See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275036143

Cross Cultural Management

Article  in  Cross Cultural Management An International Journal · January 2014

CITATIONS READS
4 2,184

1 author:

Jeanine K. Andreassi
Sacred Heart University
14 PUBLICATIONS   204 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

What the Person Brings to the Table:Personality, Coping and Work-Family Conflict View project

Impact of HR Practices on employee outcomes across 18 Asian countries View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jeanine K. Andreassi on 17 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7606.htm

Cultural
Cultural impact of human impact
resource practices on
job satisfaction
57
A global study across 48 countries
Jeanine Karin Andreassi and Leanna Lawter
Welch College of Business, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Connecticut, USA
Martin Brockerhoff
Technica LLC, Scarsdale, New York, USA, and
Peter J. Rutigliano
Sirota Survey Intelligence, Purchase, New York, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to determine the effect of high-performance human resource
practices on job satisfaction across four cultural regions – Asia, Europe, North America, and
Latin America. High-performance human resource practices were used to predict job satisfaction for
each region and then compared to determine significant differences. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions
were employed as a basis for structuring hypothesized differences across cultural regions.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from a proprietary industry survey on
employee work attitudes. The sample consisted of over 70,000 employees from four large multinational
organizations with at least four offices in each of the four regions. Data were analyzed using regression
analysis and comparison testing across models.
Findings – There are significant relationships between job characteristics and job satisfaction across
all regions of the world, with a sense of achievement universally the most important driver. Although
job characteristics impact job satisfaction across all regions, there are significant differences in the
relative importance of job characteristics on job satisfaction, consistent with Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions.
Practical implications – The findings have implications for tailoring human resource management
practices across locations within multinationals.
Originality/value – This research is believed to be the first cross-cultural study of human resource
practices affecting job satisfaction using multiple organizations and industries.
Keywords Job satisfaction, Culture, Employee attitudes, Human resource practices
Paper type Research paper

In the past few decades, there has been an explosion of businesses moving operations
overseas, setting up international joint ventures, and establishing multinational
enterprises. An important question is whether Western management practices can be
used as effectively with employees in Asia, Europe, and Latin America, as in
North America, and whether the application of Western management principles affects
satisfaction in non-Western countries. There is a current debate concerning the degree to Cross Cultural Management
Vol. 21 No. 1, 2014
which values in the world are converging due to globalization. In a study of values across pp. 57-79
regions of the world, Schwartz and Bardi (2001) found that there is a significant degree of q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-7606
similarity regarding value hierarchies, with benevolence consistently ranked as the DOI 10.1108/CCM-05-2012-0044
CCM top value, and power as the least important. Sackmann and Phillips (2004) argue for a
21,1 multiple cultures perspective, arguing that examining one’s national cultural values is
not sufficient as people are influenced by varying cultures and their identity with each
(e.g. work group culture, organizational culture, national culture and regional culture).
In a similar vein, researchers are increasingly acknowledging the discrepancy of cultural
values within one nation (Dolan et al., 2004). Mirroring the debate on whether cultural
58 values are converging or continue to be culturally bound, recent research has found that
some values are universal and others are not. For example, Andolsek and Stebe (2004)
found that age, satisfaction, and high paying jobs predicted continuance commitment
regardless of the country, whereas, people in individualistic countries highly valued
autonomy and people in collectivistic societies placed high importance on being able to
help others. This research is addressing the call by Menon (2004, p. 139) that
“researchers should continue to engage in comparative cross-national research to better
understand universal and culture bound influences on organizational behavior”.
Our study examines how human resource practices impact job satisfaction differently
depending on culture as measured by Hofstede’s (1980a, b) dimensions.
The current research compares the relative importance of seven high-performance
human resource practices as related to overall job satisfaction across four global regions.
This study examines employee attitudinal survey responses across 48 countries in four
global regions: Asia, North America, Europe, and Latin America. The current study posits
that significant differences exist across global regions with regard to how employee
attitudes concerning human resource practices influence job satisfaction. The basis of the
hypothesized differences are Hofstede’s four primary cultural dimensions: power distance
(social inequality), individualism/collectivism (relationship between the individual and
the group), masculinity/femininity (social implications of gender roles) and uncertainty
avoidance (extent to which cultural members are threatened by ambiguity). Specifically,
we examined proprietary survey data from three large multinational companies, each of
which had a physical location in all four global regions. The three companies represented
three major industries: financial services, manufacturing, and oil and gas production.
As employee data was only identified at a regional level, a weighted average methodology
was used to create an aggregate score at the regional level for the purposes of comparing
individual level attitudes across major operating regions. The implications for the current
study are significant for practitioners. Many multinational companies are organized
into regional operating units managed by a central hierarchy (Ghemawat, 2007). This
information can help multinational organizations better understand how
high-performance human resources practices considered important in North American
culture influence job satisfaction differently among other global regions. In particular, this
information can be used by managers to tailor human resource practices based on cultural
differences. Additionally, the size of the database used in the current research and the
broad cross-section of corporations across the four global regions increases the
generalizability and relevance of the current findings.

