** .05 .21 13.31

Pakistan ±.36*** .15 .36 16.36*** .21** .05 .21 5.11 .13 .02 .13 1.95

Obligation

Canada .06 .01 .06 1.14

USA .09 .01 .09 1.04

Germany .09 .01 .09 1.61

Israel .25** .08 .25 5.54**

Romania .16* .04 .16 3.35*

Russia .15* .02 .15 3.24*

China .16* .02 .16 3.27*

Turkey .19*** .04 .19 10.57***

Pakistan .09 .01 .09 1.53

Proactivity

Canada .18** .04 .18 9.62 .07 .01 .07 1.30 .06 .01 .06 1.21

USA .27*** .11 .27 10.38*** .09 .01 .09 .92 .18* .08 .18 4.04*

Germany .05 .00 .05 .56 .0.8 .01 .08 1.13 .00 .01 .08 .94

Israel ±.14 .02 .14 1.80 .42*** .18 .42 17.98*** ±.43*** .19 .43 19.84***

#Intern

atio

nalAsso

ciatio

nforApplied

Psychology,2000.

212AYC

AN

ETAL.

Romania .18* .05 .18 3.06* .05 .01 .05 .23 .15* .03 .15 2.51*

Russia .11 .01 .11 1.84 .05 .01 .05 .42 .06 .01 .06 .51

China .03 .00 .03 .17 ±.11 .01 .11 2.23 .11 .01 .11 1.98

Turkey .09 .01 .09 2.68 .14* .02 .14 5.61* .18** .03 .18 9.40**

Pakistan .02 .00 .02 .03 .16* .03 .16 4.13* .09 .01 .09 1.02

Responsibility

Canada ±.03 .01 .03 .18 .00 .00 .00 .00 .02 .00 .02 .08

USA .21** .05 .21 5.92** .16* .03 .16 3.76* .08 .01 .08 .94

Germany .04 .00 .04 .32 .10 .01 .10 1.61 .00 .00 .00 .00

Israel ±.20* .05 .20 3.31* .41*** .17 .42 17.57*** ±.42*** .18 .42 18.56***

Romania .22* .05 .22 5.13* .20* .05 .20 4.38* .23** .05 .23 5.75**

Russia ±.26** .07 .26 10.29** .19** .04 .19 5.38** ±.16* .03 .16 3.78*

China .16* .02 .16 3.35 .02 .00 .02 .51 .08 .01 .08 1.05

Turkey .30*** .10 .30 27.73*** .28*** .09 .28 23.22*** .15** .02 .15 6.39**

Pakistan .26*** .08 .26 8.63*** .05 .01 .05 .33 .02 .00 .02 .03

Participation

Canada .10 .01 .09 2.63

USA .06 .01 .06 .51

Germany .18* .04 18 5.85*

Israel .50*** .25 .50 29.01***

Romania .09 .01 .09 .86

Russia .18* .02 .18 5.14*

China .23*** .06 .23 9.84***

Turkey .18** .04 .18 9.12**

Pakistan .29*** .10 .29 11.31***

St.b=Standardised Beta weight, * p5.05, ** p5.01, *** p5.001

#Intern

atio

nalAsso

ciatio

nforApplied

Psychology,2000.

CULTU

REAND

HRM

PRACTIC

ES213

using the entire sample, but it was again observed that culture moderatedthe relationships. Country-based analyses are presented in Table 4. Indiawas not included in this analysis, because data on managerial assumptionsand HRM practices were collected from two different sources (managersand employees, respectively) which did not allow us to test the relationships.With respect to Hypothesis 9, the results showed that malleability

