Impact of Culture on Human Resource

Management Practices:
A 10-Country Comparison
Zeynep Aycan
Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey
Rabindra N. Kanungo
McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Manuel Mendonca
McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Kaicheng Yu
Dalian University of Technology, China
Ju rgen Deller
Daimler-Benz InterServices AG, Germany
Gu nter Stahl
University of Bayreuth, Germany
Anwar Kurshid
LUMS, Lahore, Pakistan
Le Mode le de Culture Fit explique la manie re dont l'environnement socio-
culturel influence la culture interne au travail et les pratiques de la direction
des ressources humaines. Ce mode le a e te teste sur 2003 salarie s d'entreprises
prive es dans 10 pays. Les participants ont rempli un questionnaire de 57 items,
destine a 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. Une
analyse ponde re e par re gressions multiples, au niveau individuel, a montre
que les directeurs qui caracte risaient leurs environnement socio-culturel de
fac on fataliste, supposaient aussi que les employe s n'e taient pas malle ables
par nature. Ces directeurs ne pratiquaient pas l'enrichissement des postes
et donnaient tout pouvoir au contro le et a la re mune ration en fonction
des performances. Les directeurs qui appre ciaient une grande loyaute des
APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2000, 49 (1), 192221
#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, Koc University,
5 Cayir, Istinye, Istanbul, Turkey 80860. zaycan@ku.edu.tr
employe s supposaient qu'ils remplissent entre eux des obligations re ciproques
et s'engagaient dans la voie donnant pouvoir aux pratiques HRM. Les
directeurs qui percevaient le paternalisme et une forte distance de l'autorite
dans leur environnement socio-culturel, supposaient une re activite des
employe s, et en outre ne pourvoyaient pas a l'enrichissement des postes et
a la de le gation. Des mode les spe cifiques a la culture qui mettent en relation ces
3 groupes de variables ainsi que les applications de ces recherches pour la
psychologie industrielles trans-culturellesont e te de battus.
The Model of Culture Fit explains the way in which socio-cultural environ-
ment influences internal work culture and human resource management
practices. This model was tested using 1,954 employees from business
organisations in 10 countries. Participants completed a 57-item questionnaire
which 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 that
managers who characterised their socio-cultural environment as fatalistic also
assumed that employees, by nature, were not malleable. These managers did
not 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 empowering
HR practices. Managers who perceived paternalism and high power distance
in their socio-cultural environment assumed employee reactivity, and
furthermore, did not provide job enrichment and empowerment. Culture-
specific patterns of relationships among the three sets of variables, as well as
implications of this research for cross-cultural industrial/organisational psy-
chology, are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
More than two decades ago, Barrett and Bass (1976) observed that ``most
research in industrial and organisational psychology is done within one
cultural context. This context puts constraints upon both our theories and
our practical solutions to the organisational problems'' (p. 1675). This
observation stems from the fact that, at the time of their review of cross-
cultural industrial and organisational (I/O) psychology literature, culture
was not considered a critical contingency variable to explain organisational
behaviour and human resource management (HRM) practices. Most
researchers were primarily concerned with testing the generalisability of
North 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 (hence
competitive) business environment, both researchers and practitioners have
started paying more attention to the study of culture as an explanatory
variable. Second, they have also come to realise that the uncritical adap-
tation of HRM practices and techniques evolved in the context of Western
cultural 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 more
in-depth and systematic studies of culture and its dimensions. At the same
time, these changes have also triggered a search for culture-fit models which
provide a better understanding of how cultural variables may explain
effectiveness of different HRM practices in different cultures. Although
in the last two decades, I/O psychologists have examined how culture
influences HRM practices, research has remained exploratory with post hoc
explanations of the influence of culture. The Model of Culture Fit presented
in this paper aims to remedy this situation by examining the impact of
different levels of cultural variables (as represented in managerial percep-
tions) on HRM practices in a number of industrially developed and
developing countries.
THE MODEL OF CULTURE FIT
Managing human resources in organisations requires understanding of the
influence 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, ownership
status and resource availability) as well as the socio-cultural environment
(e.g. paternalism, power distance, etc.). Both of these environmental forces
are, in turn, influenced by the physical and the socio-political context
(e.g. ecological, legal, social, political, and historical forces). The Model
of Culture Fit (see Fig. 1) as proposed by Kanungo and his associates
(Kanungo & Jaeger, 1990; Mendonca & Kanungo, 1994) asserts that both
the socio-cultural environment and the enterprise environment affect
internal 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 three
different levels. At the most basic level, organisational culture or the internal
work culture operating within the organisation, is construed as a pattern
of shared managerial beliefs and assumptions (Schein, 1992) that directly
influence HRM practices. These managerial beliefs and assumptions relate
to two fundamental organisational elements: the task and the employees.
Managerial assumptions pertaining to the task deal with the nature of the
task and how it can best be accomplished; those assumptions pertaining
to the employees deal with employees' nature and behaviour. Managers
implement HRM practices based on their assumptions about the nature of
both the task and the employees. However, these managerial assumptions
are shaped by two other levels of cultural forces.