Literature review
As business increasingly becomes more global, little is understood about the influence of
culture on the relationship between human resource management practices and individual
worker outcomes. To the authors’ knowledge, no studies have comprehensively looked at
how the relationship between human resource management practices and job satisfaction
differs among workers across different regions of the world. This study attempts to fill Cultural
that gap in our understanding. Using Hofstede’s theory on cultural values, we argue that impact
cultural values will influence the degree to which individual job satisfaction is impacted by
various human resource management practices. In the following sections we will discuss
the relationship between human resource management practices and work-related
outcomes and then hypothesize differences we expect based on culture as quantified by
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. 59
Human resource practices and work-related outcomes
A number of studies have shown that human resource management practices, or in
particular “high-performance work practices” (HPWP) have a positive relationship with
organizational performance (Huselid, 1995; Combs et al., 2006). In order to better
understand the mechanisms through which human resource practices influence
organizational performance, researchers have proposed that human resource practices
influence worker attitudes such as commitment and motivation and worker behaviors
such as turnover and productivity (Huselid, 1995). Wood and de Menezes (1998) defined
high-commitment human resource practices as those policies aimed to foster
commitment among employees, creating highly involved employees who identify
with the organization. It has been argued that perceptions of human resource practices
are more important than the written policies themselves (Kooij et al., 2010) so that
HR practices should be measured as perceived by the employee. Therefore, in this study,
we focused on human resource practices as perceived by employees.
Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Eisenberger et al., 1986) helps us to understand how
human resource practices influence worker job attitudes such as job satisfaction. Using the
tenants of social exchange theory, human resource practices would signal to employees
that the organization is committed to them, which would be reciprocated by employees
through positive attitudes and high commitment work behaviors. In particular, it has been
posited that human resources practices lead to a higher level of perceived organizational
support (POS) on the part of the employee, which positively impacts organizational
commitment and job satisfaction (Allen et al., 2003). Allen et al. (2003) found that
perceptions of supportive human resource practices influenced POS which in turn led to
higher levels of organizational commitment and job satisfaction and lower levels of
withdrawal behaviors such as turnover. We are interested in job satisfaction as it has been
shown to have a significant impact on overall employee work behaviors (Brown and
Peterson, 1993). In particular, job satisfaction is related to job performance (Harrison et al.,
2006; Judge et al., 2001; Riketta, 2008), retention (Tett and Meyer, 1993), and organizational
commitment (Riketta, 2002). Kooij et al. (2010) identified 12 human resource practices that
researchers describe as high commitment practices. In the proprietary database that we
used, we had access to six of these high commitment human resource practices: rewards
and benefits (perception of equal opportunities in the workplace), performance
management (feelings of personal accomplishment; recognition for good performance),
information sharing (communication from management), working in teams (perception of
teamwork as priority), work-life policies (ability to balance work and life) and training and
development (level of training received). The seven human resource practices which
measured six dimensions of HPWP are displayed in Table II of the methods section. These
seven human resource practices were chosen as predictors in the analysis for two reasons:
first, all had theoretical support in the literature to have a positive effect on work outcomes
CCM to an organization; second, all seven measures were available across all regions and for all
21,1 locations of the three organizations in the study. Although there is little research on human
resource practices across cultures, some research has shown that cultural differences do
exist with regard to perception of effectiveness of different types of human resource
practices. Prior research has found that national culture can influence the types of HRM
policies used such as how organizations select, manage performance and compensate
60 (Hannah and Iverson, 2004). Cultural differences have been noted to have a potential
impact on the degree to which human resource practices which might work well in the
Anglo-American world could potentially not be as well viewed in less individualistic or
more hierarchical societies (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1997).
The authors know of no study which uses data from multiple countries in multiple
regions to investigate how human resource practices influence job satisfaction across
different cultures and geographic regions. Based on differences among cultures in terms
of what is likely valued in the workplace (Hofstede, 1980b; House et al., 2004), we
hypothesize that the relationship between human resource practices and job satisfaction
will vary in their level of importance across regions. We have used Hofstede’s theoretical
model to hypothesize how cultural dimensions will influence the degree to which human
resource practices drive job satisfaction. An aggregate score for each of the four cultural
dimensions was developed by major operating regions based on the sample composition
from the countries included in the study in each region. While we recognize that cultural
differences exist within each region (House et al., 2004), the purpose of this study is to
investigate the cultural dimensions across groupings of countries that are many times
managed as a single operating unit. We hope to shed light on the cultural differences that
exist between the four major regions in the study, while at the same time recognizing that
individual dimensions of culture will vary across both countries and individuals. In the
literature review below, we will describe theory and past research as it relates to
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, and propose how culture might influence the
relationship between workplace variables and job satisfaction.

