Search results

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 chapter bridges the gap between two distinct approaches to the concept of psychic distance – measuring it in terms of people’s perceptions of distance or in terms of exogenous national-level differences. The two approaches are reconciled in a “refined and integrative” definition of the concept, which is tested empirically using a mediating model.

Structural equation modeling is used on a bilateral sample of 25 countries to test whether perceptions of psychic distance mediate the relationships between national-level differences and bilateral trade and investment.

By testing for alternative direct paths, the chapter confirms that for the main forms of national-level differences, culture, socioeconomic development, language, and religion, psychic distance fully mediates their relationships with both trade flows and investment patterns. However, for geographic distance, while the relationship is fully mediated for investment, it is only partially mediated for exports. Two asymmetric “distance-bridging” factors are also found to be significant antecedents of psychic distance.

This chapter is the first to empirically demonstrate the mediating relationship between exogenous national-level differences and perceptions of psychic distance, and thus, provides new insights into the debate over which measurement approach is more appropriate. Perceptions of psychic distance, even if measured by expert panels rather than the actual decision-makers, fully capture the impact of national-level differences on trade and FDI flows; however, if such measures of perceptions are not available, a simple selection of four national-level differences will still capture 80% of the same effect.

International construction joint ventures (ICJVs) have been widely used as a temporary arrangement in many projects all over the world, especially in megaprojects. Within ICJVs, the national culture difference between partners affects their cooperation significantly. However, prior research has provided contradictory empirical evidence regarding these impacts. To address this problem, the purpose of this paper is to introduce cultural intelligence that judges an individual’s capability to function and manage effectively in culturally diverse settings as a moderating variable.

Multiple regression analysis and moderated multiple regression were undertaken to test proposed hypotheses. A questionnaire survey was conducted with international construction practitioners who had experiences of managing or participating in ICJVs.

The result of multiple regression analysis revealed that difference in national culture has significant negative effects on information exchange, shared problem solving and flexibility when asking for changes, thus effecting cooperation within ICJVs. Meanwhile, cultural intelligence of members can weaken these negative influences.

First, given that national culture difference affects negatively on the cooperation within ICJVs, it needs to be regarded as one of vital resources of risk which should be prevented and managed when attending ICJVs; Second, managers should build a series of mutually agreeable regulations and rules to lessen the negative effect of national culture difference; Third, it is recommended that ICJV management teams contain as many work-experienced members as possible and members within ICJVs, especially new staff, receive cross-cultural training termly to facilitate the cooperation between partners.

This research reveals the moderating effects of cultural intelligence on the relationship between national culture difference and cooperation in ICJVs as well as provides practical implications for ICJV managers to deal with national culture difference and reduce its negative impact on cooperation within ICJVs.

Intercultural interactions, in domains such as civil aviation and international peacekeeping, expand awareness of national differences in cognition. At the same time, experience with national differences in natural settings provides a more complex picture of cognition. The Cultural Lens Model captures the nature and origin of the cognitive differences. This paper reviews cognitive dimensions that vary over national groups. It uses the Cultural Lens Model to describe the implications of these cognitive differences for five intercultural challenges: problem definition, planning, coordination, prediction, and training. Finally, the paper suggests mechanisms for increasing international effectiveness in the face of cognitive differences.

It is often believed that the type of religion that a group of people follow (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.) can account for significant and important cultural differences, with implications for business ethics, corporate and social responsibility, and other business-related variables. The alternative view is that the cultural differences between religions are either trivial or are actually misinterpreted ethnic or national differences. The purpose of this paper is to compare and evaluate these two views.

The authors focus on Africa, the most religious region of the world, whose cultures should therefore be especially susceptible to the effect of religion. We used latest data from 100 religious groups, following 19 religions, and living in 27 countries, from the nationally representative Afrobarometer. The items in the authors’ analysis reveal cultural ideologies concerning key cultural domains, such as inclusive–exclusive society (gender equality, homophobia and xenophobia), the role of government and the role of religion in politics. These domains are related to cultural conservatism versus modernization and have clear implications for management. The authors compare the group-level effect of belonging to a certain nation to the effect of belonging to a certain religion.

A hierarchical cluster analysis produced crystal-clear national clusters, with only one of the 100 religious groups systematically clustering outside its respective national cluster. The authors did not obtain a single cross-national cluster of coreligionists. Variation between nations was far greater than between religious groups and the latter was most often statistically insignificant. A comparison of Muslims with other religions revealed that Muslims are not generally more conservative, although they do have a marginally greater tendency to be less gender egalitarian. The authors conclude that the African national environments have a much stronger impact on cultural differences than do religions. The effect of the latter, compared to the former, is negligibly small and often insignificant. Thus, they find no evidence that religions can produce a powerful discriminant effect on some of the most important elements of culture.

Non-Abrahamic religions are poorly represented in Africa. Therefore, we could not assess their effect on culture. Nevertheless, it seems that attempts to explain cultural differences in values and ideologies in terms of religious differences are misguided, even in a cultural environment where religion is very strong.

The findings could help improve executive training in cross-cultural awareness, purging it from erroneous views on the origins of cultural differences. Managers should avoid simplistic explanations of the values and ideologies of their employees in terms of their religious affiliation.

Simplistic (yet very popular) explanations of culture as a function of type of religion should be avoided in society at large, too. The idea that different religions generate different cultures is not only dubious from a scientific perspective but also socially dangerous as it may lead to religious intolerance.