194 AYCAN ET AL.
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
Physical &
Socio-political
Environment
Ecological Context
Legal & Political
Context
Historical Events
Socialisation
Process
Enterprise
Environment
Market Characteristics
(competitive vs.
noncompetitive)
Nature of Industry
(manufacturing, service, etc.)
Ownership / Control
(private vs. government)
Resource Availability
(technical &human resources)
Socio-cultural
Dimensions
Paternalism
Power Distance
Fatalism
Loyalty towards
Community
Internal Work
Culture
Task-driven Assumptions
Task Goal
(profit vs. social gain)
Task Orientation
(process vs. result)
Competitive Orientation
(pragmatic vs. normative)
Employee-related
Assumptions
Malleability
Proactivity
Obligation towards Others
Responsibility Seeking
Participation
HRMPractices
Job Design
Feedback
Autonomy
Skill Variety
Task Significance
Supervisory Practice
Goal Setting
Empowerment
Control
Reward Allocation
Performance^Reward
Contingency
!
"
!
~
"
FIGURE1. The model of culture fit (based on Aycan, Sinha, &Kanungo, 1999).
#
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
y
,
2
0
0
0
.
C
U
L
T
U
R
E
A
N
D
H
R
M
P
R
A
C
T
I
C
E
S
1
9
5
On the one hand, task-driven assumptions are influenced by the
institutional level culture as shaped by enterprise characteristics including
ownership status (private versus public sector), industry (e.g. service versus
manufacturing), market competitiveness, and resource availability (e.g.
human and technological resources). For instance, ownership status has a
bearing 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 of
the industry may influence beliefs regarding the way in which tasks are
accomplished: in manufacturing industry, the process is more important
than the results, whereas in service industry and R&D units, the emphasis
is on results rather than the process (Hofstede, 1991). Similarly, market
competitiveness forces organisations to be pragmatic rather than normative
in 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 people
in a given society. A significant amount of research has been devoted to the
identification of salient value dimensions (e.g. individualismcollectivism)
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 are
socialised to behave depend on managers' perceptions of how the society is
characterised in terms of these value dimensions. It should be emphasised
that, in this study, the socio-cultural environment and the internal work
culture were conceptualised and operationalised as related but separate entities.
Therefore, we refrained from using the same dimensions to conceptualise
culture at both the societal and the organisation level. The underlying
rationale is that the internal work culture refers to shared managerial beliefs
and assumptions about employee nature and behaviour, whereas the socio-
cultural environment refers to managerial perceptions of shared values among
people with respect to how a society is structured and how it functions.
In addition, the internal work culture consists of two sets of managerial
assumptions, employee-related and task-related, each of which is influenced
by different forces (i.e. the perceived socio-cultural and the enterprise
environment, respectively).
The above description of cultural variables manifested in three different
levels, and their influence on HRM practices, is incorporated into a Model
of Culture Fit as presented in Figure 1. This model was partly tested by
Mathur, Aycan and Kanungo (1996). The study reported here is a further
test of the model by meeting the following objectives. The overarching
purpose of this study was to examine the way in which managers' perceptions
of socio-cultural environment are related to managers' assumptions about
196 AYCAN ET AL.
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
employees in organisations and HRM practices. In order to accomplish this
objective, we first identified several cultural characteristics of the 10 countries
included in this study: Canada, the USA, Romania, Russia, Germany,
Israel, China, Pakistan, Turkey, and India. We then predicted and tested
differences among the countries with respect to managers' perceptions of
their own socio-cultural environment (Hypotheses 1 to 3 presented in the
next section). Next, we examined the relationship of managers' perceptions
of their socio-cultural environment with their assumptions about employees
and HRM practices in their organisations. Some pancultural generalisations
derived from the Model of Culture Fit were formulated and tested at the
individual level of analysis (Hypotheses 4 to 10 presented in the following
section). Finally, data on these relationships were analysed for each country
to determine whether the country would moderate the relationships among
managers' perceptions of the socio-cultural environment, their assumptions
about 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 the
extent to which status hierarchy and power inequality exist and are accepted
in society and its institutions. Consistent with Hofstede's findings (1980) and
related literature, we expected the following country profiles on power
distance.
Hypothesis 1: Managers from India, Pakistan, China, Turkey, Russia, and
Romania will score high, managers from Canada, the USA, and Germany
will score in the middle and managers from Israel will score the lowest with
respect to their perceptions of power distance in their respective countries.
The second cultural dimension was paternalism. Being paternalistic
implies (a) a dyadic and hierarchical relationship between a superior and
his 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 between
doctor and patient, student and teacher, or manager and employee in low
power distance cultures (e.g. Kjellin & Nilstun, 1993; Padavic & Earnest,
1994; Reed, 1996).