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions

Individualism/collectivism. Cultures with lower levels of collectivism (and higher levels
of individualism) are less likely to value working together as a team and more likely to
prefer working independently. On the other hand, cultures with higher levels of
collectivism are more likely to prefer close working relationships with co-workers
(Hofstede, 1980a). Kirkman and Shapiro (2001) studied the impact of cultural values on
job satisfaction among 461 self-managing teams in four countries (Belgium, Finland,
Philippines and the USA). They found that higher levels of collectivism are associated
with higher levels of job satisfaction and commitment within teams. Loh et al. (2010)
found that eastern cultures (higher in collectivism) have a higher level of work-group
identification than Western cultures (higher in individualism). Therefore, it is expected
that the degree to which cultures are more collectivistic will affect the extent to which
teamwork is an important driver of job satisfaction such that:
H1. Teamwork will have a stronger relationship with job satisfaction in
collectivistic cultures than individualistic cultures.
Recent models on cross-cultural differences in work-family posit that both cultural and
sociocontextual factors impact the experience of work-family conflict ( Joplin et al., 2003;
Korabik et al., 2003). A cultural factor is individualism/collectivism, described Cultural
previously, as the extent to which there is a focus on the individual versus the group impact
(Hofstede, 1984). Work-family conflict is less likely in collectivistic cultures because
hard work is seen as a means to increase the well-being of the family (Aryee et al., 1999;
Grzywacz et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2000). Because hard work is seen as integral to family
well-being, experiencing work-family conflict is less likely to be perceived as stressful
(Hassan et al., 2010; Spector et al., 2004). Research studies have supported the notion 61
that in collectivistic societies, females perceive that work activities are in support of
family activities leading to less conflict. For example, Thein et al. (2010) found that
women in Hong Kong and Singapore perceived the domains of work and family as
interdependent whereas Westerners conceptualized the two domains as separate and
therefore in opposition to one another. Yang et al. (2000) found that in collectivistic
China, sacrificing time with one’s family was viewed as a self-sacrifice; whereas,
American women with an individualistic orientation perceived time spent at work
away from one’s family as a failure to care for significant others. Because individuals
from collectivistic societies view work activities as enhancing the family, and therefore
do not see work as an impediment to family life, it is predicted that:
H2. The ability to balance one’s work and personal lives will have a stronger
relationship with job satisfaction in individualistic cultures than in
collectivistic cultures.
Uncertainty avoidance. Uncertainty avoidance refers to the degree to which a culture
tolerates uncertainty concerning the future. Cultures high in uncertainty avoidance have
a low tolerance for uncertainty and attempt to plan for and predict the future. One might
hypothesize that if a person is uncomfortable with uncertainty he or she would value
communication to increase one’s understanding of current workplace issues. Cultures
high in uncertainty avoidance, desire to follow rules and have strict codes of behavior
(Hofstede, 1984), and therefore, often have organizations marked by a high degree of
formalization (Shackleton and Ali, 1990). A high degree of formalization has been
observed to be related to communication inflexibility in organizations leading to a
reduced interdependency between a manager and subordinate (Crozier, 1964). It has
been found that in highly formalized work groups, managers rely more on procedures
and rules to exert control as opposed to using tools such as open communication
(Huang and Van de Vliert, 2006). Open communication from management is perceived as
undermining formalization in the organization and increasing the degree of uncertainty
and ambiguity and by increasing information flow between management and
employees (Sriussadaporn, 2006). We posit that as communication can serve to increase
employee awareness of uncertainty, open communication from management will
negatively impact employee job satisfaction in high uncertainty avoidance cultures.
Based on a theoretical understanding of uncertainty avoidance and the negative
relationship between communication and formalization, it is hypothesized that:
H3. Communication from management on key issues will have a stronger
relationship with job satisfaction in low uncertainty avoidance cultures than
high uncertainty avoidance cultures.
High uncertainty avoidance cultures also value security, so that individuals within these
cultures likely have a tendency to prefer jobs that offer stability. Because training
CCM increases the flexibility and adaptability of the workforce, it would serve to increase
21,1 uncertainty and has a low level of desirability or worth in high uncertainty avoidance
cultures. As the level of uncertainty in the environment increases, some organizations
respond by increasing the amount of training available to employees (Peretz and
Rosenblatt, 2011). However, not all types of training results in positive outcomes, nor are
they viewed as positive by employees (Burke and Day, 1986; Hassi et al., 2011). For
62 instance, in high uncertainty avoidance cultures training is viewed as signaling to
employees that the organization expects them to change and learn new skills, which is
undesirable for those who dislike ambiguity. This has been acknowledged by
researchers such as Burke et al. (2008) who argued that to avoid ambiguity in workforce
training, trainers in high uncertainty avoidance cultures should focus on providing a
very structured training session. We posit that training would be deemed to be less
important in high uncertainty avoidance cultures because employees perceive training
as a means of introducing organizational change and increasing uncertainty in the
workplace and thereby negatively impacting job satisfaction. Therefore, it is expected
that in high uncertainty avoidance cultures, level of training will be less important as a
driver of job satisfaction than in low uncertainty avoidance cultures such that:
H4. Level of training received will have a stronger relationship with job satisfaction in
low uncertainty avoidance cultures than in high uncertainty avoidance cultures.
Masculinity/femininity. Masculinity/femininity refers to how well established gender
roles are within a culture. These roles directly relate to how males and females are
perceived within the culture. Another facet of the masculinity/femininity dimension is
how a culture generalizes concepts of success. Cultures which are characterized as
masculine measures success in terms of personal success as measured by material wealth
and financial rewards, as compared to feminine cultures which place less emphasis on
material success and place more value on personal relationships and quality of life
(Hofstede, 1980b). Level of personal recognition is an externally focused event which
involves an interchange between two people where one person acknowledges another’s
performance. This type of extrinsic reward is relationship dependent and can be
characterized as a socioemotional career satisfier. Feminine gender-based self-schemas
place more importance on socioemotional career satisfiers, such as recognition
(Eddleston et al., 2006). Feminine cultures place more emphasis an individual’s
contribution to society and value other’s recognition of work well done (Arrindell and
Veenhoven, 2002). As individuals in a feminine culture are more concerned with their
relationships with their managers in the organization (Hofstede, 1991), and would value
recognition, we would expect that level of recognition strongly impact job satisfaction to a
higher degree in less masculine cultures. Therefore, it is predicted that:
H5. Level of recognition received for doing a good job will have a stronger
relationship with job satisfaction in feminine cultures than in masculine
cultures.
Sense of accomplishment is internally focused and closely aligned with an individual’s
need for achievement (Maslow, 1943). Masculine cultures place an emphasis on
personal drive and ambition (Hofstede, 1980b), both also internally focused. Schuler
and Rogovsky (1998) found that high masculinity was associated with greater use of
an individual bonus system. In Japan, Jakofsky and Slocum (1988) found that high
masculinity was reflected in a great interest in work and achievement. Sense of Cultural
accomplishment also has a significant relationship with interpersonal competitiveness
(Dumblekar, 2010). Because masculinity is related to competitiveness and individual
impact
achievement, it is expected that countries that are higher in masculinity place more
value on achievement needs being met than those that are lower in masculinity.
Therefore, it is expected that:
H6. Work leading to a sense of accomplishment will have a stronger relationship 63
with job satisfaction in masculine cultures than in feminine cultures.
Power distance. Power distance is the degree to which members of a society without
power accept the inequality in power (Hofstede, 1980a). In high power distance cultures,
such as Latin American cultures, inequality among social classes is accepted by both the
higher social levels and the lower social levels with an underlying expectation that
wealth and social status are fairly static within the culture (Varela et al., 2010). On the
other hand, cultures in low power distant countries are generally considered to be equals
regardless of inequities in characteristics such as wealth and an underlying assumption
is that there is mobility to levels of wealth and status within the culture (Hofstede,
1980b). In high power distance societies, subordinates expect superiors to behave in an
autocratic, non-consultative manner and seek more guidance from supervisors
(Agarwal, 1993). Western cultures (low power distance) espouse egalitarianism as a key
cultural value in the workplace; eastern cultures (high power distance) expect a high
degree of hierarchy and vertical distance among managerial levels (Pan et al., 2010).
One could argue that within high power distance cultures, inequality is expected to be
part of all organizational structures, such that if an employee is accustomed to
experiencing social inequality in general, but experiences a perception of equality in the
workplace, they will be more likely to value that equality, which, in turn, will increase job
satisfaction. Conversely, if equality in an underlying assumption in a culture, the impact
of equality in the workforce will not be a motivating factor to increasing job satisfaction.
Therefore, it is expected that:
H7. Perception of equal opportunities in the workplace will have a stronger
relationship with job satisfaction in high power distance cultures than in low
power distance cultures.

Methodology
Sample
Employees from three large multinational companies in financial services,
manufacturing, and oil and gas production participated in a proprietary industry
survey on job attitudes/characteristics and job satisfaction. Each company had
physical locations in at least four countries in each of the four global regions: Asia,
Europe, North America, and Latin America. There were ten or more full-time
employees in each location. A total of 75,813 employees participated in the survey.
Five demographic characteristics – gender, age, race, tenure, and job function –
were also collected. These were used as control variables in the regional regression
models (Table I).
Demographic distributions within each company across the four geographic regions
were fairly similar. Respondents were 45.6 percent female and 54.6 percent male.
As would be expected from the large number of respondents from North America
CCM
Number of respondents 75,813
21,1 Gender %
Female 45.6
Male 54.4
Race
White 68.7
64 Black 8.0
Hispanic 6.6
Asian 9.3
Native American 0.7
Other 6.7
Tenure
0-2 years 32.3
2-5 years 21.0
5-10 years 20.8
Table I. 10 þ years 25.9
Demographic Type of position
characteristics of Management 19.8
participants Non-management 80.2

and Europe, 68.7 percent of respondents identified themselves as white.

Approximately, 20 percent of respondents were in managerial positions, and tenure
was evenly represented across categories.

Measures
Individual measures. The proprietary survey was comprised of a number of
work-related measures including the seven human resource practices used in this
study. Employees were asked how they perceived each of the human resource practices
using one item per measure. The human resource practices questions are indicated in
Table II. Responses were measured on a five-point scale, with 1 indicating very
dissatisfied and 5 indicating very satisfied. Research has demonstrated the ability of
one-item measures to validly predict outcomes (Nagy, 2002; Wanous and Hudy, 2001).
The dependent variable, job satisfaction, was measured with the item “Considering
everything, I am satisfied with XYZ as a place to work”.
Regional Hofstede scores. Prior to any regression analysis or hypothesis testing,
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions were calculated for each of the four regions in the study.
These regional scores were used to hypothesize differences in the individual level data
across the four regions for each of the human resource practices included in the study.
This strategy was necessary as employees were only identified by region (as opposed
to country) in which they worked. Within each region a single score was calculated for
each of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions – power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
masculinity and collectivism. The authors used a list of countries included in each
region of the study and the sample size for each country to develop a weighted average
for each region. Each of the four cultural dimension scores for each region was
computed using a weighted average based on the number of participants in each
country within a region multiplied by each country’s cultural dimension score
(as reported online on Hofstede’s (n.d.)) divided by the total number of participants in
that region. The countries that are included in each region are indicated in Appendix 1
 Cultural
High
commitment impact
HR practices
(Kooij et al., Related HR dimension
2010) measured in study Question text

