Cross Cultural Organizational Psychology

Cross-Level Moderator Effect

"Cross-level moderator effect" models wherein societal culture is expected to moderate relationships at the organizational and individual levels. For example, one might be interested in whether organizational cultures are more similar across societies within some industries (e.g., manufacturing) as compared to others (e.g., service) For example, research might address whether diversity in organizations is beneficial for organizational performance and how this relationship varies across societies. Research might address, for example, whether giving voice (an organizational justice practice) has similar effects on satisfaction in different societal cultures or whether working in teams similarly affects motivation across cultures.

How does Cross-Cultural Psychology Enhance I/O

Cross-cultural research expands the range of organizational behavior that we study (may find new and relevant constructs); it enables us to test the universality of our theories; it illuminates emic or culture-specific organizational phenomena; and it helps to reduce ethnocentrism and increase the effectiveness of intercultural interactions. (Triandis, 1994).

Cultural Descriptive Norms

Cultural Descriptive Norms, which fit the referent-shift compositional model described by Chan (1998). Descriptive norm models differ from additive and consensus models by using the culture, instead of the individual, as a referent when measuring values (e.g., People in this culture value X). Specifically, descriptive norms are measured by assessing individual perceptions of what is valued in the culture in general (i.e., subjective cultural press), and then averaging perceptions across members of a single culture. Like consensus models of culture, descriptive norm models of culture assume that perceptions of what is valued in a given society must be shared among members of that society in order for culture to be meaningful. Descriptive norm models are also comparatively rare, although the GLOBE study provides a notable exception (e.g., House et al., 1999).

Etic and Emic

universal or "etic" culture-specific or "emic" (Adamopoulos & Lonner, 1994). A perusal through the major texts or journals in organizational psychology reveals that it is rare when a theory or a finding is qualified by the notion that "we need to examine whether the theory applies to other cultural contexts." In this respect, we argue that the challenge for organizational science is not only in the low base-rates of cross-cultural research, but also in the assumption of universality of our theories. This often-unquestioned assumption limits the ultimate goal of our science: to be able to make generalizations to organizations and humankind.

Cross-Level Direct Effect

"cross-level direct effect" models that examine the direct effect of societal culture on organizations and individuals. Other research at this level of analysis might examine how societal culture affects human resource practices—selection and job analysis techniques, performance appraisal methods, and/or training methods—that are implemented in organizations. Research might also examine the indirect effect of societal culture on organizational outcomes, as mediated by cross-cultural differences in organizational culture and practices. Societal culture has a cross-level direct effect on the institutional context of organizations. Societal culture affects individual-level phenomena, such as cognitions, motives, or emotions

Single Level Effect

"single level" models that examine the macro antecedents and consequences of national culture. For example, one might examine how factors such as temperature, natural resources, population density, economic structure, or history of conflict between nations affect societal values, norms, or beliefs, or how societal values, norms, or beliefs affect societal crime rates, conformity, or innovation; see Gelfand et al., 2010). Likewise one might examine single level models of culture at the individual level using the psychological definitions of culture discussed above.

Findings from the Best Practices Project

(Von Glinow, Drost, & Teagarden, 2002) found wide cultural variability in the use of different selection criteria (Huo, Huang, & Napier, 2002). Applicant's ability to perform the technical requirements of the job is an important selection criterion in Australia, Canada, and the US, whereas it is much less important in Japan. Wide variation was found in the selection criteria of "having the right connections" (e.g., school, family, friends), with the most consideration given to these factors in Mexico and the least in Australia. Von Glinow and colleagues (2002) indicated that selection practices were remarkably similar among the Anglo countries, and that technical skill and work experience were the most important selection criteria. Selection criteria were also similar among Asian countries of Japan, Korea and Taiwan in which proven work experience was deemphasized. As a point of convergence, authors concluded that 'getting along with others' and 'fitting well with the corporate values' were criteria that became as important as technical competence in the majority of countries included in the study

Leader Effectiveness Perceptions Depend on Different Cultures

A strong voice with ups and downs was associated with the perception of enthusiasm in Latin American cultures, whereas a monotonous tone is a way to display respect and self-control in Oriental cultures (Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997).

How long did it take for cross-cultural research to become valued in IO?

About 100 years after the founding of the field... Even now, only 6.4% of articles in the field's top tier journals focus on cross-cultural issues explicitly

Communication style in negotiations differs by culture

A consistent finding is that information tends to be shared directly (e.g., through questions about preferences) in the individualistic, low context cultures, whereas it tends to be shared indirectly (through offer behavior) in high context, collectivistic cultures such as Japan, Russia, Hong Kong, and Brazil (Adair, Okumura, & Brett, 2001, Adair et al., 2004). U.S. negotiators achieve higher joint gains when they share information directly, whereas Japanese negotiators achieve higher joint gains when they share information indirectly (Adair et al., 2001). Collectivistic negotiators are shown to be more flexible in their use of different information exchange tactics, whereas individualistic negotiators are primarily skilled in direct information sharing (Adair & Brett, 2005; Adair et al., 2001).

Consequences of Organizational Commitment Vary By Culture

A meta-analysis by Jaramillo, Mulki, & Marshall (2005) found that organizational commitment is a more powerful predictor of job performance in nations scoring high on collectivism than those scoring high on individualism (but see Francesco & Chen, 2004, who found the opposite when examining values at the individual level in the Chinese context). Another meta-analysis (Meyer et al., 2002) found that affective commitment is more powerful predictor of job outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, withdrawal cognitions) in the U.S. By contrast, normative commitment was more important for job outcomes (e.g., work withdrawal, performance, OCBs) in studies outside of the U.S. Clugston, Howell, & Dorfman (2000) found that individual-level measures of power distance were related to normative commitment across multiple foci (e.g., organization, supervisor, and workgroup), power distance was related to continuance commitment across all foci, and collectivism was related to workgroup commitment, suggesting the need to move beyond simply the organization as the foci commitment in studies across cultures.

Social Validity

Perceived fairness and appropriateness of a selection method by applicants is as important as its ability to predict future performance, and they refer to it as 'social validity' (see also, Anderson & Witvliet, 2008).

Cross Cultural Variations in Referent Group Preferences

According to Bolino and Turnley (2008), cross-cultural variations in referent group preferences can be summarized in three ways. First, in high power distant cultures employees are unlikely to compare themselves with high level managers because it is acceptable that they have privileges due to their high status. Second, in individualistic cultures referent group are employees who are holding similar jobs and others with whom they share the most similarity. In collectivistic cultures employees are also concerned with the fair treatment of their in-groups (e.g., the team members in the work unit), and may be involved in comparisons between their groups and other groups in or outside of the organization. Compared to individualistic cultures, people in collectivistic cultures are more concerned with restoring equity to save the relationship (Allen, Takeda, & White, 2005; Fok, Hartman, Villere, & Freibert, 1996; Westman, Park, & Lee, 2007; Wheeler, 2002). It is also possible that in collectivistic cultures, people may resort to cognitive restoration of equity (i.e., thinking that the outcome must have been deserved for reasons that are not apparent to the individual), rather than taking an action to actually correct it, especially if there is a concern that taking any action would harm the relationship (Bolino & Turnley, 2008).

Anchoring Biases Across Cultures

Adair, Weingart, and Brett (2007) found that opening offers facilitate information exchange and increase joint gains for Japanese negotiators. The authors attributed the cross-cultural differences to divergence in communication styles. The U.S. negotiators accustomed to direct communication see opening offers as a signal of the opponent's strong position stand. In contrast, Japanese negotiators commonly use indirect methods of communication and see opening offers as a subtle way to engage in information exchange. Anchoring effects among Asian samples has also not been uniform. For example, Liu, Friedman, and Chi (2005) found that Chinese negotiators are more susceptible to the influence of others' first offers as compared to Americans.

Assumptions of Universality and Generalizability of our Research

Although universals exist, that starting with this assumption is not logically tenable. An assumption of universality can only be credible to the extent that the variables that we study are influenced by factors that are common to all human beings. This includes, for example, variables that are closely related to biological factors that are shared among humans. It could also include variables that are linked to common ecological pressures or exposure to similar social structures (Pepitone & Triandis, 1987). However, given that many of the variables studied in the field are not of this nature, it is not safe to assume that theories and research generalize across cultures. We would caution readers however that even assume that basic physiologically-based behaviors can be subject to wide cultural variation, as recent evidence in cultural neuroscience attests (Chiao, 2009).