In a paternalistic relationship, the role of the superior is to provide
guidance, protection, nurturance and care to the subordinate, and the role
of the subordinate, in return, is to be loyal and deferent to the superior. The
idea of paternalism mainly stems from state welfare ideology, where the role
of the state is to act in a benevolent way to protect and provide for its
citizens (cf. Kim, 1994). Paternalism is one of the most salient characteristics
CULTURE AND HRMPRACTICES 197
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
of many Asian cultures (Redding, Norman, & Schlander, 1994) such as
China, Japan, Korea, and India. Kim asserted that the basis for paternal-
ism in Asian cultures was the traditional value of familism with a strong
emphasis on patriarchal, patrilocal, and patrilineal relationships within
the family unit (Kim, 1994, p. 253). In time, paternalistic relationships
went beyond family boundaries, and vertical relationships in the family were
extended to those based on seniority and gender in the workplace and social
life (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 Western
societies. In a Western cultural context, paternalism implies authoritarian-
ism. For instance, Northouse (1997) depicted a paternalistic manager as
a ``benevolent dictator'' (p. 39). However, a recent study by Aycan and
Kanungo (1998) showed that paternalism was strongly negatively correlated
with 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 managers
from Russia, Romania, the USA, Canada, Germany, and Israel.
The third cultural dimension was loyalty towards community. This is one
of the subdimensions of the individualismcollectivism dimension (Kim,
Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994). It describes the extent to which
individuals feel loyal to their communities and compelled to fulfil their
obligations towards in-group members (relatives, clan, organisations) even
if in-group members' demands inconvenience them. Guided by Hofstede's
results on individualismcollectivism, 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 in
the middle, and managers from Canada and the USA will score lowest on
their 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 not
necessarily denote religiosity. In this study, it is conceptualised as the belief
that 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, and
taking preventative action are not worthwhile exercises. This dimension, in a
way, is the combination of ``locus of control'' (Rotter, 1966) and ``futuristic
orientation'' (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Triandis, 1984). Due to lack
198 AYCAN ET AL.
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
of prior data on cross-cultural differences on fatalism, this part of our study
remained exploratory.
Dimensions of the Internal Work Culture as they Relate
to the Socio-cultural Environment
This section will present hypotheses regarding the relationship of managers'
perceptions of societal culture and their assumptions about employees in
their organisations representing the internal work culture. The hypotheses
in this and the following sections (Hypotheses 410) are formulated on
the basis of findings of the previous studies that partially tested the Model
of Culture Fit (e.g. Aycan, Sinha, & Kanungo, 1999; Mathur, Aycan, &
Kanungo, 1996). It should be pointed out that although the hypotheses were
presented as pancultural generalisations, they were tested at the individual
level, and for each country separately, to see if the generalisations would
hold in different countries. Due to possible lack of conceptual and/or
structural equivalence, the pattern of relationship between the predictor and
the criterion may differ across countries. Consequently, our analysis will
also be conducted separately for each country to test whether country
moderates the relationship among variables or not (see the Type II
hypothesis 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 Mendonca
and Kanungo (1994). The internal work culture includes prevailing
managerial assumptions about malleability (McGregor, 1960; Kanungo &
Jaeger, 1990; Schein, 1992). Managers who believe in malleability assume
that employees, by nature, can change and improve their skills given the
appropriate training and development opportunities. In this study, we expect
that this assumption will be influenced by fatalistic beliefs. In societies which
value fatalism, managers are more likely to assume that employees, by
nature, 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 negatively
influence the assumption of employee malleability.
The second internal work culture dimension is proactivity (Kanungo &
Jaeger, 1990; Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982). Proactivity is concerned
with whether employees take personal initiative to achieve their job
objectives or simply react to external demands. It is predicted that when
managers perceive their society as being paternalistic and as having high
power distance they will assume their employees to be more reactive than
proactive. In these societies, managers enjoy higher status due to their
knowledge and wisdom. Therefore, they are expected to provide guidance
and advice as to what and how things have to be done. Subordinates are
CULTURE AND HRMPRACTICES 199
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
expected to be loyal followers. In effect, managers assume that employees
are not capable of or willing to take initiative and to act independently
without 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 or
not employees accept and seek responsibility in their job. We expect this
assumption to be influenced by fatalism. In fatalistic cultures, people may
shy away from taking responsibility, expecting that their extra effort will not
necessarily yield desired outcomes. Therefore, managers who perceive high
fatalism in their cultures are likely to assume that employees, by nature, are
not 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 not
managers assume that employees prefer delegation at all levels and like to be
consulted in matters that concern them. Fatalism and paternalism are the
cultural dimensions that we expect to influence the assumption of employee
participation. Employees wish to participate in decision making only if they
believe 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 managers
are those who ask opinions of employees (e.g. Kabasakal & Bodur, 1998).
As mentioned previously, paternalism is not authoritarianism. One of the
responsibilities of a paternalistic superior is to seek opinions of his or her
subordinates. However, he or she reserves the right to give the final decision
which is acceptable to subordinates. Moreover, the caring component of
paternalism requires that managers consult employees in matters that con-
cern them, so that the result of managers' actions is satisfactory for all
parties 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 opinion
seeking.
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 that
employees feel obliged to fulfil their responsibilities towards others in the
workplace. The obligation assumption is expected to be influenced by
200 AYCAN ET AL.
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
paternalism and loyalty towards the community. In paternalistic cultures
where loyalty towards community is of great importance, fulfilment of
obligations to one another in society as well as in organisations is among the
primary responsibilities of individuals. To act in accordance with group
needs, and to compromise your own wishes for the group, is of more value
than individual achievement. Therefore, managers who value paternalism
and loyalty towards community are more likely to assume that employees
do not hesitate to help one another in times of need and to cooperate
towards accomplishment of tasks.