Rewards and Perception of equal “All people regardless of race/nationality, gender (sex), or 65
benefits opportunities in the other individual differences, are given a fair opportunity to
workplace succeed in the organization”
Performance Feelings of personal “My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment”
management accomplishment
Recognition for “When I do an excellent job, my accomplishments are
good performance recognized”
Information Communication from “Management communicates important information in a
sharing management timely manner”
Working in Perception of teamwork “Teamwork is a top priority”
teams as priority
Work-life Ability to balance work “I am able to maintain work-life balance” Table II.
policies and life Human resource
Training and Level of training “I have received the training I need to do a quality job” management dimensions
development received and their measurement

and a listing of the cultural dimension scored for these countries is in Appendix 2. The
resulting regional score would be an aggregate measure of a cultural dimension
averaged across all the countries in that region in which participants in the study were
located. For the purposes of developing comparisons, regions were then categorized for
each dimension as either “high” or “low” in the following manner. The highest and
lowest values for a dimension were used as the initial basis of categorization. The
difference had to be at least ten points in order to create separate groupings. Regions
with scores of less than ten points were considered to be in a group. In addition, “high”
scores were above the median value of 60 on the scale; “low” scores were below the
median. In the current study, the differences between the highest value and the lowest
value ranged from 14 to 63. The remaining two regions were grouped into “high” and
“low” based on whether they were closer in proximity to the highest or lowest value in
the dimension. See Appendix 3 for Hofstede’s values and the categorization of high
versus low.

Analysis
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelation analyses were completed for each of the four
global regions (Table III).
Regression equations were then developed for each of the four global regions.
The five demographic characteristics were entered into the model as control variables.
The seven human resource practices measures were used to predict overall job
satisfaction. Hypotheses were tested by comparing standardized regression
coefficients across the four global regions based on hypothesized difference between
high and low values of Hofstede’s dimension. An analysis of variance with planned
comparisons was used to test the hypothesized differences across models. The planned
comparisons were based on comparing the “high” and “low” grouping of regions for
each of the seven human resource practices as it relates to overall job satisfaction.
CCM
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
21,1
Asia
1. Overall satisfaction 3.69 0.82
2. Equal opportunity 3.62 1.06 0.47
3. Teamwork 3.91 0.86 0.49 0.36
66 4. Recognition 3.54 0.88 0.62 0.40 0.45 0.45
5. Communication 3.66 0.92 0.52 0.40 0.47 0.35 0.48
6. Accomplishment 3.82 0.87 0.48 0.37 0.42 0.30 0.41 0.43 0.37
7. Training 3.42 0.93 0.46 0.36 0.38 0.45 0.46 0.39 0.37 0.35
8. Work-life balance 3.62 0.99 0.38 0.27 0.26 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.27 0.26
North America
1. Overall satisfaction 3.77 0.90
2. Equal opportunity 3.58 1.13 0.46
3. Teamwork 3.94 0.99 0.45 0.34
4. Recognition 3.52 1.02 0.59 0.39 0.48 0.43
5. Communication 3.60 1.04 0.50 0.38 0.47 0.28 0.50
6. Accomplishment 3.91 0.94 0.51 0.35 0.40 0.24 0.42 0.38 0.38
7. Training 3.57 0.94 0.40 0.31 0.30 0.38 0.40 0.35 0.28 0.33
8. Work-life balance 3.62 1.07 0.38 0.21 0.23 0.24 0.29 0.26 0.28 0.25
Europe
1. Overall satisfaction 3.71 0.83
2. Equal opportunity 3.45 1.07 0.43
3. Teamwork 3.94 0.93 0.40 0.29
4. Recognition 3.49 0.94 0.61 0.36 0.43 0.40
5. Communication 3.55 1.00 0.48 0.33 0.42 0.24 0.48
6. Accomplishment 3.78 0.93 0.51 0.33 0.41 0.23 0.43 0.39 0.35
7. Training 3.43 0.95 0.42 0.29 0.30 0.29 0.39 0.34 0.28 0.33
8. Work-life balance 3.43 1.09 0.35 0.19 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.23 0.22 0.21
Latin America
1. Overall satisfaction 4.05 0.82
2. Equal opportunity 3.64 1.09 0.47
3. Teamwork 4.10 0.84 0.50 0.37
4. Recognition 3.68 0.97 0.61 0.39 0.47 0.41
5. Communication 3.77 0.99 0.51 0.43 0.45 0.35 0.51
6. Accomplishment 4.21 0.86 0.51 0.39 0.42 0.28 0.44 0.44 0.31
7. Training 3.62 0.96 0.47 0.32 0.38 0.38 0.47 0.37 0.33 0.38
Table III. 8. Work-life balance 3.69 1.12 0.39 0.30 0.29 0.19 0.32 0.25 0.29 0.31
Descriptive statistics and
intercorrelations Note: All correlations significant at: p , 0.0001

Results
The regression analyses for each region showed almost all of the seven human
resource practices were significant in each of the four regions. In Asia, North America,
and Europe, all seven human resource practices were significant in predicting job
satisfaction. In Latin America, equal opportunity, accomplishment, teamwork,
recognition, and work-life balance were significant in predicting job satisfaction.
However, neither training nor communication from management was significant in the
model (Table IV).
When comparing the standardized regression coefficients within each region, there
were notable differences in what had the strongest effect in each of the regional models.
For Asia, accomplishment (b ¼ 0.12), personal recognition (b ¼ 0.12), and equal
 Cultural
Asia North America Europe Latin America
b t b t b t b t impact
Equal opportunity 0.11 8.14 * * 0.09 13.82 * * 0.07 6.70 * * 0.08 5.02 * *
Accomplishment 0.12 8.80 * * 0.21 33.45 * * 0.18 16.59 * * 0.23 12.91 * *
Teamwork 0.11 5.52 * * 0.05 7.55 * * 0.03 2.87 * * 0.11 4.46 * *
Training 0.05 5.28 * * 0.05 8.26 * * 0.04 4.39 * * 0.02 0.22 67
Communication 0.05 3.24 * * 0.05 7.25 * * 0.05 4.15 * * 0.02 0.18
Recognition 0.12 8.18 * * 0.10 15.98 * * 0.15 13.61 * * 0.10 6.13 * *
Work-life balance 0.04 2.90 * 0.11 18.16 * * 0.11 11.89 * * 0.04 2.45 *
n 5,348 45,933 15,063 5,348 Table IV.
Regression analysis
Note: Significant at: *p , 0.01 and * *p , 0.001 by region

opportunity (b ¼ 0.11) were the strongest predictors of job satisfaction.

