A taxonomy of organizational culture dimensions:

Organizational behaviour across cultures 1

Running head: organisational behaviour across cultures

Organisational behaviour across cultures: Theoretical and methodological issues for

developing multi-level frameworks involving culture

Ronald Fischer

Victoria University Wellington & Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research

Maria Cristina Ferreira, Eveline Maria Leal Assmar (Universidade Gama Filho, Rio de Janeiro),

Paul Redford (King Alfred’s College Winchester),

Charles Harb (American University Beirut),

Revised version, September 22, 2004

Parts of the present paper have been presented at the Regional conference of the International

Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Budapest, Hungary and the Third Biennial International

Conference on Intercultural Research, Taipei, Taiwan.

.

Corresponding author:

Ronald Fischer

School of Psychology,

Victoria University of Wellington,

PO Box 600,

Wellington, New Zealand

phone +64 4 4635233 ext. 8920

fax +64 4 4635402

[email protected]


Abstract

The present paper has two objectives. First, general issues for developing and testing cross-cultural

multi-level models such as variable identification, measurement, sampling and data analysis are

discussed. A second aim is to illustrate some of these issues by developing a multi-level framework

incorporating variables at an individual, organizational and national level. The goal is to explain

cross-cultural differences in extra-role behaviour. Based on a review of previous multi-level

research and cross-cultural research it is proposed that the effect of national culture on work

attitudes and behaviour is mediated by organizational practices. The framework is formulated using

recent recommendations for the development of multi-level models.


ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR ACROSS CULTURES: THEORETICAL AND

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES FOR DEVELOPING MULTI-LEVEL FRAMEWORKS

INVOLVING CULTURE

The understanding of organizational behaviour in different cultural contexts has been a formidable

challenge for academics and practitioners. Due to the complexity of organizational life, variables

associated with the individuals, the overall organization and the societal context need to be

integrated in theory and research (Aycan, 2000a). For example, cross-cultural research has

demonstrated the influence of national culture on both organizational practices and individual work

behaviours and perceptions (for a review see Smith, Fischer, & Sale, 2001). Organizational culture

and organizational practices have been found to influence work behaviours and attitudes at an

individual level (see Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson, 2000). However, there is little integration

of both organizational and socio-cultural variables. Various reviews (Aguinis & Henle, 1994;

Aycan, 2000a; Smith, Fischer & Sale, 2001) commented on the fragmented, adhoc (Leung, 1997)

and atheoretical (Aycan, 2000a) state of the field. According to Aycan (2000a), research on

international and cross-cultural organizational behaviour is ‘reductionist’ (p. 111) in that it fails to

acknowledge the complex nature of organizations and the influence of multiple environmental

forces that are both internal and external to the organization. Frameworks are needed that

incorporate variables at multiple levels in order to paint a fuller and more valid picture of how

organizations operate in diverse regions of the world. Consequently, the present paper discusses

theoretical and methodological challenges for developing and testing multi-level models that focus

on organizational functioning across cultures. Some of the issues in this paper have been previously

discussed by other authors (see for example work in Earley & Erez, 1997; see also Aycan, 2000a;

Bond, 2001; Earley, 1994). However, we offer a new perspective by specifically referring to and

discussing multi-level approaches to organizational behaviour across cultures. To illustrate some of


our points, we use a specific example, namely differences in the levels of extra-role behaviour

across cultures, to show the benefits of using a multi-level framework.

The Cultural Challenge for Organizations

The establishment of border-spanning economic blocs such as the North American Free Trade Area

(NAFTA), Southern Cone Common Market (MERCOSUR), European Union (EU) or Association

of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the mobility of the workforce pose formidable challenges

for organizations and their effective functioning (Aguinis & Henle, 1996).

Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) seminal work introduced four dimensions of national culture that

can be used to describe cultural differences and guide managers in their efforts to make sense of

cultural diversity. This four dimensions of individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty

avoidance and masculinity-femininity have attracted much attention, but in particular

individualism-collectivism (Kagitcibasi, 1997; Triandis, 1995). Subsequent research (Chinese

Culture Connection, 1987; Schwartz, 1994; Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1996) replicated most

of these dimensions (see Smith & Schwartz, 1997; Smith & Bond, 1998 for summaries of these

research projects; for critical reviews of Hofstede, see for example Chinese Culture Connection,

1987; McSweeney, 2002; Schwartz, 1994).