Hypothesis 8: Managers' perception of paternalism and loyalty towards
community will positively influence the managerial assumption of obliga-
tion towards others in the workplace.
HRM practices. HRM practices in three areas are addressed: job
enrichment, empowering supervision, and performancereward contingency
(Kanungo & Jaeger, 1990; Mendonca & Kanungo, 1994; Mathur et al.,
1996). Following Hackman and Oldham's (1980) conceptualisation of
enriched jobs, feedback, autonomy, task significance and skill variety are
measured. Empowering supervision and control are examined through goal-
setting practices (the extent to which managers and subordinates jointly set
specific goals as well as develop specific plans to achieve the goal) (Erez &
Earley, 1987; Locke & Latham, 1984), empowerment practices (the extent to
which managers encourage and provide support to employees to handle
difficult assignments on their own) (Conger & Kanungo, 1988), opportunity
for self-control (orientation of employees to work hard even in the absence
of their superiors), and supervisory control (whether managers provide
appropriate supervision rather than adopt a ``laissez-faire'' style) (Likert,
1961). Reward management is measured through performance-extrinsic
reward contingency and performance-intrinsic reward contingency (the
extent to which these rewards, intrinsic or extrinsic, are contingent upon
performance) (Kanungo & Hartwick, 1987).
It is predicted that managers who assume that employees, by nature, are
malleable, proactive and eager to take responsibility are more likely to enrich
jobs, empower employees, and reward them based on high performance. On
the other hand, if managers believe that employees have limited capacity,
then the above-mentioned HRM practices that aim at improving employee
skills and performance are considered to be ineffective and unnecessary.
Hypothesis 9. Managerial assumptions of malleability, proactivity, and
responsibility seeking will positively influence job enrichment, empowering
supervision, and performance-based reward allocation.
In addition, empowering supervision is more likely when managers assume
that employees wish to cooperate with others in the workplace, and that
they seek participation and delegation. The rationale behind the former
CULTURE AND HRMPRACTICES 201
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
expectation is that managers may consider it a part of fulfilling their obligation
towards employees to provide empowering supervision. Alternatively (or in
addition), they may provide empowering supervision to enable employees to
fulfil obligations towards others. As mentioned above, empowering super-
vision includes joint decision making on job-related issues. Therefore, in the
latter case, it is natural to expect that managers engage in empowering
supervision 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 participated
in 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 were
employees 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 1
Demographic 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
2635 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.
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
to validity of results in cross-cultural studies, we tried to minimise this
problem by statistically controlling the influence of gender, age, education,
and sector in subsequent analyses.
Questionnaire. The questionnaire had four parts. The first part asked for
demographic information. In the second, third, and fourth parts, dimen-
sions of socio-cultural environment, internal work culture and HRM
practices were assessed, respectively, using a total of 57 statements.
Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with
each statement by using a six-point Likert-type scale (1=strongly disagree;
6=strongly agree). One-third of the items were reverse-coded to minimise
response bias. Subscales were coded in such a way that high scores reflected
the variable name (e.g. a high score on the paternalism scale indicated high
paternalism). Psychometric properties of the measures were reported by
Mathur, Aycan, and Kanungo (1996). For this study, the adequacy of
psychometric properties of scales (especially internal consistency) were
tested and confirmed for each of the 10 samples. The range of internal
consistency of scales (i.e. maximum and minimum Cronbach's alphas) for
each sample are presented in parentheses below.
Among socio-cultural dimensions, paternalism was assessed by five
questions (a
USA
=.72a
Russia
=.60). Sample questions were ``The ideal boss
is like a parent in our society'' and ``People in authority in our society should
take care of their subordinates as they would take care of their children''.
Power distance was assessed by four questions, such as ``There needs to be
a hierarchy of authority in our society'' and ``Inequality of status among
individuals is not acceptable in our society'' (reverse coded) (a
Israel
=.65
a
China
=.50). Four questions were used to measure loyalty towards com-
munity (a
Israel
=.67a
India
=.51). A sample question was ``In our culture,
one is expected to be loyal to his or her community even if one is
inconvenienced by the demands of the community''. Finally, fatalism
(a
India
=.78a
Russia
=.54) was assessed by five questions such as: ``When
bad things are going to happen, they just are going to happen no matter
what you do to stop them'', ``The wise person lives for today and lets
tomorrow take care of itself''.