For North America, accomplishment (b ¼ 0.21) was the strongest predictor of job
satisfaction, followed by work-life balance (b ¼ 0.11). For Europe, accomplishment
(b ¼ 0.18) and personal recognition (b ¼ 0.15) were the strongest predictors of job
satisfaction. For Latin America, accomplishment (b ¼ 0.23) was the strongest predictor
of job satisfaction, followed by teamwork (b ¼ 0.11).
The standardized regression coefficients can then be compared across regions:
equal opportunity was most important in Asia (b ¼ 0.11). Accomplishment was most
important in Latin America (b ¼ 0.23) and North America (b ¼ 0.21). Teamwork was
most important in Asia (b ¼ 0.11) and Latin America (b ¼ 0.11). Training and
communication were least important in Latin America (b ¼ 0.02 for both). Personal
recognition was most important in Europe (0.15). Work-life balance was most
important in North America (b ¼ 0.11) and Europe (b ¼ 0.11) (Table V).
Six of the seven hypotheses tested were significant at p , 0.001. For H1 and H2,
Asia (individual/collective ¼ 27) and Latin America (individual/collective ¼ 32),
which both are highly collective cultures, were compared to Europe
(individual/collective ¼ 76) and North America (individual/collective ¼ 90), which are
both highly individualistic cultures. H1 which hypothesized that teamwork will have a
stronger relationship with job satisfaction in collectivistic cultures than individualistic
cultures was significant. H2 which predicted that the ability to balance one’s work and
personal lives will have a stronger relationship with job satisfaction in individualistic
cultures than in collectivistic cultures was also significant.
For H3 and H4, Latin American (uncertainty ¼ 80), which is considered high
on uncertainty avoidance, was compared to Asia (uncertainty ¼ 40), North America
(uncertainty ¼ 46), and Europe (uncertainty ¼ 52), which have relatively low values
on uncertainty avoidance. Both hypotheses were supported. It should be noted however
that although there was statistical significance, the difference in effect sizes was small.
H3 predicted that communication from management on key issues will have a stronger
relationship with job satisfaction in low uncertainty cultures than in high uncertainty
avoidance cultures was significant. H4 which predicted that level of training received
will have a stronger relationship with job satisfaction in low uncertainty avoidance
cultures than in high uncertainty avoidance cultures was also significant.
For H5 and H6, North America (masculinity ¼ 61) and Latin America
(masculinity ¼ 61), which have higher values of masculinity, were compared
CCM
Collective Individualistic
21,1 Asia Latin America Europe North America
H1: teamwork b 0.11 0.11 0.03 0.05 * *
H2: work life b 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.11 * *
balance
High uncertainty Low uncertainty avoidance
68 avoidance
Latin America Asia North America Europe
H3: b 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 * *
communication
H4: training b 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.04 * *
Masculine Feminine
North America Latin America Asia Europe
H5: recognition b 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.15 * *
H6: b 0.21 0.23 0.12 0.18 * *
accomplishment
High power distance Low power distance
Asia Latin America North America Europe
H7: equal b 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.07
Table V. opportunity
Hypothesis testing by
Hofstede’s dimensions Note: Significant at: *p , 0.01 and * *p , 0.001

to Asia (masculinity ¼ 50) and Europe (masculinity ¼ 47), which had lower values of
masculinity. H5 which predicted that level of recognition received for doing a good job
will have a stronger relationship with job satisfaction in feminine (low masculinity)
cultures than in high masculine cultures was found to be significant. H6 which
predicted that work leading to a sense of accomplishment will have a stronger
relationship with job satisfaction in high masculine cultures than in feminine (low
masculine) cultures is also significant.
For H7, Asia (power distance ¼ 79) and Latin America (power distance ¼ 74),
cultures with high values of power distance, were compared to North America (power
distance ¼ 40) and Europe (power distance ¼ 41), cultures with low values of power
distance. H7 predicted that perception of equal opportunities in the workplace will
have a stronger relationship with job satisfaction in high power distance cultures than
in low power distance cultures and was not significant.