This research at a national level was accompanied by a proliferation of research focusing on

cultural variables at an individual level of analysis. Cross-cultural researchers frequently sampled

participants in two or more geographical locations, measured a variety of psychological or

organizational constructs and explained observed differences in terms of culture, often relying on

post-hoc reference to Hofstede’s findings (for reviews see, Smith, Fischer & Sale, 2001). Few

attempts were made to integrate macro level and micro level research into so-called meso-theories

(House, Rousseau & Hunt, 1995).


One of the few meso-theories was proposed by Kanungo and colleagues (Kanungo &

Jaeger, 1990, Mendonca & Kanungo, 1994). They argued that socio-cultural variables such as

individualism-collectivism and power distance influence the internal work culture of an

organization, which in turn influences Human Resource Management Practices such as work

design, performance management and reward system. A number of studies have attempted to test

this model using one (Mathur, Aycan & Kanungo, 1996) or two (Aycan, Sinha & Kanungo, 1999)

cultural samples. The most comprehensive test of the model was conducted by Aycan, Kanungo,

Mendoca, Yu, Deller, Stahl and Kurshid (2000). The authors studied the effect of national culture

dimensions on the internal work culture defined as employee-related assumptions in 10 different

nations. The individual level variables were job design, supervisory practices and reward allocation.

The Aycan et al. (2000) study is an important step forward toward a better understanding of

the complexity of organizations in an international perspective, yet suffers from some limitations

that need to be addressed. First, the variables were measured and analysed at an individual level,

although the theoretical framework incorporated the national, organizational, and the individual

level. By not aligning their level of theory, measurement and analysis, Aycan et al.’s (2000)

research committed a so-called ecological fallacy (Hofstede, 1980; Klein, Dansereau & Hall, 1994).

Ecological fallacies refer to inappropriate generalisation of theoretical findings across levels of

analysis. For example, Aycan et al. (2000) measured and analysed their data at an individual level.

This assumes that the individual responses are independent and are not influenced by other group

characteristics (Klein et al., 1994). However, their theoretical rationale would not justify such an

analysis, because they argued that culture refers to shared values, norms and beliefs (Aycan, 2000a).

If participants from the same cultural group share perceptions about their cultural values and

beliefs, their responses are not independent and this creates dependencies in the data at an

individual level. These dependencies yield biased statistical estimates (Saddler & Judd, 2001) and

researchers may draw erroneous conclusions based on these estimates. Consequently, the results


reported by Aycan et al. (2000) have to be considered cautiously. Furthermore, they used regression

analysis at an individual level and commented on the inconsistent results across samples. These

inconsistencies are important because they indicate that effects differ across cultures. The theory

proposed by Aycan et al. (2000) was supposed to be valid for all cultural contexts, therefore these

inconsistencies threaten the generalisability of their theory. However, if it can be shown that these

inconsistencies vary with national characteristics, the applicability of the model increases. Using

hierarchical modelling techniques, such effects can be tested and incorporated (Hofmann, 1997). By

using inappropriate methods, Aycan et al. (2000) missed an important opportunity to enhance our

understanding of organizational behaviour across cultures. Their use of inadequate methodologies

and the reliance on inappropriate statistical techniques makes their results open to alternative

explanations. However, we would like to emphasise that this study marks a significant step towards

more comprehensive and realistic models of organizational behaviour. Other theoretical

frameworks (Erez & Earley; 1993; Erez, 1994, 1997; Gelfand & Dyer, 2000; Leung, 1997)

incorporating individual, organizational and cultural variables have been proposed, though they fail

to specify the precise level of the proposed effects and have not yet been tested empirically.

Multi-Level Research: Challenges and Potential

Multi-level modelling refers to the exploration of the relationship between variables at

different levels such as national, organizational and individual. These levels are thought to be nested

within each other. Individuals are nested within organizations, and organizations are nested within

countries. In contrast to this multi-level approach, previous research has focused primarily on the

relationship between variables at the same level. Hofstede (1980) and Schwartz (1994) investigated

how cultural dimensions relate to economic indicators at a national level. At an organizational level

for example, researchers have been interested in how organizational process variables such as

formalization, standardisation and centralisation relate to organizational outcomes such as


organizational innovation (Damanpour, 1991). Psychological research provides the prime example

of individual level research by focusing on how variables such as personality, effort or attitudes

predict other variables such as organizational citizenship behaviour (Organ & Paine, 1999) or

organizational commitment (Meyer, 1997) at an individual level. House et al. (1995) criticized such

research because studying variables at only one level without considering the effect of other levels

leads to deficient theories and biased empirical results and thus call for meso-theories that

incorporate constructs from different levels. Although most researchers would agree that

organizational phenomena are multi-level, it remains a substantial challenge to think both micro and

macro and to incorporate multiple levels simultaneously (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).

The practical problems associated with the investigation of hierarchically ordered systems,

such as organizations have been extensively discussed (for a recent review, see Klein & Kozlowski,

2000). Most often multi-level data is collected at the lowest level (the individual) and then

aggregated (at an organizational or country level) for the testing of the respective theoretical

hypotheses. But it has to be shown whether the meaning of constructs assessed at a lower level is

equivalent to the meaning of the same construct at a higher level (e.g., House et al., 1995; Glick,

1985).

These theoretical and practical problems raise the issues of (a) how to formulate appropriate

multi-level theories, (b) the appropriate data collection and aggregation strategies and (c) the

appropriate tools for investigating theoretical relationships. In the following, we will try to outline

some answers to each of these problems.

Developing Multi-Level Frameworks

In the following sections, we will describe the development of a new multi-level model

intended to explain cross-cultural variation in work attitudes and behaviour. In line with Aycan

(2000a) and Ostroff and Bowen (2000), we propose that national culture influences work attitudes

and behaviour mainly indirectly through organizational practices. Therefore, we propose that


national culture effects on work behaviour are mediated by organizational culture and practices. In

the following, we describe the proposed relationships in detail. We will be following

recommendations by Kozlowski and Klein (2000) for developing multi-level models, by

specifically providing an example that can be empirically investigated. Furthermore, our focus on

national culture as the highest theoretical level raises additional issues that need to be addressed

when developing multi-level models (see Chao, 2000)

The Identification of Central Variables

Kozlowski and Klein (2000) urged researchers to start by thinking about their endogenous

constructs of interest when developing multi-level frameworks. The endogenous or dependent

variable drives the specification of necessary levels, constructs and processes within a theory. Here

we will focus on a key organizational variable, namely extra-role behaviour (Van Dyne & Le Pine,

1998). Extra-role behaviour is ‘behavior which benefits the organization and/or is intended to

benefit the organization, which is discretionary and which goes beyond existing role expectations’

(Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995, p.218). Organ and Paine (1999) argued that

ensuring high levels of extra-role behaviour increasingly becomes one of the most important aspects

for organisations. Differentiating between different aspects of extra-role behaviour, Van Dyne et al.

(1995) contrast promotive with prohibitive behaviour as well as affiliative with challenging

behaviour. Helping is an example of promotive and affiliative behaviour. It is proactive

interpersonal behaviour directed towards others and strengthening relationships. Voice is an

example of challenging and promotive behaviour, such as speaking up with suggestions for change,

challenging work routines that hinder effectiveness and acting on one’s own initiative to make

changes to one’s own task routines. Therefore, this proactive approach that promotes, encourages

and causes things to happen might damage relationships. The usefulness of both dimensions and

their empirical distinctiveness in the US have been shown by Van Dyne and LePine (1998).


Having identified the dependent variables, it is also important to determine which variables

are likely to influence the dependent variables. In particular, researchers need to address whether

multilevel theories are needed to understand the phenomena at hand or whether a single-level theory

would be more parsimonious (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Therefore, the next section will address

these two issues of (a) the necessity of using a multi-level framework and (b) the identification of

variables likely to influence the dependent variable at different levels.

Appropriateness of a multi-level framework: There is empirical evidence that higher-

level variables are likely to exert influence on extra-role behaviour. Extra-role behaviours have been

shown to depend particularly on interpersonal aspects of organizations, especially leadership

(Deluga, 1994) and organizational support (Bettencourt, Gwinner, & Meuter, 2001). Work context

effects (associated with departmental and work group variables) have been reported and accounted

for more variance in extra-role behaviour than did attitudes or personality variables (LePine & van

Dyne, 1998; Schnake, Cochran, & Dumler, 1995). Therefore, these study show that an investigation

of organizational effects on levels of extra-role behaviour is clearly indicated. To the best of our

knowledge, no empirical research has so far addressed to what extent organizational culture or

organizational practices influence extra-role behaviour. Empirical studies are needed to address this

gap.

Additional to these organization level effects, socio-cultural variables are also likely to have

an effect. For example, some aspects of extra-role behaviour are likely to be seen as closer related

to one’s core job in Eastern cultures than they are in the West (Lam, Hui, & Law, 1999). This

implies that employees in some cultures are more likely to engage in such behaviours than in others.

Cultural dimensions in turn have been found to explain extra-role behaviour at an individual level

(Moorman, & Blakely, 1995; Van Dyne, Vandewalle, Kostova, Latham, & Cummings, 2000). The

extant literature suggests that there is a moderate to strong relationship between extra-role

behaviour at an individual level and contextual variables at an organizational and national level.


Thus, it is necessary to explore the effects of contextual variables on these individual level variables

in more depth, justifying the development of a multi-level framework.

Organizational level variables: Organizational practices are variables at an organizational

level that are closely related to organizational culture (see Hofstede, Neuihen, Ohayv, & Sanders,

1990 for a discussion of the relationship between organizational culture and practices).

Organizational culture refers to the way things are done in an organization (Verbeke, Volgering, &

Hessels, 1998). Organizational members have shared organizational beliefs, norms and values that

are expressed in organizational behaviours, and practices. These organisational practices will

influence the work attitudes and behaviours of individuals. New members are socialised into an

organization and learn these values and norms by observing and following practices and norms. By

doing this they internalise some or most of these underlying values (Schein, 1990). Therefore, we

specify organizational practices as an organization level construct.

Our interest focuses on how specific organizational practices influence extra-role behaviour

of employees. Therefore, it is necessary to provide an overview of relevant dimensions. There has

been a proliferation of research on organizational culture and numerous dimensions have been

proposed (Askanasy, Broadfoot, & Falkus, 2000). Various reviews have independently tried to

integrate these dimensions (Ashkanasy et al., 2000; Delobbe, Haccoun, & Vandenberghe, 2001;

Detert, Schroeder, & Mauriel, 2001; Schein, 1990). Table 1 presents a summary of these higher

order dimensions and cluster of dimensions identified in these reviews, ordered by their theoretical

focus and content. As can be seen there, there seems to be a core number of dimensions of similar

content that can be used to describe organizational culture. Consequently, these general dimensions

seem to cover most if not all relevant aspects of organizational culture. However, it has to be

decided which of these dimensions and which specific practices associated with organizational

cultures are most relevant for extra-role behaviour. This will be discussed in the next section, after

we have introduced the socio-cultural variables of interest.


Insert table 1 about here

National culture level variables: Culture has been defined as the collective programming

of the mind (Hofstede, 1980) or as a system of shared or complimentary meanings (Rohner, 1984).

In line with other authors (Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1994), we see shared values within a

particular culture as an indicator of national culture. Hofstede (2001) has argued that power distance

and uncertainty avoidance are the most important dimensions for organizations. Power distance is

relevant for determining who decides what and uncertainty avoidance is important for assuring that

what should be done will be done. However, power distance might have different components. One

component is the acceptance of hierarchical relationships as originally proposed by Hofstede

(1980). A second component of power distance is the concept of paternalism (Aycan, 2000b).

Paternalism refers to dyadic and clearly differentiated hierarchical relationships between superiors

and subordinates within a society. Supervisors ‘provide guidance, protection, nurturance and care to

the subordinate, and the role of the subordinate, in return, is to be loyal and deferent to the

supervisor’ (Aycan et al., 2000; p. 197). It should be noted that paternalism implies deference on

behalf of the subordinate as long as the superior provides guidance, protection and support. At the

same time, supervisors have only legitimate authority as long as they provide this support and

protection function. Therefore, we argue that power distance comprises the mere acceptance of and

deference to hierarchical relationships whereas paternalism refers to a mutual supporting

relationship between individuals at different hierarchical levels within a culture.