assumption fostered job enrichment in all countries except Canada, theUSA, and Russia. Malleability also increased empowering supervision in allcountries but Canada, the USA, Germany, and Russia. Performance±rewardcontingency was increased by the malleability assumption only in Israel,Romania, and Turkey. Hypothesis 9 also predicted that proactivity influ-enced HRM practices. The proactivity assumption encouraged managersto enrich jobs only in Canada, the USA, and Romania. Proactivity led toempowering supervision in Israel, Turkey, and Pakistan, and to perform-ance±reward contingency in the USA, Romania, and Turkey. Proactivity pre-dicted less performance±reward contingency in Israel. Finally, in Hypothesis 9,responsibility seeking was expected to influence all areas of HRM practices.However, the influence of responsibility seeking assumption varied acrosscountries. In the USA, Romania, China, Turkey, and Pakistan, it reinforcedjob enrichment, whereas in Israel and Russia it hindered it. Similarly,performance±reward contingency was negatively influenced by responsi-bility seeking assumption in Israel and Russia, and positively influenced byit in Romania and Turkey. Those managers who believed that employees,by nature, seek and accept responsibility reported more empowering super-visory practices in all countries except Canada, Germany, China, and Pakistan.With respect to Hypothesis 10, results showed that the managerial

assumption of employee obligation towards others improved the chances ofempowering supervision in all countries except Canada, the USA, Germany,and Pakistan; the assumption of employee participation fostered empoweringsupervision in the majority of countries except Canada, USA, and Romania.

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to examine the influence of the socio-cultural environment on internal work culture and HRM practices. The firststep was to explore variations among countries on four socio-culturaldimensions. Of four dimensions, paternalism yielded the largest differenceamong countries. In general, our hypotheses were confirmed with respect tocountry scores on the four socio-cultural dimensions. However, there werea number of unexpected findings which merit further exploration. Forexample, in power distance, Romania scored unexpectedly low, which maybe a reflection of the recent economic and social reforms that took place inRomania after 1990. Guided by socialism, Romania was ruled under strict

214 AYCAN ET AL.


centralisation until the 1940s (Hickson & Pugh, 1995). The oppressive regimeof Causescu after the late 1960s resulted in societal upheaval as a means toprotest against broken promises of equality among the people of Romania.After the fall of Causescu in 1989, economic and cultural centralisationdiminished and egalitarian values had gained widespread popular accep-tance (Bachman, 1989; Demekas & Khan, 1991). Low power distance thatwas found in this research could a be a reflection of a quest for reducedstatus difference and equal distribution of power. The relatively high scoreof India and Russia on fatalism can be explained in terms of their historicalexperiences. For example, helplessness in controlling outcomes in Russiaresulting from both past communism and recent economic crisis might haveincreased fatalism. In India, the doctrine of Karma suggests that the pastis determined and the future is conditioned: `̀ Unfortunately the theory ofKarma became confused with fatality in India. . . . It was made into anexcuse for inertia and timidity and was turned into a message of despair andnot of hope'' (Radhakrishnan, 1962, p. 55).

With the evidence of variance among the socio-cultural characteristics ofcountries, the second step was to test subsequent hypotheses pertaining tothe relationships among socio-cultural and internal work culture dimen-sions, and HRM practices. The results, in general, were in support of thepropositions of the Model of Culture Fit. The predictions with respect to therelationship of fatalism with internal work culture and HRM dimensionswere confirmed in the majority of countries. Our hypotheses concerning theimpact of paternalism were partially confirmed. This may be due to variousinterpretations of paternalism in different cultural contexts. As previouslydiscussed, paternalism is viewed very negatively in Western cultural con-texts. In some cultures, paternalistic `̀ authority'' figures are perceived to beauthoritarian and manipulative, whereas in others, they are perceived to becaring and considerate. Because paternalism has different connotations andmeanings in different cultural contexts, its relationship with other constructsmay also show variance. Therefore, the construct of paternalism needs tobe explored in more detail in future studies, and such attempts are underway by the present authors. The last two socio-cultural dimensions (i.e.loyalty towards community and power distance) were related to managerialassumptions in the expected directions in almost all countries in varyingdegrees of strength.