Discussion
There were significant differences in the degree to which human resource practices
impacted job satisfaction, supporting the notion that human resource practices should
be tailored to meet the different values of employees in varying cultures. This study is
particularly important in light of the fact that today’s corporations are largely
multinational in nature due to fewer trade barriers, growing international economies,
fast communication and outsourcing. Additionally, operating units in these
organizations are typically organized by region and involve managing employees in
multiple countries without recognizing large variations in cultural values both across
regions and within regional business unit.
The regression analyses for each region showed similarities in the significance of the
seven human resource practices as relates to overall job satisfaction. In particular,
sense of accomplishment from ones’ work, recognition received from doing a good job, Cultural
teamwork, and ability to balance one’s work and personal lives were significant when impact
regressed on overall job satisfaction across all four regions. One of the key takeaways
from this study is that although there are differences in the degree to which human
resource practices impact job satisfaction, the basic needs appear to be similar across
cultures as demonstrated by the fact that the human resource practices with the most
significant impact on job satisfaction are accomplishment and recognition, regardless of 69
culture. This reinforces the fact that current organizations need to address human
resource practices that involve both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards and thereby enhance
employee motivation and increase job satisfaction. Regardless of the cultural context,
employees respond positively to intrinsic and extrinsic motivators and achievement is a
universal concept. Employees want to personally feel that they are performing their job
well and also value being recognized by their managers for performing a job well.
Our results for the first four hypotheses were similar to others found in the literature.
Teamwork has a stronger relationship to job satisfaction in collectivistic cultures than in
individualistic cultures. This is supported by theory since cultures that are collectivistic in
nature are more likely to value working together as a team and therefore, teamwork should
lead to a more satisfying job experience if this need is being met. This finding supports
research by Kirkman and Shapiro (2001) who found that higher levels of collectivism were
associated with higher levels of job satisfaction and commitment within teams. Teamwork
is an important social component where employees can feel a sense of contribution to the
group. Organizations operating in more collectivistic cultures should use teams as a means
of not only getting work done, but of also increasing employees’ sense of job satisfaction
through their feeling that they are contributing to the organization.
The ability to balance one’s work and family lives has a more significant impact on
job satisfaction in individualistic cultures than in collectivistic cultures. This is
consistent with prior literature which has posited that work-family conflict is less likely
in collectivistic cultures because hard work is seen as a means to increase the well-being
of the family (Aryee et al., 1999; Grzywacz et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2000). Because hard
work is seen as integral to family well-being, experiencing work-family conflict is less
likely to be perceived as stressful (Spector et al., 2004). Research studies have supported
the notion that in collectivistic societies, females perceive that work activities are in
support of family activities leading to less conflict. Individuals in individualistic cultures
might benefit from this knowledge. In particular, if individuals are able to alter their own
perceptions of work-life balance and instead adopt a more collectivistic approach to
work-family conflict by viewing work as contributing to the well-being of the family, it
may reduce the incidence of work-family conflict. In addition, organizations operating in
highly individualistic countries, like the USA, could use a more collective approach to
help American workers better manage work-family conflict. For instance, corporations
could have workshops where men and women are asked to examine what their work
means in terms of supporting and assisting their family. If men and women come to
realize that their work is indeed helping their families, they might experience less guilt,
especially in the case of working mothers, a common phenomenon in North America.
Communication from management on key issues is less important in cultures high
on uncertainty avoidance than those low on uncertainty avoidance. Cultures high in
uncertainty avoidance often adopt rules and strict codes of behavior in the workplace
(Hofstede, 1984), leading to greater formalization (Shackleton and Ali, 1990) and less
CCM communication flexibility (Crozier, 1964). Our finding that communication was less
21,1 important in high uncertainty avoidance cultures is supported by Huang and
Van de Vliert (2006), who found that, in highly formalized work groups, managers rely
more on procedures and rules to exert control as opposed to using tools such as open
communication. Managers who are in low uncertainty avoidance cultures such as Asia,
North America and Europe should emphasize communication with their employees.
70 Communications can be viewed as providing information about the organization, but
also making employees feel that they are part of the decision making process, whereas
formalized rules and procedures do not allow for employee decision making outside of
the established guidelines. These findings are important for managers who are
accustomed to engaging in open communication with employees, but are working in a
high uncertainty avoidance culture. Open communication policies in high uncertainty
avoidance cultures can actually negatively impact overall job satisfaction. A better
tactic would be to make sure there are clear rules and policies in place to increase
employees comfort levels in these cultures. Recent research conducted in the USA
found that managers who communicate with employees through multiple media
channels get projects completed more quickly (Neeley et al., 2011). This type of
communication would likely be less effective in a high uncertainty avoidance cultures.
Level of training received is viewed as a more important work practice as it relates to
job satisfaction in low uncertainty avoidance cultures than in high uncertainty avoidance
cultures. This finding was expected based on a theoretical understanding of uncertainty
avoidance. High uncertainty avoidance cultures value security, so that individuals within
these cultures likely have a tendency to prefer jobs that offer stability. Because training
increases the flexibility and adaptability of the workforce, it would serve to increase
uncertainty and not be desirable in high uncertainty avoidance cultures. Our finding
bolsters findings by Burke et al. (2008), who found that higher uncertainty avoidance
reduced the effectiveness of safety training and was related to lower levels of engagement
in training, suggesting usage of less engaging training methods in high uncertainty
avoidance cultures. Our research enhances these findings, because we understand now
that not only is training effectiveness and engagement during training reduced, but
overall job satisfaction is impacted by training to a different degree depending on culture.
For corporations and managers in cultures that are high on uncertainty avoidance,
voluntary training will be perceived less positively by the work force. In higher
uncertainty avoidance cultures, because training a workforce is still advantageous and not
doing so may be detrimental to the survival of a firm, it is advisable for corporations to
communicate to employees that their job is secure when training employees. In line with a
preference for formalized rules and procedures, training should be presented to the
employees as a requirement that is part of the organization’s rule. For example, all
employees must have computer training once a year, i.e. it is a box to check off. This differs
from how training should be positioned in low uncertainty avoidance culture where
training is viewed as a means of advancement and increased job marketability, which
implies increased likelihood of a job change and increase uncertainty.
The distinction between level of personal recognition and sense of accomplishment is
significant and represents a new direction in cross-cultural research. Recognition is an
extrinsic reward as well as an important social interaction; sense of accomplishment is an
intrinsic reward and is likely strongly related to worker self-efficacy. Workers need both
types of rewards in order to feel satisfied with their jobs. As evidenced by our findings,
all cultures value accomplishment and recognition. However, level of personal recognition Cultural
received is more important in feminine cultures, whereas sense of accomplishment for a impact
job well done is more important in masculine cultures. This is an important finding
because of the strong implications for how human resource practices should be tailored in
order to optimally motivate individuals based on cultural differences. In masculine
cultures, where competition and individual performance is highly valued it is important
that employees be able to develop a feeling of accomplishment. In feminine cultures, on the 71
other hand, it is particularly important for employees to receive personal recognition,
such as social rewards and managerial praise. Recognition involves interaction with
others and is a social affirmation of one’s performance. Within feminine cultures, this
connectivity to others is an important facet to the value of the social connection of work.
Masculine cultures value competitiveness where personal accomplishment is
reinforcement of the “macho” stereotype of an individual being “the best”.
H7 was the only prediction not supported. There was no difference in how high power
distance cultures and low power distance cultures view perception of equal
opportunities in the workplace. It was posited that if an employee is accustomed to
experiencing social inequality in general, but experiences a perception of equality in the
workplace, they will be more likely to value that equality, which, in turn, will increase job
satisfaction. When looking at the results, perceptions of equality opportunity in
North America, Europe, and Latin America are significantly related to job satisfaction
and do not differ in terms of importance. Yet, in comparison to the other human resource
practices, they did not have the strongest relationship with overall job satisfaction. On
the other hand, in Asia, one’s perception of equal opportunity has a stronger relationship
with job satisfaction than in the other regions of the world, and, among all seven human
resource practices within Asia, perception of equal opportunity has one of the strongest
relationships with job satisfaction. We attribute this to the recently changing social
structure in China and other countries in Asia, which has received an enormous amount
of press. Within the last ten years, many Asian countries have seen the rise of a middle
class due to rapid economic growth. Social mobility as a result of education and new
wealth is more accepted (Goodman and Robinson, 1996). Asian organizations which
embrace this new social mobility and offer equal opportunities for advancement may
have more satisfied employees.

Contributions
The primary contribution of this study is the breadth of countries and cultures which
are included in the study. This is the only study on cross-cultural job satisfaction that
the authors know of which includes over 70,000 employees in the study, and represents
48 countries and four geographical regions giving greater weight to the significant
findings of this study. Although generalizations to specific countries should be made
cautiously, due to the number of physical locations of the multinational corporations
across three different industries this study does highlight the difference in employee
perceptions of human resource practices rooted in the value placed on these practice
based on differences in culture.

Implications
The implications for this study are significant for theory and practice. From a theoretical
perspective, this study furthers our understanding of how human resource practices
CCM impact job satisfaction differently across regional cultures. The degree to which the
21,1 seven human resource practices impact employee job satisfaction is not universal across
cultures. There are significant differences across cultures in the relative importance of
each of these human resource practices as relates to job satisfaction. Second, the findings
of the current study reinforce that a sense of achievement is universal and is a vital
component of work across all cultures.
72 The practical implication is that multinational organizations need to help managers
address employee needs with cultural sensitivity. The results of this study strongly
show that different human resource practices are valued differently for each culture,
and the successful manager will be able to recognize that one’s own culture is not
directly transferable to another culture in the workplace. Another implication for
organizations is that within a cultural context, both extrinsic rewards (recognition) and
intrinsic rewards (accomplishment) need to be incorporated into the organization’s
reward systems to increase employee motivation and employee job satisfaction.