Participants evaluated the internal work culture of their organisations by
reporting prevailing managerial assumptions on five dimensions. Malle-
ability (a
Germany
=.72a
Canada
=.55) was assessed by five questions. Sample
items include ``There is no limit for those employees who really want to
improve their skills'', ``You cannot train people to change their work habits''
(reverse coded). There were four questions to measure obligation towards
others (a
Russia
=.68a
USA
=.50) in the workplace: ``Employees should be
evaluated on the basis of their concern for their coworkers'', ``In
organisational context, helping others is more important than helping
CULTURE AND HRMPRACTICES 203
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
oneself''. Participation (a
Israel
=.71a
China
=.55) was measured by four
questions, such as ``As a matter of policy, employees should have a say in all
decisions which affect them'', ``In organisations, employees should be
encouraged to comply to the decisions made by authorities at the top''
(reverse coded). Proactivity (a
Turkey
=.66a
Romania
=.51) was assessed by
five questions. Sample items were ``Employees achieve task objectives when
they 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 (a
Israel
=.68a
China
=.45) was
assessed 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 of
job 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 area
of supervision and control, there were four variables, each of which was
assessed by two questions: goal setting, empowerment, self-control, and
supervisory control. Finally, in the area of performancereward contin-
gency, there were three questions: two for performance-intrinsic reward
contingency and one for performance-extrinsic reward contingency.
Although there were few questions to measure each HRM practice, this
was done to keep the questionnaire to a manageable length. The ten
variables that were used to measure HRM practices were factor-analysed.
This provided three reliable subscales: the job design (a
Canada
=.71a
China
=.60) scale consisted of six items such as, ``My job requires me to do the
same routine, repetitive tasks'' (reverse coded), ``I do not know how the
results of my work affect other people'' (reverse coded); supervision and
control scale (a
Canada
=.78a
Turkey
=.65) consisted of eight items such as
``My supervisor and I jointly set specific goals (what and how to do my
job)'', ``My supervisor encourages and provides me with support to handle
difficult assignments'', and performancereward contingency scale consisted
of three items (a
USA
=.54a
China
=.49) such as ``Although I put in more
time 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 translated
into native languages and back-translated into English to ensure linguistic
as well as conceptual equivalence. In countries where the questionnaire was
administered 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.
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
(e.g. in India), or respondents were highly competent in using the language.
The questionnaire was self-administered, and it took approximately 2025
minutes 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 was
reflected in variance in their assumptions about employees (internal work
culture) and HRM practices. Prior to testing the model, it was necessary to
ensure that there was sufficient amount of variance in the specified cultural
dimensions across the 10 countries. For that purpose country scores on each
variable 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 such
differences may be products of methodological artifacts, such as differences
in response style, unequal distribution of scores, and sample inequivalence
(cf. van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). In some cultural contexts (especially more
collectivistic ones), responses are given in a more socially desirable way to
please the researcher, even though anonymity of responses is guaranteed.
The tendency to be in agreement with the statement causes response bias
and may result in spurious differences among country scores. In addition,
it is possible that scores within each country are not distributed in the
same way.
These problems in cross-cultural studies are minimised to a certain extent
by employing data standardisation methods (Leung, 1989; Leung & Bond,
1989; Smith & Peterson, 1996; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). This method
is administered in two steps. In the first step, within-subject standardisation
was 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 are
presented in Table 2. The range for standardised scores was between 24 to
210 (mid-point is 117).
Another methodological difficulty in cross-cultural studies is to establish
sample equivalence. As described earlier, there were significant differences
with respect to demographic characteristics of participants in the 10 countries.
In order to control the effect of sampling variability on results, standardised
mean scores were compared by analysis of covariance (ANCOVAs) with
age, gender, education, and sector as covariates. Having employed all these
adjustment 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 all
variables included in this study. In order to evaluate the proportion of total
CULTURE AND HRMPRACTICES 205
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
TABLE 2
Standardised Country Scores on Study Variables, 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.
#
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
y
,
2
0
0
0
.
2
0
6
A
Y
C
A
N
E
T
A
L
.
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. 284288). As seen from Table 2, paternalism and proactivity had the
largest effect sizes; power distance, loyalty towards community, obligation
towards others, responsibility seeking, participation, and job enrichment
had medium effect sizes; and fatalism, malleability, supervision, and reward
allocation had small effect sizes. A graphical representation of country
positions on the four cultural dimensions can be seen in Figure 2.
As was shown by the omega-square results, there was a larger range of
country scores (65 to 137) on paternalism. The results confirm Hypothesis 1
in that India, Pakistan, China, and Turkey scored highest, whereas Israel
and Germany scored lowest with Romania, Russia, Canada, and the USA
in the middle. Countries also differed substantially with respect to their
position on power distance; the range was 70 to 124. Hypothesis 2 was also
confirmed except for Romania. The highest scoring countries on power
distance were India, Pakistan, China, Turkey, and Russia; in the middle
were Germany, the USA, and Canada; the lowest scoring countries were
Israel and Romania. The range of scores on loyalty towards community was
large: 86132. Hypothesis 3 was partially confirmed. As expected, India,
Pakistan, China, Turkey, and Russia scored highest on loyalty towards
community. Germany, Romania, the USA, and Canada were in the middle,
and Israel was the lowest. Our expectation for Romania and Israel to score
higher, and Canada and the USA to score lower, was not confirmed.
Finally, the majority of countries scored low on fatalism, except for India
and Russia whose scores were higher than other countries, but still slightly
below the mid-point.