Fatalism is another less commonly studied variable. Aycan et al. (2000) conceptualised it as

the belief that it is not possible to control outcomes of one’s action, implying that ‘trying too hard to

achieve something, making long-term plans, and taking preventative action are not worthwhile

exercises’ (p.198). This dimension is related to uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1980) and locus of

control (Rotter, 1966). Fatalism is an important cultural dimensions with implications for


organizations. Not being proactive, taking initiatives or making long-term plans is likely to

negatively affect the performance of organizations. Therefore, this dimension has potential for

understanding organizational behaviour across cultures.

Proposed Relationships between Theoretical Variables

Having identified variables of interest, researchers need to specify links between constructs

at different levels. Top-down processes (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) are most commonly used in the

literature. In the current example, we propose mediation effects (Krull, & MacKinnon, 2001).

Organizational practices are thought to act as a mediator between national culture and work

attitudes and behaviour (cf. Aycan, 2000a).

The effect of organizational practices on individual work variables: Extra-role

behaviour has been linked to organizational support (Bettencourt, Gwinner, & Meuter, 2001).

LePine and Van Dyne (1998) showed that smaller groups with more possibilities for interaction and

mutual identification had higher levels of voice behaviour. Self-managed work groups in their study

also had higher levels of voice behaviour. Self-managed work groups are characterised by self-

regulation, greater autonomy and discretion, feelings of personal responsibility and shared decision-

making (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). These characteristics are closely related to control dimensions

of organizational culture. Therefore, it seems that practices dealing with most effective ways of

organizing work are relevant for helping behaviour. In an organization with a strong team focus and

an emphasis on support and helping (e.g., Hofstede et al., 1990; O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldman,

1991; Verbeke, 2000), employees will be more likely to help others beyond their individual task

requirements. Second, the innovation dimension might be relevant for predicting voice. A focus on

excellence and innovation (e.g., Denison & Mishra, 1995; O’Reilly et al., 1991; van Muijen et al.,

1999) will encourage individuals to come forward with new ideas and they will express more voice

behaviour. The control dimension is also relevant. Increased participation in an organization and


norms about open communication will provide more opportunities for individuals to voice their

opinions and an atmosphere where they can openly make suggestions.

Proposition 1: More support at an organizational level (work organization dimension) is

associated with more helping behaviour at an individual level.

Proposition 2: Greater participation at an organizational level (control dimension) is

associated with more voice behaviour at an individual level.

Proposition 3: Open communication at an organizational level (control dimension) is

associated with more voice behaviour at an individual level.

Proposition 4: Innovation at an organizational level (innovation dimension) is associated

with more voice behaviour at an individual level.

The effect of national culture on organizational practices: Organizations do not operate in a

social vacuum but are influenced by the socio-cultural context (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede et al.,

1990). Therefore, the socio-cultural dimensions at a national level are likely to influence the

dimensions of organizational practices selected for the present framework. First, we predict that

power distance is negatively related to participation and open communication. Employees in

cultures high on power distance are not expected to participate directly in decision-making.

Organizational structures are characterised by top-down communication and higher formalization

and central control (Hofstede, 2001).

Individualism is also expected to lead to greater emphasis on outcomes and rewards (Smith

& Bond, 1998). In individualistic societies, people expect to be rewarded in line with their

individual contribution; individual performance appraisals are common, competition is important

and organizations assume that employees are motivated by economic and material incentives

(Hofstede, 2001; Triandis, 1995). This emphasis on rewards and outcomes should be accompanied

by a neglect of support mechanisms for employees and little orientation towards people.

Individualism is associated with a concern for tasks and not with support for employees (Hofstede,


2001). Work is centred around individuals and not groups (Triandis, 1995). Consequently, we

predict that individualism is associated with lower levels of support.

Paternalism is likely to result in a greater concern for people and support. The mutually

dependent relationship between superiors and subordinates in a culture will lead to an emphasis on

relationships and people. Superiors are concerned with the well-being of individual employees.