Limitations
No research is without limitations including the current research. The largest limitation
of the current research is making generalizations from the macro-level (regional) to the
micro-level (individual). The authors recognize that culture even at a national level is an
aggregate measure of individual values and is not generalizable as the measure of each
individual’s perception of these cultural dimensions (Robinson, 1950; Leung and Bond,
1989). The authors recognize one of the large limitations of our study is that
generalizations about individual variations regarding perceptions of cultural
dimensions are not possible from our results (Lang et al., 1987; Leung and Bond,
1989). While the preference for a cross-cultural study would have been to evaluate
differences across countries, it was not possible due to the fact that in the dataset
available to the authors employees were identified by the region in which they worked.
On the other hand, one can argue that culture is, from a conceptual perspective, a macro
level construct that is ecologically not an individual level construct (Hofstede, 1980a;
House et al., 2004). Cultural dimensions as aggregate measures are not without value and
can be used as an appropriate measure at a macro level (Epstein, 1986). In addition,
regional cultural values have the advantage of being able to make cross-cultural
comparisons at a regional level and across cultural dimensions, consistent with how
multinational corporations tend to be managed. In this study, there is also the possibility
of common-method bias because of the self-report nature of the study. However, because
the survey was administered in different locations and at different points in time, the
threat is minimized.

Future research
One important direction for future research is to replicate these results with country level
values for the cultural dimensions. Future research also needs to examine how the social
changes in Asian countries, such as China and India, are changing the value systems
within the culture and how these changes in values directly relate to work. As the social
fabric of the Asian countries change, we as researchers have a unique opportunity to
study the relationship between cultural values and work values and how changes in
culture possibly lead to a change in work values. Another interesting direction for future
research would be to investigate achievement needs as they relate to organizational
rewards across different cultures. This study has shown that while achievement and Cultural
reward are an important determinant in job satisfaction, cultural differences exists in the impact
types of rewards which are important to employees.

References
Agarwal, S. (1993), “Influence of formalization on role stress, organizational commitment, and
work alienation of salespersons: a cross-national comparative study”, Journal of 73
International Business Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 715-735.
Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M. and Griffeth, R.W. (2003), “The role of perceived organizational support
and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 29, pp. 99-118.
Andolsek, D.M. and Stebe, J. (2004), “Multinational perspectives on work values and
commitment”, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 4, pp. 181-209.
Arrindell, W.A. and Veenhoven, R. (2002), “Feminine values and happy life-expectancy in
nations”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 33, pp. 803-813.
Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A. and Lo, S. (1999), “Role stressors, inter-role conflict, and well-being:
the moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed
parents in Hong Kong”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54, pp. 259-278.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Brown, S.P. and Peterson, R.A. (1993), “Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job
satisfaction: meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 30, pp. 63-77.
Burke, M.J. and Day, R.R. (1986), “A cumulative study of the effectiveness of managerial
training”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 232-245.
Burke, M.J., Chan-Serafin, S., Salvador, R., Smith, A. and Sarpy, S.A. (2008), “The role of national
culture and organizational climate in safety training effectiveness”, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 17, pp. 133-152.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A. and Ketchen, D. (2006), “How much do high performance work
practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 501-528.
Crozier, M. (1964), The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Dolan, S.L., Martin-Prius, A., Diez-Pinol, M., Martinez-Fierro, S. and Fernandez-Alles, M. (2004),
“Exploratory study of within-country differences in work and life values”, International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 42, pp. 157-180.
Dumblekar, V. (2010), “Interpersonal competitiveness: a study of simulation game participants’
behavior”, Paradigm, Vol. 14, pp. 1-15.
Eddleston, K.A., Veiga, J.F. and Powell, G.N. (2006), “Explaining sex differences in managerial
career satisfier preferences: the role of gender self-schema”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 91, pp. 437-445.
Eisenberger, R., Hungtington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational
support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 500-507.
Epstein, S. (1986), “Does aggregation produce spuriously high estimates of behavior stability?”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 1199-1210.
Ghemawat, P. (2007), “Managing differences”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85, pp. 58-68.
Goodman, D.S.G. and Robinson, R. (1996), The New Rich in Asia: Mobile Phones, McDonalds, and
a Middle Class Revolution, Routledge, New York, NY.
CCM Grzywacz, J.G., Arcury, T.A., Marin, A., Carillo, L., Burke, B., Coates, M.L. and Quandt, S.A.
(2007), “Work-family conflict: experiences and health implications among immigrant
21,1 Latinos”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, pp. 1119-1130.
Hannah, D.R. and Iverson, R.D. (2004), “Employment relationships in context: implications
for theory and practice”, in Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M., Shore, L.M., Taylor, M.S. and
Tetrick, L.E. (Eds), The Employment Relationship: Examining Psychological and
Contextual Perspectives, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 332-350.
74
Harrison, D.A., Newman, D.A. and Roth, P.L. (2006), “How important are job attitudes?
Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative outcomes and time sequences”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 49, pp. 305-325.
Hassan, Z., Dollard, M.F. and Winefield, A.H. (2010), “Work-family conflict in east vs Western
countries”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 17, p. 30.
Hassi, A., Storti, G. and Azennoud, A. (2011), “Corporate trainers’ credibility and cultural values:
evidence from Canada and Morocco”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 499-519.
Hofstede, G. (1980a), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,
Sage, London.
Hofstede, G. (1980b), “Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories apply
abroad?”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 5, pp. 42-63.
Hofstede, G. (1984), “The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 9, pp. 389-398.
Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London.
Hofstede, G. (n.d.), National Cultural Dimensions, available at: http: geert-hofstede.com/national-
culture.html (accessed 2011).
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds) (2004),
Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Huang, X. and Van de Vliert, E. (2006), “Job formalization and cultural individualism as barriers
to trust in management”, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 6,
pp. 221-242.
Huselid, M.A. (1995), “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 38, pp. 635-672.
Jakofsky, E.F. and Slocum, J.W. Jr (1988), “CEO roles across cultures”, The Executive Effect:
Concepts and Methods for Studying Top Managers, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Joplin, J.R.W., Shaffer, M.A., Francesco, A.M. and Lau, T. (2003), “The macro-environment and
work-family conflict”, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 3,
pp. 305-328.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E. and Patton, G.K. (2001), “The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 127, pp. 376-407.
Kirkman, B.I. and Shapiro, D.L. (2001), “The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and
organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: the mediating role of employee
resistance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, pp. 557-589.
Kooij, D.T.A.M., Jansen, P.G.W., Dikkers, J.S.E. and De Lange, A.H. (2010), “The influence of age
on the associations between HR practices and both affective commitment and job
satisfaction: a meta analyses”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 1111-1136.
Korabik, K., Lero, D. and Ayman, R. (2003), “A multi-level approach to cross-cultural Cultural
work-family research: a micro- and macro-level perspective”, International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 3, pp. 289-303. impact
Lang, J.R., Dollinger, M.J. and Marino, K.E. (1987), “Aggregation bias in strategic decision
making research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 13, pp. 689-702.
Leung, K. and Bond, M.H. (1989), “On the empirical identification of cross-cultural comparisons”,
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 133-151. 75
Loh, J., Restubog, S.L.D. and Gallois, C. (2010), “Attitudinal outcomes of boundary permeability”,
Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 17, p. 118.
Maslow, A.H. (1943), “A theory of human motivation”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 50, pp. 370-396.
Menon, S.T. (2004), “Introduction to ISSWOV special section: culture’s consequences for 21st century
research and practice”, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 4, pp. 135-140.
Nagy, M.S. (2002), “Using a single-item measure approach to measure facet job satisfaction”,
Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 77-86.
Neeley, T.B., Leonardi, P.M. and Gerber, E.M. (2011), “It’s not nagging: why persistent,
redundant communication works”, Harvard Business School Working Knowledge
Newsletter.
Pan, Y., Song, X., Goldschmidt, A. and French, W. (2010), “A cross-cultural investigation of work
values among young executives in China and the USA”, Cross Cultural Management,
Vol. 17, p. 283.
Peretz, H. and Rosenblatt, Z. (2011), “The role of societal cultural practices in organizational
investment in training: a comparative study in 21 countries”, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 42, p. 817.
Riketta, M. (2002), “Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance:
a meta-analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 257-266.
Riketta, M. (2008), “The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: a meta-analysis
of panel studies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93, pp. 472-481.
Robinson, W.S. (1950), “Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals”,
American Sociological Review, Vol. 15, pp. 351-357.
Sackmann, S.A. and Phillips, M.E. (2004), “Contextual influences on culture research”,
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 4, pp. 370-390.
Schuler, R. and Rogovsky, N. (1998), “Understanding compensation practice variations across
firms: the impact of national culture”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 29,
pp. 159-177.
Schwartz, S.H. and Bardi, A. (2001), “Value hierarchies across cultures: taking a similarities
perspective”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 268-290.
Shackleton, V.J. and Ali, A.H. (1990), “Work-related values of managers: a test of the Hofstede
model”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 109-119.
Spector, P.E., Cooper, C.L., Poelmans, S. and Allen, T.D. (2004), “A cross-national comparative
study of work-family stressors, working hours, and well-being: China and Latin America
versus the Anglo world”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57, pp. 119-142.
Sriussadaporn, R. (2006), “Managing international business communication problems at work:
a pilot study in foreign companies in Thailand”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 13, p. 330.
Tett, R.P. and Meyer, J.P. (1993), “Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention, and turnover: path analysis based on meta-analytic findings”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 259-293.
CCM Thein, H.H., Auste, S., Currie, J. and Lewin, E. (2010), “The impact of cultural context on the
perception of work-family balance by professional women in Singapore and Hong Kong”,
21,1 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 10, pp. 303-320.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1997), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding
Cultural Diversity in Business, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.
Varela, O.E., Salgado, E.I. and Lasio, M.V. (2010), “The meaning of job performance in collectivistic
76 and high power distance cultures”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 17, p. 407.
Wanous, J.P. and Hudy, M.J. (2001), “Single-item reliability: a replication and extension”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4, pp. 361-375.
Wood, S. and de Menezes, L. (1998), “High commitment management in the UK: evidence from
the WIRS and EMSPS”, Human Relations, Vol. 51, pp. 485-515.
Yang, N., Chen, C., Choi, J. and Zou, Y. (2000), “Sources of work-family conflict: a sino-US
comparison of the effects of work and family demands”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 43, pp. 113-123.