The extent to which country positions with respect to managers'
perceptions of socio-cultural environment explained variance in managerial
assumptions about employees and HRM practices was next examined
through a series of multiple regression analyses. For each hypothesised
relationship between socio-cultural and internal work culture dimen-
sions, we regressed each managerial assumption on each socio-cultural
dimension for the overall sample. In cross-cultural studies, it is possible
that the strength and/or direction of relationship between two variables
varies from one country to another. In other words, culture may act as
a moderator (cf. Baron & Kenny, 1986). Moderated multiple regression
analyses (Cohen & Cohen, 1975; Holden, 1994) were therefore conducted
to see whether multiple regression analysis results obtained from the overall
sample held true for all countries. This procedure was recommended
particularly for cross-cultural research by van de Vijver and Leung (1997,
pp. 116117):
CULTURE AND HRMPRACTICES 207
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
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 Fatalism
Community
Canada
USA
Romania
Germany
Israel
Russia
Turkey
China
Pakistan
India
FIGURE 2. Country positions on the four socio-cultural dimensions.
208 AYCAN ET AL.
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
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 is
carried out including predictors X, the dummy variable, and the interaction of
X and the dummy variable. The multiple correlations of the two equations are
then tested for equality.
To test the moderation effect of culture, a total of nine dummy variables
was created for the 10 countries (cf. Cohen & Cohen, 1975). Our results
illustrated that, for each of the hypothesised relationships (i.e. Hypotheses
410), the inclusion of dummy variables and interaction terms significantly
increased the squared multiple correlation in the second equation (results
not shown). Recall that a significant difference between the multiple cor-
relations in the first and second equations indicates that a cross-cultural
difference exists in the relation between dependent variable and the predictor,
and thus, pancultural generalisations are not appropriate. Accordingly, we
present these results for each of our hypotheses. Specifically, in order to
further elaborate the way in which predictions differed across cultures, each
hypothesised relationship was tested separately for each country (Tables 3
and 4). The results pertaining to the relationship between socio-cultural and
internal work culture dimensions are presented in Table 3.
The hypothesised negative relationship between fatalism and malleability
was replicated in all countries. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was confirmed. The second
relationship that was found in all but two countries was between loyalty
towards community and obligation towards others in workplace. As ex-
pected, loyalty positively predicted obligation in all countries except for
the USA and China (Hypothesis 8). Another widely replicated relationship
was between power distance and proactivity. Consistent with Hypothesis 5,
large power distance predicted less endorsement of proactivity assumption in
all but three countries: Russia, China, and Turkey.
In seven countries, high paternalism predicted more obligation towards
others (Hypothesis 8). In the USA, Romania, and China, this relationship
was not observed. Again, in seven countries (Canada, Israel, Romania, China,
Turkey, Pakistan, India), fatalism was negatively related to assumptions
related to employee responsibility seeking (Hypothesis 6). In all but four
countries (Germany, Israel, Russia, Pakistan), fatalism negatively influenced
the assumption of employee participation (Hypothesis 7a). Finally, in half
of 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 was
fostered by paternalism in Israel, China, Turkey, Pakistan, and India
(Hypothesis 7b).
The influence of managerial assumptions on HRM practices was
examined using the same method. Hypothesised relationships were tested
CULTURE AND HRMPRACTICES 209
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
TABLE 3
Multiple Regression Analysis Results with Socio-cultural Dimensions
Criterion: Malleability Obligation Towards Others
Predictor: St.b R
2
Mult.R F St.b R
2
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 HRMPRACTICES 211
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
TABLE 4
Multiple Regression Analysis Results with Managerial Assumptions as Predictors and HRMPractices as Criteria
Criterion: Job Enrichment Empowering Supervision Performance Reward Contingency
Predictor: St.b R
2
Mult.R F St.b R
2
Mult.R F St.b R
2
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***
#
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
y
,
2
0
0
0
.
2
1
2
A
Y
C
A
N
E
T
A
L
.
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
#
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
y
,
2
0
0
0
.
C
U
L
T
U
R
E
A
N
D
H
R
M
P
R
A
C
T
I
C
E
S
2
1
3
using the entire sample, but it was again observed that culture moderated
the relationships. Country-based analyses are presented in Table 4. India
was not included in this analysis, because data on managerial assumptions
and HRM practices were collected from two different sources (managers
and 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, the
USA, and Russia. Malleability also increased empowering supervision in all
countries but Canada, the USA, Germany, and Russia. Performancereward
contingency 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 managers
to enrich jobs only in Canada, the USA, and Romania. Proactivity led to
empowering supervision in Israel, Turkey, and Pakistan, and to perform-
ancereward contingency in the USA, Romania, and Turkey. Proactivity pre-
dicted less performancereward 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 across
countries. In the USA, Romania, China, Turkey, and Pakistan, it reinforced
job enrichment, whereas in Israel and Russia it hindered it. Similarly,
performancereward contingency was negatively influenced by responsi-
bility seeking assumption in Israel and Russia, and positively influenced by
it 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 of
empowering supervision in all countries except Canada, the USA, Germany,
and Pakistan; the assumption of employee participation fostered empowering
supervision 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 first
step was to explore variations among countries on four socio-cultural
dimensions. Of four dimensions, paternalism yielded the largest difference
among countries. In general, our hypotheses were confirmed with respect to
country scores on the four socio-cultural dimensions. However, there were
a number of unexpected findings which merit further exploration. For
example, in power distance, Romania scored unexpectedly low, which may
be a reflection of the recent economic and social reforms that took place in
Romania after 1990. Guided by socialism, Romania was ruled under strict
214 AYCAN ET AL.
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
centralisation until the 1940s (Hickson & Pugh, 1995). The oppressive regime
of Causescu after the late 1960s resulted in societal upheaval as a means to
protest against broken promises of equality among the people of Romania.