The final hypotheses dealt with the impact of managerial assumptionson HRM practices. In general, findings were in support of hypothesisedrelationships in the majority of countries. Specifically, assumptions ofmalleability, proactivity, and responsibility seeking were found to foster jobenrichment, empowering supervision and performance-based rewardallocation. Managerial assumptions pertaining to obligation towards othersand participation had a positive impact on empowering supervision.



Despite the support for hypothesised relationships, in some cases theexplained variance in HRM practices that was accounted for by managerialassumptions was not large and, in others, findings were in the oppositedirection. For instance, malleability did not predict job enrichment, em-powering supervision and performance±reward contingency in Canada andthe USA. A similar pattern of results for Canada and the USA was observedfor other hypothesised relationships. That is, managerial assumptions didnot contribute very significantly to the prediction of HRM practices for theNorth American sample. A possible explanation for a weak connectionbetween managerial assumptions and HRM practices in the NorthAmerican context could be that, in these countries, HRM systems areinfluenced more by demands of the external environment (e.g. the enterpriseenvironment, Fig. 1) rather than the internal ones (e.g. managerial valuesand assumptions). Assumptions or values of managers may be moreinfluential on organisations in cultures where guidance from people inauthority matters more than the demands of the external businessenvironment.Other country-specific findings that were contrary to our hypotheses

were: (a) the malleability assumption predicted less job enrichment in Pakistanand Russia, (b) the assumption of responsibility seeking hindered jobenrichment in Israel and Russia, (c) proactivity and responsibility seekingresulted in less performance±reward contingency. There may be a numberof reasons for such idiosyncrasies. First of all, they may be attributed tomethodological limitations of this study, including sampling bias andmeasurement errors. In order to be conclusive in attributing suchidiosyncrasies to cultural characteristics, one should replicate such resultswith larger and more representative samples, and use a triangulationapproach in measurement. Future studies should also gather data for threedifferent parts of the study (i.e. perception of the socio-cultural environ-ment, internal work culture, and HRM practices) from different sets ofrespondents in order to reduce serendipitous results due to response±response bias.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This study was among the few attempts to provide insights into the issue ofwhy organisational culture and HRM practices show variance around theglobe. The attempt was significant for a number of reasons. First, impactof culture on organisations is examined from a theoretical framework.Therefore, this research aimed at answering the question of how cultureinfluenced organisational processes. This approach is not unique as itreflects recent advancements in the field of cross-cultural I/O psychology.As can be clearly seen from Barrett and Bass's 1976 chapter, the question

216 AYCAN ET AL.


that was reflected upon was whether or not culture really mattered in I/Oresearch. Today, however, the question we are asking is how culturematters. This research was a humble attempt to tackle this question.

Second, this research introduced two cultural dimensions which are highlysalient and yet under-researched in the literature. These dimensions werepaternalism and fatalism. Findings showed that both dimensions had signi-ficant implications for managerial assumptions and HRM practices. As such,future research should work on conceptualisation and operationalisation ofthese constructs (such attempts are under way by the present authors).Third, a wide spectrum of countries with various historical, religious, andeconomic backgrounds were included in this study. The fact that not muchresearch was conducted on some of these countries had both advantages anddisadvantages. The obvious advantage was that this study contributed tocumulation of knowledge about under-researched countries, such as Russia,Romania, Pakistan, and Turkey. However, it was difficult to interpret un-expected results due to difficulty in finding enough information on culturalcharacteristics of these countries. Future research should study culture-specific aspects of organisational structure and management practices incountries which are underrepresented in cross-cultural research literature.

Fourth, in this research, culture is treated as a moderating variable whichdetermines meaning of constructs, and strength and direction of relation-ships among constructs. In order to examine the way in which culture acts asa moderator, one needs to develop an in-depth understanding of a particularculture. For that, future research should adopt the N-way approach (Brettet al., 1997). The N-way approach requires a multicultural team of scholars.It starts with questioning the appropriateness of research question, design,constructs, and measures for each cultural context. Cross-cultural simi-larities and differences are discussed to determine indigenous theoreticalmodels and emic and etic measures. This effort results in derived etic whichhighlights both culture-specific and culture-general aspects of findings. TheN-way approach should be utilised more frequently in future cross-culturalI/O research.