This is only the second study in the history of the whole cross-cultural field that provides a multinational and multidenominational comparison of the effect of nations versus religious denominations on culture.

1. Religions are often portrayed as sources of important cultural differences.

2. We compared differences in cultural modernization between religions and between nations in Africa.

3. Variation between 27 African countries dwarfed that between 100 religious groups.

4. Practically all religious groups yielded perfectly homogeneous national clusters.

5. We did not observe a single cluster of coreligionists from different countries.

6. We conclude that nations have a strong effect on cultural differences whereas religions have a minimal effect at best.

Religions are often portrayed as sources of important cultural differences.

We compared differences in cultural modernization between religions and between nations in Africa.

Variation between 27 African countries dwarfed that between 100 religious groups.

Practically all religious groups yielded perfectly homogeneous national clusters.

We did not observe a single cluster of coreligionists from different countries.

We conclude that nations have a strong effect on cultural differences whereas religions have a minimal effect at best.

The purpose of this paper is to test how national culture may help to explain cross-country differences in new service development (NSD) by comparing the impact of NSD success factors between Mexico and Sweden.

Eight hypotheses based on prior literature on NSD and national culture were tested using covariance-based structural equation modeling and survey data from 210 Mexican and 173 Swedish firms.

Launch proficiency and customer interaction had a positive impact on NSD performance with no difference between the two cultures. NSD process formalization did not have clear positive impact on NSD performance but had a statistically significantly stronger impact in the structured culture (Mexico). Team empowerment affected NSD performance positively, but the difference between cultures was non-significant.

The impact of national culture depends on the type of NSD success factor. Some factors are unaffected by the cultural context, while factors congruent with the national culture enhance performance. Factors incongruent with national culture may even hurt NSD performance.

When choosing priorities in NSD improvement, managers need to consider the national culture environment.

Paper directly tests how national culture moderates NSD performance using primary data. Findings suggest that the effects of NSD success factors are contingent on congruence with national culture.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a quantitative integration of the existing empirical body of literature on culture and acquisition performance.

The study is based on a meta-analytical approach that synthesizes 189 effect sizes from 24 independent samples with a total sample size of n=5,496 acquisitions.

This meta-analytical study found a consistently negative and significant relationship between organizational cultural differences and acquisition performance, and a dual effect of national cultural differences (i.e. cultural distance) on acquisition performance. It further identified significant methodological and contextual moderators and discusses the implications for acquisitions in emerging markets.

Due to the nature of meta-analyses, this study is based on existing (i.e. available secondary) data. Future research may collect novel, primary data to further test the conceptual model and respective relationships developed therein.

This study sheds light onto the culture-based performance determinants of acquisitions and the effects of methodological and contextual moderator variables. Given the significant importance of acquisitions across organizational and national cultures, the findings may inform business practitioners when developing sustainable strategies to successfully integrate organizations that are culturally different and/or are located in culturally diverse environments.

A better understanding about the culture-based performance determinants of acquisitions may inform public policy makers about how to regulate and set incentives for acquisitions, which constitute a main vehicle through which firms undertake foreign direct investment, and which can be considered a global sustainable growth strategy for multinational corporations and entire economies.

This paper is original in that it provides a large-scale and in-depth quantitative integration and synthesis of the empirical literature on culture and acquisition performance based on a meta-analytical approach and so has important theoretical value and empirical implications for future emerging market research.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the effects of diffusional pressures as they relate to organizational performance (OP) across public, private, and not-for-profit sectors in two different national contexts.

A review is conducted of institutional forces in the environment of two nations; one highly developed and the other developing to identify isomorphic pressures in each of the countries. An organizational performance assessment (OPA) tool is used to analyze the differences in the performance of the three sectors in the two national contexts identified. The research relies on Pearson correlation, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and MANCOVA statistical applications to validate the assessment instrument and shed light on differences across nations and sectors that can be attributed to organizational diffusion as a result of institutional pressures that exist in the countries in which the organizations are embedded.

The findings indicate there is greater need to adapt to local ways of doing things when working cross-nationally within developing countries than with those that are developed where management practices are more alike than dissimilar. The results of the study suggest that when managing organizations cross-nationally, in the more developed nations organizations will perform more effectively and more alike than when working with organizations in less developed countries where the conditions for the diffusion of organizational practices are weaker.

The research focussed on two countries for comparative purposes. Due to sampling limitations, the findings are more relevant to the sectors the authors studied within countries than between the countries per se. It is recommended further research be conducted using larger samples across many national cultures. While relying on broad societal institutional dynamics, the study design does not permit the analysis of the effects of specific contextual characteristics on OP. Such an undertaking is undoubtedly a “next step” that the authors recommend.

The extant literature finds that managing systems cross-nationally requires adaptation to local national contexts. Where there is less economic and technological development, less opportunity for free market competition (capitalism), educational opportunities, and shared standards from which the performance of organizations are judged, the more unlikely organizations will employ commonly applied management practices. A new tool is introduced that can be used to further research on OP cross-nationally.

The study provides empirical evidence to demonstrate that in nations where stronger diffusional pressures exist, fewer differences will be found among the performance of the three sectors. Additionally, the effectiveness of organizations in these national contexts will be greater. While research among the three sectors has identified performance differences, such differences are less likely to be discernible in developed nations due to isomorphic pressures. The study is especially relevant to those who manage global organizations cross-nationally. It introduces a new tool to measure OP across national boundaries.