After the fall of Causescu in 1989, economic and cultural centralisation
diminished and egalitarian values had gained widespread popular accep-
tance (Bachman, 1989; Demekas & Khan, 1991). Low power distance that
was found in this research could a be a reflection of a quest for reduced
status difference and equal distribution of power. The relatively high score
of India and Russia on fatalism can be explained in terms of their historical
experiences. For example, helplessness in controlling outcomes in Russia
resulting from both past communism and recent economic crisis might have
increased fatalism. In India, the doctrine of Karma suggests that the past
is determined and the future is conditioned: ``Unfortunately the theory of
Karma became confused with fatality in India. . . . It was made into an
excuse for inertia and timidity and was turned into a message of despair and
not of hope'' (Radhakrishnan, 1962, p. 55).
With the evidence of variance among the socio-cultural characteristics of
countries, the second step was to test subsequent hypotheses pertaining to
the relationships among socio-cultural and internal work culture dimen-
sions, and HRM practices. The results, in general, were in support of the
propositions of the Model of Culture Fit. The predictions with respect to the
relationship of fatalism with internal work culture and HRM dimensions
were confirmed in the majority of countries. Our hypotheses concerning the
impact of paternalism were partially confirmed. This may be due to various
interpretations of paternalism in different cultural contexts. As previously
discussed, paternalism is viewed very negatively in Western cultural con-
texts. In some cultures, paternalistic ``authority'' figures are perceived to be
authoritarian and manipulative, whereas in others, they are perceived to be
caring and considerate. Because paternalism has different connotations and
meanings in different cultural contexts, its relationship with other constructs
may also show variance. Therefore, the construct of paternalism needs to
be explored in more detail in future studies, and such attempts are under
way by the present authors. The last two socio-cultural dimensions (i.e.
loyalty towards community and power distance) were related to managerial
assumptions in the expected directions in almost all countries in varying
degrees of strength.
The final hypotheses dealt with the impact of managerial assumptions
on HRM practices. In general, findings were in support of hypothesised
relationships in the majority of countries. Specifically, assumptions of
malleability, proactivity, and responsibility seeking were found to foster job
enrichment, empowering supervision and performance-based reward
allocation. Managerial assumptions pertaining to obligation towards others
and participation had a positive impact on empowering supervision.
CULTURE AND HRMPRACTICES 215
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
Despite the support for hypothesised relationships, in some cases the
explained variance in HRM practices that was accounted for by managerial
assumptions was not large and, in others, findings were in the opposite
direction. For instance, malleability did not predict job enrichment, em-
powering supervision and performancereward contingency in Canada and
the USA. A similar pattern of results for Canada and the USA was observed
for other hypothesised relationships. That is, managerial assumptions did
not contribute very significantly to the prediction of HRM practices for the
North American sample. A possible explanation for a weak connection
between managerial assumptions and HRM practices in the North
American context could be that, in these countries, HRM systems are
influenced more by demands of the external environment (e.g. the enterprise
environment, Fig. 1) rather than the internal ones (e.g. managerial values
and assumptions). Assumptions or values of managers may be more
influential on organisations in cultures where guidance from people in
authority matters more than the demands of the external business
environment.
Other country-specific findings that were contrary to our hypotheses
were: (a) the malleability assumption predicted less job enrichment in Pakistan
and Russia, (b) the assumption of responsibility seeking hindered job
enrichment in Israel and Russia, (c) proactivity and responsibility seeking
resulted in less performancereward contingency. There may be a number
of reasons for such idiosyncrasies. First of all, they may be attributed to
methodological limitations of this study, including sampling bias and
measurement errors. In order to be conclusive in attributing such
idiosyncrasies to cultural characteristics, one should replicate such results
with larger and more representative samples, and use a triangulation
approach in measurement. Future studies should also gather data for three
different parts of the study (i.e. perception of the socio-cultural environ-
ment, internal work culture, and HRM practices) from different sets of
respondents in order to reduce serendipitous results due to response
response bias.
CONCLUSIONS ANDIMPLICATIONS
This study was among the few attempts to provide insights into the issue of
why organisational culture and HRM practices show variance around the
globe. The attempt was significant for a number of reasons. First, impact
of culture on organisations is examined from a theoretical framework.
Therefore, this research aimed at answering the question of how culture
influenced organisational processes. This approach is not unique as it
reflects 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.
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
that was reflected upon was whether or not culture really mattered in I/O
research. Today, however, the question we are asking is how culture
matters. This research was a humble attempt to tackle this question.