Finally, the Model of Culture Fit which provided the theoretical basis forthis research, showed the complexity of organisational processes. Althoughthe focus in this research was on the influence of socio-cultural environmenton organisations, the enterprise environment also has substantial effects onmanagerial assumptions and organisational practices (e.g. Mathur et al.,1996). Because the focus was on the socio-cultural environment, some of thevariables related to the enterprise environment were statistically controlledin this study. However, a better design would be to study business organ-isations in a particular sector and industry. One of the major challengesfacing cross-cultural I/O psychologists is that of sampling of organisations.Culture is examined at two levels: societal and organisational. Most



researchers assume and try to prove that these two overlap. However, theModel of Culture Fit suggests that organisational culture is shaped bymultiple forces external and internal to the organisation which are unrelatedto societal culture. In order to minimise contamination of findings withenterprise variables, future research should pay more attention to selectionof organisations.In summary, much progress has been made in the field of cross-cultural

I/O psychology since Barrett and Bass's (1976) review chapter. However,there are still many issues to be faced and many refinements to be made intheory and methodology. Every attempt towards betterment of research inthis field is worth the effort, because good research is needed more than everin today's world of increasing globalisation.

REFERENCES

Aycan, Z., & Kanungo, R.N. (1998). Paternalism: Towards conceptual refinementand operationalization. Paper presented at 14th International Congress of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Bellingham, Washington, USA, August.

Aycan, Z., Sinha, J.B.P., & Kanungo, R.N. (1999). Organizational culture andhuman resource management practices: The Model of Culture Fit. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 30 (4), 501±526.

Bachman, R.D. (Ed.) (1989). Romania: A country study. Washington, DC: USGovernment Printing Office.

Bailyn, L. (1978). Accommodation of work to family. In R. Rapoport & R.N.Rapoport (Eds.), Working couples. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator±mediator variable distinctionin social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider-ations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173±1182.

Barrett, G.V., & Bass, B.M. (1976). Cross-cultural issues in industrial andorganizational psychology. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial andorganizational psychology (pp. 1639±1686). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Bass, B.M. (1981). Stogdill's handbook of leadership (Rev. edn.). New York: FreePress.

Bernstein, M.H. (1992). Fatalism. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Bond, M.H. (1988). Finding universal dimensions of individual variation in multi-cultural studies of values: The Rokeach and Chinese value surveys. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 55, 1009±1015.

Brett, J.M., Tinsley, C.H., Janssens, M., Barsness, Z.I., & Lytle, A.L. (1997). New

approaches to the study of culture in industrial/organizational psychology.In P.C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 75±130). San Francisco: The New Lexington

Press.Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for behavioral science. New York:

Academic Press.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multivariate regression/correlation analysis forthe behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

218 AYCAN ET AL.


Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating

theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13 (3), 471±482.Cotton, J.L. (1993). Employee involvement: Methods for improving performance and

work attitudes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Demekas, D.G., & Khan, M.S. (1991). The Romanian economic reform program.

Washington, DC: IMF Press.Dorfman, P.W., & Howell, J.P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective

leadership processes across cultures. Leadership Quarterly.

Erez, M., & Earley, P.C. (1987). Comparative analysis of goal-setting strategiesacross cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 658±665.

Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hickson, D.J., & Pugh, D.S. (1995). Management worldwide. London: Penguin.Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related

values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and threeregions. In J. Deregowski, S. Dzuirawiec, & R. Annis (Eds.), Expiscations in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 335±355). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:

McGraw-Hill.Holden, R.R. (1994). Moderated multiple regression analysis. In R. Corsini (Ed.),

Encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 422±423). New York: Wiley.

Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M. (1998). Leadership, values and institutions: The caseof Turkey. Paper presented at Western Academy of Management Conference,Istanbul, Turkey, June.