Automatic Processing and Preference for Mediators in Disputes Differ Across cultures

America disputants who are high in need for closure prefer relationally unconnected mediators, whereas Chinese disputants who are high in NFC tend to seek relationally connected mediators, illustrating a positive relationship of NFC with conformity to cultural norms (Fu et al., 2007). Similarly, cultural differences have been found to be exacerbated in situations of high ambiguity which also tends to cause people to rely on automatic tendencies (Morris, Leung, & Iyengar, 2004).

Cross Cultural Difference in the Fundamental Attribution Error in Negotiations

Americans are more prone to the fundamental attribution error in negotiations; they tend to make more internal attributions to their counterparts behavior than negotiators in other cultures such as Korea and Hong Kong (Morris et al, 1999; Valenzuela, Srivastava, & Lee, 2005).

Anchoring in Negotiations

Anchoring is a classic bias identified by Tversky & Kahneman (1974) wherein individuals rely on irrelevant values (i.e., an "anchor") and fail to adjust their evaluations sufficiently in subsequent decision-making. Research has found that information provided prior to or at the beginning of negotiations has been found to influence negotiators' initial offers, aspiration levels, bottom lines, and estimates of opponent's bottom lines (Kristensen & Gärling, 1997; Whyte & Sebenius, 1997).

Cultural Differences in Goal Setting Theory

As a general principle, people who have strong achievement needs are more likely to be motivated by specific and challenging goals. However, people with strong affiliation needs (e.g., as is found in many collectivistic cultures) are less likely to be motivated by specific and challenging goals because such goals have the potential to increase competition in work place and also the possibility of failure, which will cause embarrassment and face loss. Kurman (2001) found that in collectivistic and high power distance cultures ensuring high performance by setting goals with moderate difficulty was more motivating than setting goals that are challenging. Punnett (2004) argued that "where people feel that they have little control over their environment, the idea of setting a specific target may seem foolish at best and possibly thought of as going against God's will" (p. 150).

Assessment Centers Across Cultures

Assessment center techniques (AC) are another popular tool in North America, but because cultural context determines the 'success criteria', its cross-cultural validity and utility is restricted (e.g., Briscoe, 1997; Dean, Roth, & Bobko, 2008). Depending on the cultural context, AC performance criteria and test contents must be modified. For instance, leaderless group discussion is less likely to work in high power distant cultures. Other situational exercises based on 'what would you do if' scenarios are difficult to analyze for Chinese applicants who are not used to think in hypothetical terms (Björkman & Lu, 1999a). Finally, while interviews are common in most cultural contexts (e.g., Ryan et al., 1999; Von Glinow et al., 2002), the way in which they are conducted (structured vs. unstructured) may be culture-specific (Huo et al., 2002).

Additive Culture

At a higher level of analysis, one can view culture through an additive model of personal values, which are assessed by measuring individual values (e.g., I value X) and calculating the value average across members of a given culture. In additive models of culture the mean of personal values is taken as an adequate representation of unit-level culture, regardless of the degree of variation in individual values within that culture. Many additive models of culture have been advanced (Bond et al., 2004; Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1992).

The first systematic review of cross cultural research in Org Psych

Barrett and Bass (1976) provided one of the first systematic reviews of cross-cultural research, and made (at least) two astute observations: First, cross-cultural research that was done was generally atheoretical, descriptive, and plagued with methodological problems. Second, they lamented that culture was largely ignored in mainstream organizational psychology, arguing that: "Most research in industrial and organizational psychology is done within one cultural context. This context puts constraints upon both our theories and our practical solutions to the organizational problems. Since we are seldom faced with a range and variation of our variables which adequately reflect the possibilities of human behavior, we tend to take a limited view of the field" (p. 1675).

Interesting Finding on Voice and Cross-Cultural Comparisons

Brockner and colleagues (2001) demonstrated that the benefits of voice were only found in cultures that had low power distance between supervisors and employees (i.e., the U.S.), as compared to high power distance cultures (i.e., China, Mexico, and Hong Kong). Similarly, research has shown that empowerment results in lower performance (Eylon & Au, 1999) and satisfaction (Robert, Probst, Martocchio, Drasgow, & Lawler, 2000) among individuals from high distance cultures.

In group/outgroup negotiation findings across cultures

Chan (1992) found that negotiators in collectivistic cultures (e.g., Hong Kong) were much more cooperative with friends and much more competitive with strangers, whereas individualists did not differentiate between strangers and friends as much (see also Chen & Li, 2005; Probst, Carnevale, & Triandis, 1999; Triandis et al., 2001). Triandis et al. (2001) also found that collectivists were much more likely to engage in deception with outgroups in negotiations as compared to individualists. Gelfand & Realo (1999) argued that accountability is a norm enforcement mechanism, essentially amplifying whatever norm is salient in a particular cultural contexts. Consistent with previous research that showed accountability related to competition, they found that accountability activated competitive construals and behaviors, and resulted in lower negotiation outcomes for individualistic samples. By contrast, among collectivists, accountability activated cooperative construals and behaviors, and resulted in higher negotiation outcomes. In unaccountable conditions, collectivists were more competitive and achieved lower negotiation outcomes, as compared to individualists, who were more cooperative and achieved higher negotiation outcomes (see also Rosette, Brett, Barsness, and Lytle (2006) who found that Hong Kong Chinese were more aggressive in lean media such as email where there is less constraint as compared to face to face negotiations).

Charisma Takes on a Different Interpretation Across Cultures

Charisma is one of the attributes of effective leaders. In individualistic cultures leaders were perceived charismatic when they fit the prototype of 'good' and 'effective' leader, whereas in collectivistic cultures they were perceived charismatic when they produced high performance outcomes (Ensari & Murphy, 2003; see also, Valikangas & Okumura, 1997)

Consensus culture

Consensus culture, which is based on the direct consensus compositional model described by Chan (1998), by contrast, conceptualizes culture as aggregate of individuals in cultures where values are shared. Like additive culture, consensus culture is measured by assessing individual values (e.g., I value X) and aggregating them to the unit level, though in this case, aggregation statistics are typically utilized to justify that constructs are shared (e.g., rwg )

Cultural Influences on Perceptions of working in a team are moderated by things

Chen, Brockner, & Katz (1998) showed that Americans have particularly negative attitudes toward teams when they perform well individually but their teams perform poorly. Erez & Somach (1996) found that individualists samples performed quite poorly when only given a "do your best goal" for their team (perhaps suggesting a diffusion of responsibility), whereas collectivistic samples in Israel experienced fewer group performance losses regardless of the type of group goal. Individualists might also feel more obligated to teams when they feel they have high pay equity (pay related to individual performance) yet collectivists felt less obligated under these conditions (Ramamoorthy & Flood, 2002). Taiwanese had more negative attitudes when teams had a highly fluid, changing membership as compared to Australians, in part due to differences in the perceived importance of maintaining relationships in groups (Harrison, McKinnon, Wu, & Chow, 2000).

Organizational Commitment Across Cultures

Cheng & Stockdale (2003) and Chen & Francesco (2003) found that the three factor model of commitment (normative, affective, and continuance) was not optimal in Chinese samples, and others have questioned the validity of existing commitment scales in Korea (Ko, Price, & Mueller, 1997; Lee, Allen, Meyer, & Rhee, 2001. On the one hand, Lee et al. (2001) argued that if one adopts general items that minimize differences in translation problems, factor structures are similar in Korea. Others, however, have shown that it is important to develop "emic" or culture-specific items for organizational commitment in the Turkish context (see Wasti, 1999). This research suggests caution in simply importing translated measures of existing organizational commitment across cultures. Wasti (2003) similarly found that satisfaction with work and promotions were the strongest predictors of organizational commitment among individualists, whereas satisfaction with supervisor was an important predictor of organizational commitment among collectivists. Other studies have shown the importance of examining emic predictors of commitment. In the Turkish context, Wasti (1999) found that ingroup opinions about the organization were strongly linked to continuance commitment, particularly among individuals who emphasized collectivistic values.

Interviews in Collectivist Cultures

Collectivistic countries in Europe are more likely to use one-on-one interviews to select employees (e.g., in Spain 92 %, in Portugal 91 %, in Italy 77 %, in Greece 74 % of organizations) as compared to less collectivistic cultures (e.g., Norway 21.4 %, in Denmark: 30.6 %, in UK 43 % or organizations; Parry et al., 2006). In Korea several executives participate in the interviews to personally assess applicants' personality with respect to working in harmony, having a sound moral character, and possessing the potential to become part of the team (Hak-Chong, 1998).

Cultural frog ponds

Cultural frog ponds (Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994) are also potential individual-level conceptualizations of culture, wherein individual values, attitudes and beliefs are seen in comparison to the mean levels of such constructs in the members of the culture. Such effects are particularly relevant when one is interested in whether the congruence of one's own values with the dominant values predicts organizational phenomena. Van Vianen, Feij, Krausz, & Taris (2004) found that Schwartz's cultural value of self-transcendence predicted work adjustment and interaction adjustment when operationalized as the congruence between an expatriate's values and the perceived normative values of the host country (see Gelfand et al., 2008, for further discussion).

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation Perceptions Affect Manager's Ratings Differently Across Cultures

DeVoe and Iyengar (2004) examined the relationship between managerial perceptions of employee motivation and their evaluation of employee performance. North American managers assigned high performance evaluation scores to those employees who they believed to be intrinsically motivated, whereas Asian managers assigned high scores to those who they believed to be both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated. North American managers positively evaluated those who stand out for their uniqueness (i.e., working mainly for intrinsic reasons), whereas Asian managers valued conformity to the norm and did not punish employees who were like others (i.e., working for extrinsic reasons).

Leader Prototypes Differ Depending on Leader Level

Den Hartog, House and colleagues (1999) further reported variations in leadership prototypes according to the hierarchical position of the leader. For example, being innovative, visionary, persuasive, long-term oriented, diplomatic and courageous were considered to be more important for higher compared to lower managerial positions. Attributes of lower-level managers included attention to subordinates, team building and participation.

Culture and Social Loafing

Earley (1989) demonstrated that social loafing occurred more in individualistic samples (Americans) as compared to collectivistic samples (Chinese). In a later study, Earley (1993) showed that social loafing was a function of both culture and situational conditions, particularly when people were working alone versus working with ingroup members versus working with outgroup members. Interestingly, individualists performed much better when working alone as compared to when they worked in groups (whether with ingroups or outgroups). By contrast, collectivists performed much worse when they worked alone or in outgroups, and performed the best when working with ingroup members. Gibson (1999) found that when collectivism in teams was high, group efficacy was more strongly related to group effectiveness (see also Katz & Erez, 2005). Earley (1999) also showed that what contributes to efficacy judgments in teams can vary dramatically across cultures. For example, in high power distance cultures, group efficacy judgments were more strongly tied to higher rather than lower status group judgments, whereas in low power distance cultures, members contributed equally to collective efficacy judgments

Equity Theory and Cross Cultural Research

Early studies asserted that equity principle in distributing rewards had limited motivating utility in non-US contexts (e.g., Gergen, Morse & Gergen, 1980), and that employees had a tendency to prefer equality and need principles more than they did equity principle (e.g., Chen, 1995). However, studies in recent years yielded mixed results. A meta-analysis by Sama and Papamarcos (2000) suggested that equity was preferred by employees in individualistic cultures, whereas equality was preferred by those in collectivistic cultures, especially towards in-group members. However, the meta-analysis by Fischer and Smith (2003) demonstrated that individualism and collectivism were not related to reward allocation preference. Power distance was shown to be more important than individualism-collectivism to predict individuals' preferences of equity over equality (Fey, 2005; Fischer & Smith, 2003). Equity is preferred in high power distance cultures, whereas equality is preferred in low power distance cultures. Fischer & Smith (2003) also found that Hofstede's masculinity dimension was correlated strongly with the preference of equity, while femininity was correlated strongly with the preference for equality.

Team Behaviors Across Culture

Eby & Dobbins (1997) found that teams with a high percentage of collectivistic members exhibited higher levels of cooperation, which in turn was related to higher performance (see also Oetzel, 1998). Chen, Chen, & Meindl (1998) theorized instrumental factors such as high goal interdependence, enhancement of personal identity, and cognitive-based trust fosters cooperation in individualistic cultures, whereas in collectivistic cultures, socio-emotional factors such as goal sharing, enhancement of group identity, and affect-based trust fosters cooperation in collectivistic cultures.

Effects of Social Network Related Recruiting in Other Cultures

Employees recruited through personal contacts are perceived to be more likely to stay loyal and committed to the organization (cf. Bian & Ang, 1997; Wasti, 2000). The use of social networks is also useful for assessing the perceived 'personal' fit with the organizations (Hak-Chong, 1998). For those organizations, good interpersonal relationships, ascribed status and socio-political connections are more important than individual merit and credentials (Budhwar & Khatri, 2001) Internal recruitment and promotions may be preferred to ensure and reward loyalty to the organization in cultures that are high in collectivism and power distance (e.g., Björkman & Lu, 1999; Budhwar & Khatri, 2001). It is difficult for externally recruited employees to get into strong social networks in collectivistic cultures and cope with the resentment and resistance caused by their appointment especially if an internal candidate has been supported for a managerial position.

Evaluation Criteria in Promotions Across Cultures

Evans (1993) reports that 'seniority' is the most important promotion criterion followed by performance in Japanese enterprises. This not only reflects the collectivistic nature of the Japanese culture (i.e., honoring and rewarding the commitment to the organization - in-group - for many years). However, Japanese organizations face the tension between seniority and merit in promotion decisions (Shadur, Rodwell, & Bamber, 1995). In China the most important promotion criteria are loyalty to the Party (or the government or the organization), good interpersonal relationships, hard working, and good moral practices (Easterby-Smith, Malina, & Yuan, 1995)

Dispersion

Finally, consistent with Chan's (1998) compositional model terminology, one might examine dispersion in subjective culture at the unit level as a meaningful conceptualization of culture. Culture as dispersion departs from the three other forms of unit level culture in that dispersion models define culture as variance instead of central tendency. Dispersion models of culture can be grounded in either personal values (e.g., I value X) or subjective cultural press (e.g., People in this culture value X) and can be measured as the variance or standard deviation of the individual variable of interest. Cross-cultural researchers generally have not taken a dispersion approach to culture, though this is a promising area for research (Gelfand, Smith Major, Raver, Kishii, & O'Brien, 2006).

Need-based allocation across culture

Fischer (2004) reported cross-cultural differences in the need-based allocation of rewards and resources. People had a preference for need-based distribution in conditions of high unemployment and high collectivism.

Cultural Differences in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

For example, Hofstede (1983) argued that Maslow's hierarchy also reflects low uncertainty avoidance. In cultures with high uncertainty avoidance, employees are more strongly motivated by satisfying safety and security needs than self-actualization needs. For example, Blunt and Jones (1992) observed that African managers placed higher importance on security than higher-order needs. Adigun & Stephenson (1992) also found that Nigerian workers were motivated by satisfaction of lower-order needs (e.g., pay, fringe benefits, working conditions), whereas British workers were motivated by satisfaction of higher-order need (e.g., achievement, interesting work, recognition).

Culture may influence how jobs are described and defined

For example, in highly individualistic cultures, jobs are defined in specific terms to highlight unique characteristics of each job and individual accountabilities of each job incumbent. In collectivistic cultures jobs are defined for teams or work groups: individual accountabilities are blurred and emphasis is placed on within-job activities among team members (e.g., Kashima & Callan, 1994; Sanchez & Levine, 1999). In high uncertainty avoiding cultures, jobs are defined in specific rather than broad terms to reduce role ambiguities (Wong & Birnbaum-More, 1994). Moreover, in cultures that avoid uncertainties, risks and change, job definitions are detailed, narrow, and fixed In cultures that promote flexibility and change job definitions are broad, flexible and dynamic (Aycan, 2005). In diffuse, rather than specific cultural contexts job boundaries are more likely to be permeable (Aycan, 2005). By contrast, in high power distance cultures, jobs are defined in broader terms, so that superiors have more latitude to ask employees to do a variety of different jobs not written in their job descriptions. In high power distant cultures there is heavy reliance on supervisory guidance in performing jobs and this may reduce the necessity to have specific job descriptions.

Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Across Cultures

Furnham and colleagues (1994) Participants from Americas (e.g., Argentina, Mexico, Chile, USA) placed high importance to mastery, hard work and savings, whereas those from Asian / Eastern countries (e.g., Bangladesh, China, India, Israel) on competitiveness and money. The authors explain these differences by culture as well as level of economic development of countries (see also Adigun & Stephenson, 1991). Huang and Van de Vliert (2003) found that in collectivistic and high power distant cultures intrinsic job characteristics (e.g., challenge, recognition, autonomy, feedback) were less closely related to job satisfaction than they were with extrinsic job characteristics (e.g., pay, job security, working conditions). However, other studies reported the importance of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors for work motivation and job satisfaction (e.g., Aycan & Fikret-Pasa, 2003).

Expectancy Theory Across Cultures

Geiger and colleagues (1998) tested components of expectancy theory in ten cultures: Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Oman, Singapore and the US. They found that individualism and long-term orientation (i.e., importance of planning) were positively associated with expectancy beliefs, whereas power distance and uncertainty avoidance orientation were negatively associated expectancy beliefs. Emery and Oertel (2006) found that there was a strong correlation between German employees' belief that it was possible to perform well if they exerted effort (i.e., expectancy) and if they work closely with their supervisor. German employees, coming from a high power distant culture, believe that effort would lead to performance when they had close working relationships with their supervisors.

Cross Cultural Differences in the fixed pie bias

Gelfand & Christakopoulou (1999) found that American negotiators had much more fixed pie perceptions (were less accurate in reporting the priorities of their counterparts) as compared to their Greek counterparts, even after the same priority information was exchanged within dyads. Americans, interestingly, were more (over)confident that they understood their counterparts' interests as compared to Greeks.

Research on Accountability and Different Cultures

Gelfand & Realo (1999) argued that accountability is a norm-enforcement mechanism and would produce behavior that is normative in any particular cultural context. Consistent with this, they showed that accountability produced cooperative behavior among collectivists but competitive behavior among individualists. Moreover, unaccountability (when individuals are released from norms) produced cooperative behavior among individualists but competitive behavior among collectivists

The meaning of conflict can vary across cultures

Gelfand et al. (2001) showed that while individuals in both the U.S. and Japan viewed conflicts in terms of whether they were about mutual blame (cooperation) or unilateral blame (competition), that there were culture-specific dimensions through which they perceived identical conflict episodes. For example, Americans perceived more findings to be about winning (with one party to blame) and Japanese perceived the identical conflicts to be more about compromise (with both parties to blame). Americans also perceived conflicts to be concerned with individual rights and autonomy, whereas Japanese perceived the same conflicts to be concerned with violations of duties and obligations.

Unit Measures of Objective Culture

Global Culture, which include objective artifacts, cultural practices, and behavioral patterns (e.g., Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Triandis, 1972). Because they represent the culture in its entirety, these measures are unit-level definitions of culture. One major advantage of objective measures of culture is that they are not grounded in the perceptions of individuals. Thus, factors that may bias response on surveys that measure cultural values (e.g., halo or central tendency rating biases) are less problematic. On the other hand, measures of objective culture are not free from human biases and a given artifact may have more than one cultural interpretation Miyamoto, Nisbett, & Masuda (2006) coded street scenes from the US and Japan in order to study cultural differences. Likewise, Levine & Norenzayan (1999) used walking speed, the speed at which postal workers complete a task, and the accuracy of public clocks to assess pace of life across cultures.

Culture Moderates the Impact of Job Satisfaction on Withdrawal and does not always relate as strongly to turn over in other countries

Growing evidence shows that culture moderates the impact of job satisfaction on withdrawal behaviors; a stronger relationship exists in individualistic cultures as compared to collectivistic cultures (Posthuma, Joplin, & Maetz, 2005; Thomas & Au, 2002; Thomas & Pekerti, 2003). Chiu & Kosinski (1999) similarly noted that while Chinese experienced less job satisfaction than did Westerners, they complained less about it and accepted the situation as it was. Ramesh & Gelfand (2010) found that turnover in India was predicted by employees' links and their fit with the organization, whereas turnover in the U.S. was more highly predicted by one's perception that one's skills matched those of the job. In all, while the nature, antecedents, and consequences of job satisfaction can vary widely across cultures

How are individual inputs related to organizational outcomes differently across cultures?

Gómez, Kirkman and Shapiro (2000) found that collectivistic cultures value employee's behaviors that contribute to the maintenance of harmony and enhancement of team environment more than individualistic cultures do. Accordingly, behaviors geared towards helping others and maintaining good interpersonal relationships are inputs that are more important than job performance in collectivistic cultures (Bolino & Turnley, 2008). In high power distance cultures seniority, age, and social class are considered as inputs that deserve valued organizational outcomes (e.g., promotion). Loyalty, respect, and adherence to social norms are also considered to be inputs in the exchange relationship (Fadil, Williams, Limpaphayom, & Smatt, 2005).

Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory Across Cultures

Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory. Factors related to the job-content (e.g., autonomy, challenge, opportunity to learn and grow) are generally referred to as 'intrinsic factors' and associated with high motivation and job satisfaction. Factors related to the job-context (e.g., safe work environment, pay, compensation package, supervision), which are generally referred to as 'extrinsic factors' or hygiene factors, are those taken-for-granted, and generally unrelated to motivation and job satisfaction. Hygiene factors (i.e., extrinsic factors) largely correspond to Maslow's lower-order needs, whereas motivators (i.e., intrinsic factors) correspond to higher-order needs. Although some have found support for components of the theory cross-culturally (Brislin and colleagues, 2005), based on the parallels between this theory and Maslow's, one can predict that Herzberg's theory has similar limitations in cross-cultural settings.

Hofstede's (1980) study of national culture

Hofstede's (1980) study of national culture and advancement of scores on multiple cultural dimensions, the field now had a solid theoretical backbone to build upon. The power distance index considers the extent to which inequality and power are tolerated. In this dimension, inequality and power are viewed from the viewpoint of the followers - the lower level. The individualism vs. collectivism dimension considers the degree to which societies are integrated into groups and their perceived obligation and dependence on groups. The uncertainty avoidance index considers the extent to which uncertainty and ambiguity are tolerated. This dimension considers how unknown situations and unexpected events are dealt with. The masculinity vs. femininity dimension is also referred to as "tough vs. tender," and considers the preference of society for achievement, attitude towards sexuality equality, behavior, etc. Masculinity comes with the following characteristics: distinct gender roles, assertive, and concentrated on material achievements and wealth-building. Femininity comes with the following characteristics: fluid gender roles, modest, nurturing, and concerned with the quality of life. The long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation dimension considers the extent to which society views its time horizon. Long-term orientation shows focus on the future and involves delaying short-term success or gratification in order to achieve long-term success. Long-term orientation emphasizes persistence, perseverance, and long-term growth. Short-term orientation shows focus on the near future, involves delivering short-term success or gratification and places a stronger emphasis on the present than the future. Short-term orientation emphasizes quick results and respect for tradition. The indulgence vs. restraint dimension considers the extent and tendency for a society to fulfill its desires. In other words, this dimension revolves around how societies can control their impulses and desires.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Predicts Different Behaviors in Different Cultures

Huang and Van de Vliert (2003) found that satisfying higher-order needs exerted different effects across 49 nations. Job characteristics that satisfy higher-order needs (e.g., autonomy, challenge) are associated with high job satisfaction only in economically developed countries with a strong social security system and low power distance. In another recent study, Russians were found to be motivated more than Swedes when their salary increased (Fey, 2005). Russia is a country where social security system functions poorly and the earning are shared with aging parents, and thus increased salary is the key to satisfy survival and safety needs for employees.

Cultural Intelligence and Intercultural negotiation findings

Imai and Gelfand (2010) showed that cultural intelligence, or a "person's capability for successful adaptation to new cultural settings" (Earley & Ang, 2003, p. 9) is a predictor of effective integrative bargaining sequences in intercultural negotiation. CQ also predicted processes and outcomes over and above other personality constructs (i.e., openness, extraversion), other forms of intelligence (e.g., IQ, Emotional Intelligence), and above international travel and living experience. Interestingly, the minimum CQ score within the dyad was enough to predict behavioral sequences, showing that it takes only one, not two high-CQ negotiators in order to become in-sync.

Implicit measures of cultures

Implicit measures of cultures are subconscious differences in attitudes, values, beliefs, or norms across cultural groups that can be reflect psychological culture or subjective cultural press. Implicit culture, by definition, is assessed through non-explicit means such as the Implicit Association Test (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwatz, 1998) or other unobtrusive methods. Given that researchers have argued that culture best described as tacit knowledge, rather than explicit knowledge (cf. Kitayama & Uchida, 2005), this is a promising conceptualization and measure of culture (see Kim, Sarason, & Sarason, 2006).

Intercultural Negotiation findings

In a laboratory simulation, Gelfand, Nishii, Godfrey, and Raver (2003) found that metaphoric similarity in negotiation (i.e., agreement on the domain to which negotiation was mapped) was indeed an important predictor of joint gains. More recent evidence using network scaling has shown that negotiators in intercultural negotiations are much more likely to have different mental models of the negotiation at the start, and have less convergence at the end of negotiations as compared to intracultural negotiations (Liu, Friedman, Barry, Gelfand, & Zheng, under review).

Preference for the types of goals may also vary across cultures

In a recent study, Grouzet and colleagues (2005) compared the types of goals that were preferred among employees in 15 different countries. The goals were classified in four categories driven from the combination of two dimensions: intrinsic vs. extrinsic dimension and self-transcendence vs. physical self dimension. The structure of goal categorization was similar across cultures, however the placement of goals were different. For instance, financial success as a goal in life was further from hedonism and closer to safety-physical health goals in poorer cultures than in the wealthier cultures.

Feedback Differs Across Cultures

In collectivistic and high power distant cultures, there is reluctance to seek feedback (Morrison, Chen, & Salgado, 2004). The process is usually initiated by the superior who is trusted for his or her expertise and wisdom (Huo & Von Glinow, 1995). In collectivistic cultures, feedback is indirect, non-confrontational, subtle, and private (Fletcher & Perry, 2001); face-to-face performance interviews are extremely rare (Elenkov, 1998). In individualistic cultures, self-efficacy beliefs are enhanced by feedback to the individual, whereas in collectivistic cultures self-efficacy beliefs are enhanced by feedback to the group as well (Earley, Gibson, & Chen, 1999). In cultures where the distinction between life and work space is blurred (i.e., diffuse cultures; Trompenaars, 1993), negative feedback on one's job performance is perceived as attacking the person's personality. Therefore, there is a tendency to avoid giving negative feedback to save the employee from losing face (e.g., Seddon, 1987). Vallance (1999) reports that in some organization in Philippines, two forms are submitted; one to the HR department and the other to the employee—the latter has a more positive tone. In collectivistic cultures, positive feedback on performance is not well-received, either. Positive feedback to individual performance could disturb group harmony as it may induce jealousy and resentment among those who did not receive such feedback. Also, in collectivist cultures, positive feedback is expected to come from the outside. When a manager praises his/her own employees, it is perceived as self-serving (Triandis, 1994). Feedback on group performance is more acceptable than that on individual performance. Moreover, in collectivist cultures, high-context communication patterns prevail (Gibson, 1997). Feedback on performance can be embedded in contextual cues. As such, contextual cues provide indirect, implicit and subtle messages about performance to prevent tension and conflicts that may arise as a result of direct and confrontational communication. It is work mentioning that job enrichment for the group, rather than the individual employee enhances motivation in collectivistic cultures (Erez, 2000). The sociotechnical system or autonomous work groups popular in North European involves job enrichment at the group level by enhancing team autonomy, team responsibility, feedback on team performance, and task meaningfulness.

Valuing Outcomes Varies By Culture

In collectivistic cultures, valued outcomes include long-term employment, and respect and recognition from the supervisor, and good interpersonal relationships (Fadil et al., 2005). In high power distance cultures, people expect to earn status symbols (e.g., a bigger office, company car, job title) in exchange for inputs (e.g., hard work or loyalty).

Some Cultures don't like to specify performance criteria

In fatalistic cultures, it is believed that work outcomes are beyond the control of the employee who cannot be penalized for failing to meet objectives (e.g., Aycan, 2005). In this context, employees are usually evaluated on the basis of the effort and willingness to perform, rather than the outcomes of the goal-directed behavior (Kovach, 1995; Tung, 1984). Uncertainty avoiding cultures also refrain from specifying performance criteria (e.g., setting specific objectives), because employees feel nervous about the uncertainty of what would happen to them if they could not meet performance criteria. In countries with volatile socio-economic and political environment, setting specific performance goals is not only a challenge but also a factor that could demotivate employees (e.g., Davilla & Elvira, 2005).

Evaluation Criteria and Cross-Cultural Differences

In high power distant cultures, performance is usually evaluated by superiors only (immediate supervisor, manager and/or several levels up; Chiang & Birtch, 2010; Davis, 1998; Harris & Moran, 1996), and performance appraisal serves the purpose of reinforcing the authority structure and loyalty (Sinha, 1994). Performance criteria are not set specifically so that power holders have the discretion to evaluate employees in a way they see fit. Employees experience a tension between satisfying their superiors' demands on the one hand and meeting the performance standards set by the organization on the other (Davilla & Elvira, 2005). Performance criteria and ratings may be highly subjective and biased reflecting the nature of the relationship between the rater and ratee (e.g., Sharma, Budhwar & Varma, 2008).

Types of Job Questions Asked and Culture

In individualistic cultures, personal questions that are not job related are not asked; they are perceived as violation of privacy and not permitted on legal (e.g., equal employment opportunity law) and/or ethical grounds. However, in collectivistic cultures job applicants are primarily evaluated on the basis of how well they will fit in to the social and cultural context of the organization. Accordingly, personal questions to predict that are freely asked in the application forms, such as marital status, religious affiliation, ethnic and cultural background, city or region of birth, family background (e.g., spouse's, father's and mother's occupation; number of siblings), socio-economic status indicators (e.g., type of car driven, ownership of property), leisure time activities, etc.

Culture Affects Perceptions of Selection Measures

In some European countries such as Italy, France, Sweden, Portugal, the issue of testing (e.g., standardized tests of cognitive ability) has a negative connotation, because it is perceived as invasion of privacy, violation of individual rights to control their own careers, and barrier to the holistic representation of oneself (Dany & Torchy, 1994; Levy-Leboyer, 1994; Ryan, McFarland, Baron, & Page, 1999; Shackleton & Newell, 1997; Shimmin, 1989; Sparrow & Hiltrop, 1994). Steiner and Gilliland (1996) found that French compared to American applicants perceived written ability tests to be less impersonal and personality tests to be more offensive and violating their privacy.

Effects of Self-Serving Biases on Negotiations

In the U.S., Thompson and Loewenstein (1992) found that negotiators had self-serving conceptions of fairness and that such biases were related to the length of strikes during simulated negotiations. Self-serving biases have been linked to impasses (Loewenstein, Issacharoff, Camerer, & Babcock, 1993), length of strikes (Babcock, Wang, & Loewenstein, 1996), and reduced problem-solving and feelings of frustration (De Dreu, Nauta, & Van de Vliert, 1995). Gelfand et al. (2002) predicted that disputants' self-serving biases of fairness would be more prevalent in individualistic cultures, such as the United States, in which the self is served by focusing on one's positive attributes to "stand out" and be better than others, yet would be attenuated in collectivistic cultures, such as Japan, where the self is served by focusing on one's negative characteristics to "blend in" (cf. Heine et al., 1999). More recent work also shows that self-enhancement among Americans promotes endowment effects (i.e., the tendency to overvalue objects that one owns) as compared to East Asians (Maddux et al., in press).

Criteria used in employee selection differs based on culture

In the U.S., selection criteria are perceived to be relevant to the job as well as predictive of future performance. Some of the most commonly cited criteria for selection include education, past work experience, personality traits, and cognitive skills By contrast, criteria for selection in collectivistic cultures are geared towards competence in interpersonal relationships more than it is geared towards competence in job-related areas (e.g., technical knowledge, skills and abilities). For example, in Japan, team members' favorable opinions about the candidate (Huo & Von Glinow, 1995) and right temperament and personality (Evans, 1993); in Islamic Arab countries, agreeableness, good interpersonal relations and trustworthiness (Ali, 1989); in India belonging to the same 'in-group' as the manager (e.g., the same family or homeland; Sinha, 1997); in Latin America positive attitudes towards family life (cf. Barrett & Bass, 1976) are criteria used in employee selection. The knowledge and skills that are acquired from formal education may not be the best predictors of performance in countries where the quality of formal education is low (e.g., Ingmar & Yuan, 1999; Rousseau & Tinsley, 1997)

Different Levels of Culture Chan, 1998

Individual Measures of Subjective Culture- Psychological Culture, Subjective Cultural Press, Implicit Measures of Culture, Cultural Frog Ponds Unit Level Measures of Subjective Culture- Additive Culture, Consensus Culture, Cultural Descriptive Norms, Until Measures of Objective Culture

Cross Cultural Differences in Goal Setting

Participative goals setting increases the motivation of people in egalitarian cultural contexts; however, in high power distance people do not have difficulty accepting and committing to assigned goals (Sue-Chan & Ong, 2002). A comparative study between Israel and US employees demonstrated that Israelis performed lower than Americans under the assigned, rather than participative goal setting condition (Erez & Earley, 1987). Overall, Americans were found to be committed to goals that were either assigned or participatively set, whereas Israelis were committed to goals only when they were participatively set. US was higher on power distance than Israel.

Motivation for Achievement Across Cultures

Inferences here related to McClleand's typolog of needs (1985) of achievement affiliation and power. People with more individualistic orientations had higher achievement motivation tendencies. The findings of the study however suggested two types of achievement motivation: personal and collective. The individualistic perspective to achievement motivation emphasizes the need for personal success, whereas the collectivistic perspective emphasizes the need for group success which cannot be achieved without teamwork (see also Stewart, Carland, Carland, Watson & Sweo, 2003). Achievement differs by culture: Yu and Yang (1994) reviewed studies examining different meanings of success and failure and reported that for Thais, for example, success was closely related to respect for others and tradition and for Americans it was related to free will and realism. Early studies in Japan also showed that continuity in family tradition was more highly praised than attainment of individual achievements (DeVos, 1973). Chinese emphasize the importance of contribution to the social group and fulfilling the expectations of the family and social group when explaining achievement motivation (Wilson & Pusey, 1982). Yu and Yang (1994) proposed a new term "social-oriented achievement motivation" and developed a scale to measure it that contained items such as "The major goal in my life is to work hard to achieve something which will make my parents proud of me."

Factors that Promote Intrinsic Motivation Across Cultures

Iyengar and Lepper (1999) showed that Asian Americans' intrinsic motivation and performance were highest when valued and trusted in-group members made choices for them. In contrast, Anglo Americans had the highest intrinsic motivation when they had the autonomy to make choices themselves. Moneta (2004) found that Chinese experienced highest level of intrinsic motivation in conditions requiring low challenge and high skill level, rather than high challenge and high skill level. More generally, exploration, curiosity and variety are associated less with intrinsic motivation in collectivistic cultures where conformity to the norm is valued (Kim & Drolet, 2003; Kim & Markus, 1999).

Job Characteristics operate differently across cultures

Job enrichment involves increasing autonomy, feedback, skill variety, task significance and task identity. Roe and colleagues (2000) found autonomy, feedback and skill variety had positive impacts on psychological and work outcomes in Netherlands (an individualistic culture), but had no or marginal impact in Bulgaria and Hungary (collectivistic cultures). Fey (2005) found that feedback had a marginally positive impact on employee performance in Russia but not in Sweden, probably due to the fact that feedback was considered to be a hygiene factor in Sweden but a motivator in Russia where it was uncommon. Lee-Ross (2005) compared employees in Australia and Mauritius (an island in the Indian Ocean) and found that Australian employees feel empowered by the presence of all five characteristics of enriched jobs to a greater extent than those in Mauritius. Aycan and colleagues (2000) found that in fatalistic cultures managers assumed that employee nature could not change and improve. As a result, they did not provide enriched jobs to their employees. Managers in collectivistic cultures implemented job enrichment, because they considered it as their obligation to their employees.

General Info on Organizational Attitudes Across Cultures

Job satisfaction is higher in Western and in capitalistic developed cultures as compared to in Eastern cultures and in socialist developing cultures (Vecernik, 2003) Liu, Borg, & Spector, (2004) showed that the meaning of job satisfaction is equivalent across countries speaking the same language and sharing similar cultural backgrounds, yet its equivalence decreases with increasing cultural distance (Liu et al. 2004).

Culture Affects Perception of Working in a Team

Kirkman and Shapiro and colleagues have shown that values of individualism are associated with general resistance to teams (Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997, 2001a), and less support for team-reward rewards (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2000). Similarly, Ramamoorthy & Flood (2004) linked individualism to lower team loyalty. Values of high power distance, being-orientation, and determinism are related to resistance to self-management in teams (Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997, 2001a). Similarly, at the team level, Kirkman & Shapiro (2001b) found that collectivism and doing-orientation were related to lower resistance to teams and lower resistance to self-management, respectively, which in turn increased team effectiveness

Schemas and Conflict

Klar, Bar-Tal, and Kruglanski (1987) stated that individuals develop conflict schemata from past experience and socialization, and use them to approach current conflicts.

Emotions in Negotiations Across Culture

Kopelman and Rosette (2008) found that compared to Israeli negotiators, East Asian negotiators are more likely to accept an offer from an opponent who displays positive emotion (e.g., smiling, nodding, and appearing cordial) and are less likely to accept an offer from an opponent who displays negative emotion (e.g., appearing intimidating and irritated). The researchers proposed that East Asians value positive emotional display more because of their cultural emphasis on face and respect. For the same reason, negative emotional display is more incongruent with East Asian culture values than Israeli cultural values. Hajo, Shirako, & Maddux (2010) similarly found that Asians made much smaller concessions when negotiating with angry opponents as compared to Caucasians, and this was due to different cultural norms regarding the appropriateness of anger expressions in negotiations.

Modeling Cultural Effects in Organizational Psychology

Linkages A and B in Figure 1 reflect examples of "single level" models that examine the macro antecedents and consequences of national culture. Linkages C-E reflect "cross-level direct effect" models that examine the direct effect of societal culture on organizations and individuals. While Linkages C &D represent societal cross-level effects on organizations, Linkage E represents research that examines how societal culture affects individual-level phenomena, such as cognitions, motives, or emotions. Linkage F represents cross-level research that examines how societal culture interacts with features of the organizational context (e.g., industry, technology) to predict organizational culture and practices. Linkage G illustrates that the relationship between organizational culture and practices and organizational outcomes can be moderated by societal culture. Linkage H represents research on how societal culture moderates the impact of organizational practices on individual cognitions, motives, or emotions. Linkage I illustrates that societal culture might moderates the relationship between psychological states and behavior. For example, research might examine whether societal culture moderates the strength of attitudes as a predictor of behavior, or whether needs (e.g., need for closure) differentially affect behavior across cultures. What is not well represented in the figure are the numerous methodological challenges and judgment calls that are involved once research questions have been developed.

What is Culture in Cross-Cultural Research?

Many Definitions: Kluckhohn (1954) defined culture as consisting of "patterned ways of thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups.." Skinner (1981), a behaviorist, argued that "culture is a set of schedules of reinforcements" Hofstede (1980), a psychologist, asserted that culture consists of "a set of mental programs that control an individual's responses in a given context." Although there is no one "right" definition of culture, the level at which culture is defined and operationalized should be determined theoretically and made explicit in research. Below, we draw upon Chan's (1998) terminology for understanding levels of analysis and illustrate how the diversity at which culture can be theorized and assessed at different levels of analysis (Gelfand et al., 2008).

Fundamental Attribution Error in Negotiations

Morris, Larrick, and Su (1999), for example, found that negotiators tend to see others' actions as a result of their personality, such as disagreeableness and emotional instability, which can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy in which negotiators' behaviors confirm responses from their opponents (Morris et al., 1999).

Study of Work Goal Differences in Asia

Pearson (2002) found that there were wide variations among Asian employees in their work goals (e.g., autonomy, variety, promotion, learning, salary). For example, having an interesting work and autonomy in decision making were important goals for all Asian countries except for Malaysia; job security was a valued goal in all Asian countries except Thailand.

Multicultural Teams (MCTs)

Multicultural teams can be fraught with high levels of conflict (Ayoko & Hartel, 2003; Crampton & Hinds, 2005; Elron, 1997; Jehn & Weldon, 1997; Joshi, Labianca & Caligiuri, 2002; Li, Xin, & Pillutla, 2002; Von Glinow, Shapiro, & Brett, 2004), ethnocentrism (Crampton & Hinds, 2005), and ingroup biases (Salk & Brannen, 2000). Very little work has been done to examine what might mitigate such effects (see Chao & Moon, 2005, for a theoretical analysis). Culturally heterogeneous teams can perform as or more effectively as homogeneous teams when leaders or other third parties provide directive advice (Gibson & Saxton, 2005), help to prevent communication breakdowns (Ayoko, Hartel, & Callan, 2002), and broker hidden knowledge between culturally diverse members (Baba, Gluesing, Ratner, & Wagner, 2004). Others have advocated implementing structural interventions, such as formal temporal coordinating mechanisms (Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001) and internal norms for meaningful participation (Janssens & Brett, 1997) to help multicultural teams. Although some research shows that culturally diverse teams generally have lower performance than homogeneous teams and take longer to make decisions (Punnett & Clemens, 1999; Thomas, 1999), culturally heterogeneous perform as well as homogeneous groups over time (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Watson, Johnson, Kumar, & Critelli, 1998; see also Watson, BarNir, & Pavur, 2005; Watson, Johnson, & Merritt, 1998). Demographic composition of teams also moderates effects. For example, Earley and Mosakowski, 2000 showed that highly heterogeneous teams also outperform moderately heterogeneous teams because they avert subgroup fractionalization and faultlines

Culture Affects Decision Making and debate in Teams

Ng & Van Dyne (2001) found that decision quality improved for individuals exposed to a minority perspective, yet this was particularly the case for targets that were high on horizontal individualism and low on horizontal collectivism. Influence targets with high vertical collectivism also demonstrated higher quality decisions, but only when the influence agent held a high status position in the group. An interesting question is whether culture affects debate and dissent processes. While some have been shown that debate results in higher productivity across Chinese, French, and U.S. cultural groups (Nemeth, Personnaz, Personnaz, & Goncalo2004; Tjosvold, Law, & Sun, 2003), others have shown that high levels of debate may benefit U.S. but not Chinese groups (Nibler & Harris, 2003).

Culture Affects the Cognitive Process in Teams (Metaphor Analysis)

People across cultures have very different perceptions of what constitutes "teamwork." Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn (2001) found that employees construe teamwork through different metaphors Participants from individualist cultures tended to describe teamwork with sports metaphors, which was associated where roles and objectives are explicitly defined, there is little expectation of hierarchy, membership is largely voluntary, and the scope of activity is narrow. Associate metaphors were also common in individualistic cultures, where there also the scope of activity was narrow, there was little role definition, and objectives were explicit. By contrast, participants from collectivistic cultures tended to conceptualize teamwork through family metaphors, wherein there the scope of activity was broad, objectives were social in nature, and there was the expectation of a paternalistic hierarchy. They also tended to conceive of teamwork through community metaphors, wherein roles were shared and informal, and activities and objectives were broad in scope and ambiguous. Power distance, by contrast, was correlated with military metaphors, wherein there was a hierarchical structure, task focused outcomes, and roles of a limited scope. Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn (2001) and Sanchez-Burks et al. (2000) illustrate that the very definition of teamwork varies considerably around the globe, with implications for how work is to be coordinated, accomplished, and evaluated for its success.

Research on Leadership Behaviors Across Cultures

Ohio State studies on leadership, researchers have consistently found two dimensions of leader behavior, initiating structure (task-oriented) and consideration (relationally-oriented). Cross-cultural research has revealed that these general distinctions are found in other cultures (e.g., Misumu, 1985). However, the specific behaviors that are associated with these dimensions vary considerably across cultures (Peterson, Smith, Bond, & Misumi, 1990). For example, talking about one's subordinate behind his or her back is seen as considerate in Japan, yet is seen as inconsiderate in the US (Smith, Misumi, Tayeb, Peterson, & Bond, 1989). Leaders are also viewed differently across cultures (some view the leader as being responsible for taking care of them and getting involved in one's personal life while others do not)

Example of high power distance culture's selection/recruitment criteria

Organizations in high power distance cultures might feel pressure to recruit people who have a close relationship with influential government officers (Björkman & Lu, 1999a,b). Korean's yon-go system (a special social relationship or special connection) puts emphasis on the applicants' socio-economic background including family ties, school and birthplace (Hak-Chong, 1998); applicants having 'proper' family background are clearly favored. Age and gender are also criteria that are emphasized in culture of high power distance. For example, in Korea, there is age restriction at the entry level to prevent potential conflicts between subordinates and superiors (Hak-Chong, 1998). Because age-based hierarchy and status is prevalent in Korea, it is assumed that if subordinates are older than their superiors it is more likely that they will be disrespectful to their superiors or superiors will have difficulty establishing their authority. With respect to gender, there is clear male preference in societies with salient gender role stereotypes (cf. Adler & Izraeli, 1994; Burke & Davidson, 2004).

Different Goals in Recruiting for Entry Level in Different Cultures

Organizations striving to find the best-qualified applicants typically use widespread recruitment channels (e.g., on-line recruitment services, career fairs, newspaper ads), and these methods tend to be found in performance-oriented and individualistic cultures (Aycan, 2005). By contrast, organizations striving to maintain interpersonal harmony prefer to use close social networks and word of mouth to announce job openings as compared to widespread announcements, and these methods tend to be found in collectivistic cultures where there is in-group favoritism, high power distant and uncertainty avoiding cultures (Aycan, 2005).

Performance Criteria Across Cultures

Performance criteria in individualistic cultures tend to be objective, quantifiable and observable, such as meeting objectives, productivity, timeliness, quality of output, and job-specific knowledge and proficiency (Harris & Moran, 1996). In collectivist cultures, individual differences are downplayed and primary purpose of performance evaluation is to justify decisions of compensation and promotion (e.g., Arthur, Woehr, Akande, & Strong, 1995; Triandis & Bhawuk, 1997). Employee loyalty to the in-group carries heavier weight than productivity in performance appraisal. In fact, high-performing employees who stand out in the group are disliked because this may disturb group harmony and invoke jealousy (Kovach, 1995; Vallance, 1999). For example, low performers are protected and tolerated so long as they are favored by power holders. In Hong Kong performance appraisal is perceived to be a way of legitimizing rewards to favored employees, whereas in UK, it is considered as a crucial process in determining training and development needs, assess future potential, and career planning (Snape, Thompson, Yan, & Redman, 1998).

Job Satisfaction across cultures

Positive self-concepts and internal locus of control are related to job satisfaction across a wide range of cultures (Piccolo, Judge, Takahashi, Watanabe, & Locke, 2005; Spector et al., 2002). Sweeney & McFarlin (2004) found that making social comparisons are universally related to pay satisfaction across cultures. Yet the factors that contribute to satisfaction also vary across cultures. Extrinsic job characteristics tend to be positively related to job satisfaction across cultures, yet intrinsic job characteristics are more strongly associated with job satisfaction in rich countries dominated by individualistic and low power distance values (Huang & Van de Vliert, 2003; Hui, Lee, & Rousseau, 2004). Van de Vliert & Janssens (2002) also showed that satisfaction is highly correlated with self-referent motivation and negatively related to other-referent motivation, and these effects were pronounced in countries of high income levels, education and life expectancy. Contextual factors can also differentially affect job satisfaction across cultures. For example, a warm and congenial work group facilitates high satisfaction among collectivists but low satisfaction among individualists (Hui & Yee, 1999).

Psychological Culture

Psychological culture refers to individuals' personal values, attitudes, or beliefs, making the individual, not the culture, the referent (e.g., I value X). In this conceptualization, culture is treated as an individual level construct, and is not aggregated to a higher level. This conception of culture is particularly relevant for research that is examining individuals who vary in their values, attitudes or beliefs within a particular group, and moreover, when values are not necessarily shared within subgroups of the sample (cf. Chao & Moon, 2005, on the notion of cultural mosaics).

Different Cultures may mean that selection has a different purpose

Recruitment in the Western literature is often depicted as a process of attracting the right number of applicants with the right level of qualification to the organization. Hence it is a process that should follow a careful HR planning and job analysis. Organizations in North America typically adopt this model, wherein the purpose of recruitment and selection is to differentiate among candidates and to maximize individual performance and ultimately organizational profit. in India and Eastern Europe organizations hire more employees than needed to combat poverty and unemployment (Herriot & Anderson, 1997; Sinha, 1997). Asian organizations, valuing benevolence and paternalism, adopt practices such as long-term employment to benefit and protect the individual more than the organization. Similarly, in former socialist economies government and organizations duty is to provide employment for life. In such socio-cultural contexts organizations are expected to meet societal needs.