Second, this research introduced two cultural dimensions which are highly
salient and yet under-researched in the literature. These dimensions were
paternalism 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 of
these constructs (such attempts are under way by the present authors).
Third, a wide spectrum of countries with various historical, religious, and
economic backgrounds were included in this study. The fact that not much
research was conducted on some of these countries had both advantages and
disadvantages. The obvious advantage was that this study contributed to
cumulation 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 cultural
characteristics of these countries. Future research should study culture-
specific aspects of organisational structure and management practices in
countries which are underrepresented in cross-cultural research literature.
Fourth, in this research, culture is treated as a moderating variable which
determines meaning of constructs, and strength and direction of relation-
ships among constructs. In order to examine the way in which culture acts as
a moderator, one needs to develop an in-depth understanding of a particular
culture. For that, future research should adopt the N-way approach (Brett
et 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 theoretical
models and emic and etic measures. This effort results in derived etic which
highlights both culture-specific and culture-general aspects of findings. The
N-way approach should be utilised more frequently in future cross-cultural
I/O research.
Finally, the Model of Culture Fit which provided the theoretical basis for
this research, showed the complexity of organisational processes. Although
the focus in this research was on the influence of socio-cultural environment
on organisations, the enterprise environment also has substantial effects on
managerial assumptions and organisational practices (e.g. Mathur et al.,
1996). Because the focus was on the socio-cultural environment, some of the
variables related to the enterprise environment were statistically controlled
in this study. However, a better design would be to study business organ-
isations in a particular sector and industry. One of the major challenges
facing cross-cultural I/O psychologists is that of sampling of organisations.
Culture is examined at two levels: societal and organisational. Most
CULTURE AND HRMPRACTICES 217
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
researchers assume and try to prove that these two overlap. However, the
Model of Culture Fit suggests that organisational culture is shaped by
multiple forces external and internal to the organisation which are unrelated
to societal culture. In order to minimise contamination of findings with
enterprise variables, future research should pay more attention to selection
of 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 in
theory and methodology. Every attempt towards betterment of research in
this field is worth the effort, because good research is needed more than ever
in today's world of increasing globalisation.
REFERENCES
Aycan, Z., & Kanungo, R.N. (1998). Paternalism: Towards conceptual refinement
and 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 and
human resource management practices: The Model of Culture Fit. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30 (4), 501526.
Bachman, R.D. (Ed.) (1989). Romania: A country study. Washington, DC: US
Government 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 moderatormediator variable distinction
in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider-
ations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 11731182.
Barrett, G.V., & Bass, B.M. (1976). Cross-cultural issues in industrial and
organizational psychology. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 16391686). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Bass, B.M. (1981). Stogdill's handbook of leadership (Rev. edn.). New York: Free
Press.
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 of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 10091015.
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. 75130). 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 for
the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
218 AYCAN ET AL.
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating
theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13 (3), 471482.
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 strategies
across cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 658665.
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 three
regions. In J. Deregowski, S. Dzuirawiec, & R. Annis (Eds.), Expiscations in cross-
cultural psychology (pp. 335355). 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. 422423). New York: Wiley.
Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M. (1998). Leadership, values and institutions: The case
of Turkey. Paper presented at Western Academy of Management Conference,
Istanbul, Turkey, June.
Kanungo, R.N., & Hartwick, J. (1987). An alternative to intrinsicextrinsic reward
dichotomy of work rewards. Journal of Management, 13 (4), 751766.
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. 123). 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: Sage
Publications.
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. 251266). 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), 415419.
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, 703719.
Leung, K., & Bond, M. (1989). On the empirical identification of dimensions for
cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 133151.
CULTURE AND HRMPRACTICES 219
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1984). Goal settinga motivational technique that
works. Organizational Dynamics, 8 (2), 6880.
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 Developing
Societies, 8 (2), 199222.
Mendonca, M., & Kanungo, R.N. (1994). Managing human resources: The issue of
culture fit. Journal of Management Inquiry, 3 (2), 189205.
Northouse, P.G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Padavic, I., & Earnest, W.R. (1994). Paternalism as a component of managerial
strategy. Social Science Journal, 31 (4), 389405.
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. 7285). 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 organizational
psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 674688). 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 and
managements (pp. 99122). London: Sage Publications.
Rothbaum, F.M., Weisz, J.R., & Snyder, S.S. (1982). Changing the world and
changing self: A two process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 42, 537.
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 methodological
issues (pp. 85119). 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 values
of employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 27 (2), 231264.
Smith, P.B., & Peterson, M.F. (1996). Beyond value comparisons: Sources used to
give meaning to management work events in thirty countries. Paper presented at
the 26th International Congress of Psychology, Montre al, Canada, August.
220 AYCAN ET AL.
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.
Triandis, H.C. (1982). Review of culture's consequences: International differences in
work-related values. Human Organization, 41, 8690.
Triandis, H.C. (1984). Towards a psychological theory of economic growth.
International Journal of Psychology, 19, 7995.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture. London: Brealey.
Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
CULTURE AND HRMPRACTICES 221
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2000.