Kanungo, R.N., & Hartwick, J. (1987). An alternative to intrinsic±extrinsic rewarddichotomy of work rewards. Journal of Management, 13 (4), 751±766.

Kanungo, R.N. & Jaeger, A.M. (1990). Introduction: The need for indigenous

management in developing countries. In A.M. Jaeger, & R.N. Kanungo (Eds.),Management in developing countries (pp. 1±23). London: Routledge.

Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kim, U., Triandis, H.C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S., & Yoon, G. (Eds.) (1994).Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. London: SagePublications.

Kim, U.M. (1994). Significance of paternalism and communalism in the occupa-tional welfare system of Korean firms: A national survey. In U. Kim, H.C.Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectiv-

ism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 251±266). London: Sage Publications.Kjellin, L., & Nilstun, T. (1993). Medical and social paternalism: Regulation of and

attitudes towards compulsory psychiatric care. Acta-Psychiatrica-Scandinavica,88 (6), 415±419.

Kluckhohn, F.R., & Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961). Variations in value orientations.Evanson, IL: Row Peterson.

Leung, K. (1989). Cross-cultural differences: Individual-level and cultural-level

analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 703±719.Leung, K., & Bond, M. (1989). On the empirical identification of dimensions for

cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 133±151.



Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1984). Goal settingÐa motivational technique thatworks. Organizational Dynamics, 8 (2), 68±80.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.Mathur, P., Aycan, Z., & Kanungo, R.N. (1996). Indian organizational culture: A

comparison between public and private sector. Psychology and DevelopingSocieties, 8 (2), 199±222.

Mendonca, M., & Kanungo, R.N. (1994). Managing human resources: The issue of

culture fit. Journal of Management Inquiry, 3 (2), 189±205.Northouse, P.G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Padavic, I., & Earnest, W.R. (1994). Paternalism as a component of managerialstrategy. Social Science Journal, 31 (4), 389±405.

Puffer, S.M. (1996). Managing across cultures: Insights from fiction and practice.

Oxford: Blackwell.Radhakrishnan, S. (1962). The Hindu view of life. New York: Macmillan.Redding, S.G., & Hsiao, H.M. (1995). An empirical study of overseas Chinese

managerial ideology. In H.S.R. Kao, D. Sinha, & N. Sek-Hong (Eds.), Effective

organizations and social values (pp. 72±85). New Delhi: Sage.Redding, S.G., Norman, A., & Schlander, A. (1994). The nature of individual

attachment to theory: A review of East Asian variations. In H.C. Triandis, M.D.

Dunnett, & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology (Vol. 4, pp. 674±688). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.

Reed, R. (1996). Entrepreneurialism and paternalism in Australian management:

A gender critique of the `̀ self-made'' man. In D.L. Collinson, & J. Hearn (Eds.),Men as managers, managers as men: Critical perspectives on men, masculinities andmanagements (pp. 99±122). London: Sage Publications.

Rothbaum, F.M., Weisz, J.R., & Snyder, S.S. (1982). Changing the world andchanging self: A two process model of perceived control. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 42, 5±37.

Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (1, whole no. 609).Schein, E.H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd edn.). San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Cultural dimensions of values: Towards an understanding

of national differences. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi, &G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theoretical and methodologicalissues (pp. 85±119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sinha, J.B.P. (1995). The cultural context of leadership and power. New Delhi: Sage.

Smith, P.B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and the valuesof employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 27 (2), 231±264.

Smith, P.B., & Peterson, M.F. (1996). Beyond value comparisons: Sources used togive meaning to management work events in thirty countries. Paper presented atthe 26th International Congress of Psychology, MontreÂ al, Canada, August.

220 AYCAN ET AL.


Triandis, H.C. (1982). Review of culture's consequences: International differences in

work-related values. Human Organization, 41, 86±90.Triandis, H.C. (1984). Towards a psychological theory of economic growth.

International Journal of Psychology, 19, 79±95.Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture. London: Brealey.

Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-culturalresearch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.



impact of culture on human resource management - mpopa.ro

Documents