Further reading
Burke, M.J., Salvador, R., Smith-Crowe, K., Chan-Serafin, S., Smith, A.N. and Sonesh, S.C. (2011),
“The dread factor: how hazards and safety training influence learning and performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96, pp. 46-70.
Chiang, C.F., Back, K.J. and Canter, D.D. (2005), “The impact of employee training on job
satisfaction and intention to stay in the hotel industry”, Journal of Human Resources in
Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 4, pp. 99-118.
Grove, C.N. (2005), Introduction to the GLOBE Research Project on Leadership Worldwide,
available at: www.grovewell.com/pub-GLOBE-intro.html (accessed 2011).
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (2010), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the
Mind, Revised and expanded 3rd edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Newman, K.L. and Nollen, S.D. (1996), “Culture and congruence: the fit between management
practices and national culture”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 27, pp. 753-779.

Appendix 1. Countries included in the study by region

Asia
China
Hong Kong
India
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
Malaysia
Philippines
Singapore
Taiwan
Thailand
Vietnam
North America Cultural
Canada impact
USA
Latin America
Argentina
Brazil 77
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Ecuador
Mexico
Peru
Uruguay
Venezuela
Europe
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Eire
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Italy
Luxembourg
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
The Netherlands
Turkey
UK
CCM Appendix 2
21,1
Power Individualism/ Uncertainty
distance collectivism Masculinity avoidance

78 Argentina 49 46 56 86
Austria 11 55 79 70
Belgium 65 75 54 94
Brazil 69 38 49 76
Bulgaria 70 30 40 85
Canada 39 80 52 48
Chile 63 23 28 86
China 80 20 66 30
Columbia 67 13 64 80
Costa Rica 35 15 21 86
Czech Republic 57 58 57 74
Denmark 18 74 16 23
Ecuador 78 8 63 67
Eire 28 70 68 35
Finland 33 63 26 59
France 68 71 43 86
Germany 35 67 66 65
Greece 60 35 57 112
Hong Kong 68 25 57 29
Hungary 46 80 88 82
India 77 48 56 40
Indonesia 78 14 46 48
Italy 50 76 70 75
Japan 54 46 95 92
Korea 60 18 39 85
Luxembourg 40 60 50 70
Malaysia 104 26 50 36
Mexico 81 30 69 82
Norway 31 69 8 50
Peru 64 16 42 87
Philippines 94 32 64 44
Poland 68 60 64 93
Portugal 63 27 31 104
Romania 90 30 42 90
Russia 93 39 36 95
Singapore 74 20 48 8
Spain 57 51 42 86
Sweden 31 71 5 29
Switzerland 34 68 70 58
Taiwan 58 17 45 69
Thailand 64 20 34 64
The Netherlands 38 80 14 58
Turkey 66 37 45 85
UK 35 89 66 35
Uruguay 61 36 38 100
Table AI. USA 40 91 62 46
Hofstede’s cultural values Venezuela 81 12 73 76
for countries in the study Vietnam 70 20 40 30
Appendix 3 Cultural
impact
Weighted values by regiona
Individualism/ Masculinity/ Uncertainty
Power distance collectivism femininity avoidance
Asia 79 27 50 40
North America 40 90 61 46 79
Europe 41 76 47 52
Latin America 74 32 61 80
Categorized by high/low
High Low
Power distance Asia Latin America Europe North America
79 74 41 40
Individualism/ North America Europe Latin America Asia
collectivism
90 76 32 27
Masculinity/femininity North America Latin America Asia Europe
61 61 50 47
Uncertainty avoidance Latin America Europe North America Asia
80 52 46 40
Note: aValues are weighted averages calculated by multiplying the number of employees in each Table AII.
country by the country’s cultural dimension score and dividing by total number of employees in that Hofstede’s cultural
region dimensions

Corresponding author
Jeanine Karin Andreassi can be contacted at: andreassij@sacredheart.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats