Search results

This paper contains a meta-analysis of the psychological contract literature published in the last two decades. The aim of this paper was to investigate the moderating role of national culture in the individual-level relationships between psychological contract breach (PCB) and two important work outcomes, namely job performance (in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors) and turnover (actual and intended).

After an extensive literature search, 134 studies were found which matched the authors’ aim. The authors then incorporated national cultural scores based on the GLOBE study to include country-level scores to identify how the PCB relationships with these four outcomes vary across cultures.

The findings indicate that national cultural practices moderated the associations between PCB and the four outcomes, yet, no significant moderations for uncertainty avoidance practices.

While existing research has examined the impact of the breach on work outcomes such as job performance and turnover, there are few empirical studies that examine how national cultural practices influence the relationships between psychological contract breach and job performance and turnover. The authors address this need by investigating and creating a deeper insight into how cultural practices such as institutional collectivism, performance-orientation, power-distance, future orientation and gender egalitarianism moderate the relationships between PCB and job performance and turnover.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the direction of cultural distance in individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity affects bilateral foreign direct investment (FDI) activities.

Panel data that include bilateral FDI between 21 OECD countries, and for FDI from these OECD countries to 14 non‐OECD countries between 1980 and 2000 were used. In addition, hypotheses were tested by using Hofstede's cultural dimensions for FDI between 1980 and 1989 and then by applying the GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) cultural indices for FDI between 1990 and 2000.

It was found that difference in individualism between two countries encourages FDI while difference in power distance discourages FDI. In addition, based on Hofstede's cultural scores, the direction of cultural distance matters when a host and a source country differ in uncertainty avoidance and masculinity. However, the finding is mixed with the GLOBE cultural measures.

In this paper, the aggregation of human behavior theory is relied on to develop a theoretical framework. This type of analysis is valid as long as the companies involved are homogenous. Even if multi‐national companies are heterogeneous, the author believes that a bounded rationality is needed to add some discipline and substance to a more comprehensive but less structured analysis/experience at the individual or firm level.

The paper's findings indicate that a complementary relationship exists for FDI between collective and individualistic countries and difference in power distance discourages FDI. In addition, the direction of cultural distance matters for uncertainty avoidance and masculinity. Therefore, it is not always true that companies should shun countries that are culturally different from their home country when making FDI decisions.

The paper makes several contributions to the extant literature. First, the paper responds to the critique by Shenkar, by applying separate rather than the composite cultural distance in empirical research. Second, the paper suggests that cultural distance is not equal to cultural incongruence. Third, this paper is one of the first that uses a sample size that is similar to the number of countries in Hofstede's original study in 1980. Finally, in response to the stability criticism towards Hofstede's framework, this paper tests the cultural impact on FDI by applying both the Hofstede and GLOBE cultural scores.

This paper seeks to explore the relationship between the emotional intelligence (EI) and transformational leadership practices of academic leaders in Taiwan and the USA. It aims to investigate whether cross‐cultural differences exist in academic leaders' EI, leadership practices, and the relationship between them.

The study employs a casual‐comparative approach to draw cross‐cultural comparisons. Convenience samples of 50 academic leaders in Taiwan and 50 in the USA were selected as two comparison sample groups. Two instruments were selected to measure emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness.

Results of the correlational analyses indicate that Taiwanese participants' overall EI was found to be positively correlated in a statistically significant manner with all five areas of leadership practice. The US participants were found to have statistically significant positive relationships between overall emotional intelligence and all areas of leadership practice except Challenging the process, and Inspiring a shared vision. ANOVA results reveal that significant differences exist in distinct areas of EI and distinct areas of leadership practice as a function of cultural difference.

An important limitation of the present study is the probability of response bias resulting from self‐reported data.

The study has significance in three aspects. First, it investigates a less understood and explored issue: cross‐cultural differences in the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership practices. Second, findings of the study make contributions to the body of research in a number of related disciplines, such as leadership effectiveness, emotional intelligence, cross‐cultural research on leadership, and cross‐cultural studies of emotional intelligence. Third, the results of the study bring significant insights into the field of cross‐cultural leadership development in the academic context.

This study is a replication of Tosi and Greckhamer's work examining how uncertainty avoidance, power distance, individualism and masculinity/femininity are related to total CEO pay, the ratio of variable to total CEO pay and the ratio of CEO pay to the pay of the lowest level employees in 23 countries. Its main purpose is to investigate whether the replication confirms, questions or extends the results of TG2004.

Tosi and Greckhamer used generalized linear modeling (GLS) to analyze the relationships between Hofstede's four cultural dimensions and CEO compensation. In the replication, the author used GLS to retest the original seven hypotheses with more recent data from Hofstede and test the same hypotheses relying on cultural values and practices scores from the GLOBE study. Further, using firm-level data unavailable for the original study, the author analyzed fixed and random effects in mixed models.

The replication generally confirms the findings of the original study for the effects of power distance, individualism and masculinity on CEO total pay. Results are mixed or indicate the lack of significant effect for other relationships.