References Being Used Cross Culturally

References or recommendations are used commonly in the majority of countries for different reasons and in varying degrees. For instance, in the UK, the US and Australia, recommendations are used as a final check, whereas they are heavily relied upon in South Eastern European countries and India (Sinha, 1997; Triandis & Vassiliou, 1972). Countries relying on references use it as a tool to favor in-group members and discriminate out-group members (see, Khatri, Tsang, & Begley, 2006, for an excellent discussion on cronyism). Utility of the standardized selection tests and inventories developed in the U.S. (e.g., cognitive ability tests, personality inventories) in different cultural context has also been seriously questioned (e.g., Bartram, 2005; Greenfield, 1997; Sternberg, 2004), and reviews of the utility of certain assessment techniques has revealsed significant variations across cultures (e.g., Bartram & Coyne, 1998; Oakland, 2004; Roe & Van den Berg, 2003). For example, Björkman and Lu (1999) found that analytical problem solving tests screen only a small portion of Chinese applicants because of their highly developed analytical thinking ability. To minimize such cultural misfits, there is a growing literature to guide international test users in the process of cultural adaptation and standardization for US-based ability tests and personality inventories (e.g., McCrea & Costa, 1997; International Test Commission, 2000; Van Hemert, van de Vijver, Poortinga, & Georgas, 2002).

Flexible Work Arrangements Across Cultures

Results revealed that shift-work and contract work were related to high uncertainty avoidance, high power distance and high collectivism. They propose that shift-work is preferred over telework, part-time, or temporary work in high uncertainty avoidance cultures, because employers seek structured and predictable work arrangements to control the worker output. On the other hand, the flexible nature of telework, part-time or temporary work requires tolerance for ambiguities and uncertainties. It is easier to maintain the authority structure and monitor the workers closely in shift-work, compared to part-time or telework where worker autonomy and discretion is high. Hence, shift-work is common in high power distant cultures, whereas flexible work arrangements are common in low power distant cultures. Because shift-work and contract work reinforce solidarity among work groups, it is preferred more in collectivistic rather than individualistic cultures. Finally, it was found that temporary work, telework, and part-time work is more common among countries scoring high on femininity rather than masculinity, because workers prefer to have work flexibility to be able to spend time with their families and socialize with their acquaintances.

Personality and Leadership Across Cultures

Robie, Johnson, Nilsen, & Hazucha (2001) compared the US and seven European countries and found that intelligence, conscientiousness and ability to motivate subordinates were reported as characteristics of effective leaders in all countries, while less agreement was evident on other characteristics, such as ability to act with integrity and criticality. For Confucius Asian nations (e.g., Gupta, MacMillan, & Surie, 2004; Leung, 2005; Silverthorne, 2001), conscientiousness and agreeableness were attributes of effective leaders, whereas openness to new experiences was not.

Relationships with Peers and Supervisors Affect Work Outcomes Differently in Different Cultures

Schaubroeck and Lam (2002) found that similarity in personality and good relationships with peers was a significant predictor of the promotion decision in individualistic cultures, while similarity in personality and good relationships with superiors was a significant predictor of the promotion decision in collectivistic cultures.

Schwartz's Typology and Cross Cultural Research

Schwartz's typology of motivational domains of values (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990) draws parallel to Maslow's classification of needs. It would be possible to predict cross-cultural differences in work motivation using Schwartz's framework and this would be a fruitful avenue for future research.

Subjective cultural press

Subjective cultural press is another individual level conceptualization of culture, which is defined as individual differences in perceptions of cultural values, attitudes, and/or norms (Gelfand et al. 2008). Like personal values, subjective cultural press is an individual-level definition of culture. Unlike personal values, however, subjective cultural press is measured using the culture as the referent (e.g., People in this culture value X). This measure of culture is particularly relevant for assessing culture for researchers who theorize that perceptions of the society serve as a motivational force, but that this varies by individuals.

Biases in Negotiation in the Cognitive Tradition

The Cognitive tradition in negotiation is predicated upon the seminal work of March and Simon (1958) and the notion that decision-makers have bounded rationality (Kahneman & Tversky, 1973, 1979) and fall victim to a wider range of decision biases, particularly related to the negotiation context. A wide range of classic information processing biases, such as framing, anchoring, and availability, as well as social perception biases, such as competitive fixed-pie perceptions, attributional biases, and reactive devaluation, have been found among Western samples in negotiation (see Gelfand, Fulmer, & Severance, in press for a review).

Fixed Pie Bias

The fixed pie bias occurs when negotiators erroneously perceive the opponent's interests to be opposite to their own and, thus, underestimate the bargaining zone (Bazerman & Neale, 1983; Larrick & Wu, 2007; Thompson & Hastie, 1990). This perception is a result of the false consensus effect, in which people believe others share the same views and desire the same things as themselves (Sherman, Judd, & Park, 1989).

Assumptions of Motivation Theories: May not transfer across cultures

Theories of work motivation can be generally be grouped into content and process theories. Content theories attempt to answer the question of 'what motivates people at work,' whereas process theories attempt to answer the question of 'how people are motivated.' Research on culture and motivation suggests that the applicability of American theories in other cultural contexts is limited, because these theories are based on the following assumptions: (a) employees are primarily motivated by rewards and practices that satisfy and enhance their individual 'self', (b) it is the individual whose effort is important for high performance, (c) the individual has control of events in life—it is therefore up to him/her to meet high performance standards, and (d) the individual rationally evaluates the likelihood of achieving performance goals and chooses the ones which will be worth spending the effort.

Argument that Globalization May Result in Cultural Similarity

This counterargument often rests upon the notion that developments in technology and the globalization of business have resulted (or will result) in the widespread adaptation of American culture throughout the world. Indeed, already skeptics will argue that youth in many countries—from the U.S. to Japan to Zimbabwe—are all eating Big Macs, drinking Coca-Cola, and wearing Levi's, which is causing a homogenization of world culture (Huntington, 1996). Within this perspective, the lack of attention to cultural factors in organizational psychology becomes not only unimportant, but justified. As noted by Huntington (1996), "non-western societies can modernize and have modernized without abandoning their own cultures and adopting wholesale Western values, institutions, and practices" (p. 78). In sum, the argument that cultural differences are no longer important (or will cease to be important) in organizational psychology is not easily tenable.

Performance-reward contingency across cultures

This is the instrumentality dimension of VIE Research showed that performance-reward contingency is low in cultures that are high in power distance and high in fatalism (Aycan et al., 2000). Schuler and Rogovsky (1998) also found that seniority-based compensation systems were preferred in countries with high levels of uncertainty avoidance, because such practices emphasize predictability and certainty, whereas performance and skill-based compensation systems were preferred in countries with low uncertainty avoidance. Pay-for-performance schemes are used widely in individualistic cultures, whereas group-based rewards are preferred in collectivistic cultures (Gluskinos, 1988). Wage differentials are narrow even among the lowest and highest ranking officials in collectivistic cultures, whereas they are very high in individualistic and performance-oriented cultures (Easterby-Smith et al., 1995; Huo & Von Glinow, 1995).

Cross cultural variation in values outcomes

This is the valance of VIE 'Promotion' can have negative connotations for employees in collectivistic, high power distant or uncertainty avoidant cultures (Adler, 1991). Corney and Richards (2005) reported that promotion was the most preferred reward for American students, while good pay and bonuses were the most preferred rewards for Chilean and Chinese students

Trust Across Cultures in Teams

Yuki and his colleagues (Yuki, 2003; Yuki et al., 2005) showed that trust is developed through different relational bases across cultures: Having indirect personal ties with other group members is an important basis for trust in Japan, whereas having a strong identification based on a shared category membership (e.g., being from the same school) is an important basis for trust in the U.S. Branzei et al. (2007) showed that people rely on different signs when trusting others: individualists tend to trust based on their perception of a trustee's perceived ability and integrity whereas collectivists tend to trust based on their perception of a trustee's benevolence. Situational conditions also differentially affect attraction in groups. Man & Lam (2003) found that job complexity and autonomy were much more important for group cohesiveness in the U.S. than in Taiwan. Likewise, Tata (2000) similarly argued that high levels of autonomy are critical for teams in low versus high power distance and low versus high uncertainty avoidance cultures. At the same time, some conditions that have been argued to be empowering in the U.S., such as task identity and flexibility, have been found to have a negative effects on teams in high power distance groups (Drach-Zahavy, 2004).