This study reexamines the effects of country-level contextual variables in the area of CEO compensation.

The replication presents firm-level CEO compensation and firm performance data from 21 countries, extending the original study and unveiling possible spurious effects.

It is generally recognized that multinational enterprises must take into account country differences in deciding the degree to which it makes sense to localize their human resource management (HRM) strategies and organization cultures to fit with the host country or rather standardize HRM strategies and organization cultures across countries. However, an important vein of academic work assumes that country differences, especially in national culture, are so important that management is “culturally dependent” (Hofstede, 1983) and that “national culture constrains variation in organization cultures” (Johns, 2006). I critically evaluate the logical and empirical evidence (including methodological issues regarding effect size) used to support such constraint arguments and conclude that the evidence is much weaker than widely believed. One implication then is that organizations may be less constrained by national culture differences in managing workforces in different countries than is often claimed. A second implication is that researchers may wish to re-think how they study such issues. I provide suggestions for future research.

This study sought to examine the relation of cultural practices and values with favoritism and nepotism/cronyism. Additionally, this study's purpose was also to examine how trust mediates the relation between culture and favoritism.

Correlations were used for exploratory investigation into the bivariate relations between culture and favoritism and nepotism/cronyism across 97 cultures. Hierarchical linear regression analyses were then conducted to examine the cultural correlates of favoritism and nepotism/cronyism holding all other variables constant. Lastly, partial least squares structural equation modeling was used to examine the mediating role of societal levels of trust.

Bivariate correlations showed that collectivism, familism, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance are positive correlates of both favoritism and nepotism/cronyism. Institutional collectivism, future orientation and trust, on the other hand, were negative correlates of favoritism and nepotism/cronyism. Uncertainty avoidance and trust were key correlates of favoritism while familism and future orientation were key correlates of nepotism/cronyism. Trust fully mediated the relation between culture and favoritism but did not mediate the relation between culture and nepotism/cronyism.

This study adds to the current body of literature on culture and favoritism. Notably, the findings regarding different key cultural correlates with respect to favoritism and nepotism/cronyism provide valuable implications for expanding our understanding of the psychological and social nuances of favoritism. Specifically, favoritism in transactions and interactions with those not bound by social commitment relationships may be explained by beliefs while interactions with those with social relationships (e.g., family and friends) may be explained by preferences.

The purpose of this paper is to broaden the national-level construct of managerial discretion and to investigate the effect of cultural practices on executive discretion.

Based on a sample of six Arabian countries and using a panel of prominent cross-cultural scholars who provided 262 discretion scores for the sample countries, the authors replicate and extend the national framework of Crossland and Hambrick (2011) in a new cultural context. The cultural dimensions were measured using survey responses of middle managers based on House et al.’s (2004) cultural practices scale.

The authors extend the national-level framework of managerial discretion and find that an encompassing array of cultural practices plays a crucial role in shaping the degree of discretion provided to CEOs. The authors empirically demonstrate that power distance, future and performance orientation, along with gender egalitarianism and assertiveness have positive relationships with managerial discretion. However, institutional collectivism, uncertainty avoidance and humane orientation negatively affect the degree of discretion provided to CEOs.

The study fills a gap in the literature regarding the national-level framework of managerial discretion. The results indicate that executives can take idiosyncratic and bold actions to the extent to which the cultural environment allows them to do so. Also, the authors discover new national-level antecedents of managerial discretion that have not been considered in earlier studies and confirm the context dependency of this concept.

The purpose of this paper is to critically examine, theoretically and empirically, the two time orientation dimensions – long‐term orientation (LTO) and future orientation (FO) – in the national culture models of Hofstede and GLOBE, respectively.

Following Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's past‐present‐future theoretical lens, the Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO measures are analysed to understand the conceptual domain covered by these two dimensions. Next, the authors empirically examine the relationship of Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO with secondary data from Hofstede, GLOBE, and the World Values Survey.

This paper shows that Hofstede LTO and GLOBE FO dimensions capture different aspects of time orientation of societies. In particular, Hofstede LTO focuses on past (tradition) versus future (thrift) aspect of societies, GLOBE FO practices capture the present versus future (planning) practices of societies, and GLOBE FO values reflect societal aspirations and preferences for planning.

A specific implication of these findings is that the three dimensions of time orientation are not interchangeable since they represent different characteristics of societies. A wider implication for researchers is to ensure high level of precision in and congruence among construct labels, definitions and measures to avoid confusion and misapplication of cross‐cultural concepts.

In an increasingly globalized world, a clear understanding of societal time orientation will help managers deal more effectively with their counterparts in other countries.

The key contribution of this paper is in identifying and clarifying, both theoretically and empirically, the anomalies in the labels, definitions and measurement of Hofstede long‐term orientation and GLOBE future orientation national culture dimensions. It also shows a useful way forward for researchers on how to use these national culture dimensions to explain other phenomena of interest to cross‐cultural scholars.