Therefore, paternalism is expected to lead to higher levels of support.

Finally, fatalism is predicted to lead to lower levels of innovation practices in organizations.

In a cultural environment with strong belief that things will happen anyway and where individuals

have little perceived control over events, organizations may also be less proactive and innovation

oriented.

Proposition 5: Power distance at a national level will lead to less participation and open

communication at an organizational level.

Proposition 6: Paternalism at a national level will lead to more support at an

organizational level.

Proposition 7: Individualism at a national level will lead to less support at an

organizational level.

Proposition 8: Fatalism at a national level will lead to less innovation at an organizational

level.

Integration of the hypothesised relationships: Figure 1 presents all the hypothesised relationship

graphically. As can be seen there, the effects of socio-cultural dimensions are expected to be

mediated through organizational practices. In line with Ostroff and Bowen (2000), we expect that

the socio-cultural environment shapes organizational practices and that the influence of socio-

cultural dimensions on work attitudes and behaviours is most likely to be mediated through

organizational practices. This is also compatible with Aycan’s (2000a) critical review of previous

cross-cultural I/O psychology as well as the empirical work by Aycan et al. (1999, 2000).


Insert figure 1 about here

Methodological and Statistical Issues for Multi-Level Research

Defining Multi-Level Constructs at the Appropriate Level

It is important to specify the level of theory and the level of constructs within the theory.

Kozlowski and Klein (2000) stress that ‘the first and foremost task in crafting a multilevel theory or

study is to define, justify, and explain the level of each focal construct that constitutes the

theoretical system’ (p. 27). Klein et al. (1994) pointed out that most constructs in organizational

science are ambiguous in terms of their appropriate level. In the previous sections, we outlined a

number of variables and made some propositions about their relationship. However, we have not

addressed yet whether we identified each variable at the most appropriate level for our example.

Therefore, we will briefly consider the appropriate level for each set of constructs.

First, extra-role behaviour is the discretionary behaviour of individuals to go beyond what is

expected by them based on their formal roles (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Van Dyne et al., 1995).

Therefore, by definition, extra-role behaviour is an individual level construct.

Concerning higher-level constructs, it has to be shown whether the constructs are specified

at the appropriate level. Two questions are of particular importance. It has been debated whether the

theoretical units (e.g., groups) correspond to real units and their formal or informal boundaries

(Glick, 1985; Patterson, Payne, & West, 1996). For example, can organizations be described and

distinguished from other organizations in terms of their dominating practices? Furthermore, the

strength or inclusiveness of the different levels has been discussed (House et al., 1995). For

example, how strongly are individuals influenced by the national culture of the country they live in?

These questions are important for specifying multi-level constructs and especially the second one

poses considerable problems for cross-cultural multi-level research (Chao, 2000).


Socio-psychological significance of aggregates: As found by Patterson et al. (1996),

formal units that can be defined with relative ease based on formal group boundaries (e.g., groups

working together) might not correspond to psychological group boundaries. Studying national

cultures, cross-cultural research often implicitly assumes national culture is confined and defined by

geographical and socio-political boundaries (Smith & Bond, 1998). This view implies that national

culture is a more or less homogenous entity and subcultures are negligible. However, socio-political

boundaries are often relatively arbitrarily defined, are often unrelated to ethnic and cultural

boundaries (e.g., post-colonial nation states that do not correspond to ethnic and cultural

boundaries) and continue to change due to political and social instabilities (e.g., the former Soviet

Union or Yugoslavia). Although both Hofstede (1980, 2001) and Schwartz (1992, 1994) admit that

subcultures might exist, they still provide only superficial justification for their culture-level

approach. Furthermore, globalisation with accompanied ease of migration and mass-communication

has led to a greater exposure of individuals to different cultures in most societies. This provides a

formidable challenge for cross-cultural psychology. In the following we try to address some of

these issues.

To overcome some of these previously mentioned problems related to national culture and

organizational practices, participants can be asked to identify their ethnic, cultural and

organizational identity. Such data can be meaningfully incorporated in theoretical frameworks and

statistical analysis. For example, it can be investigated whether minority members agree with

majority members. Statistical techniques to do this are available (James, Demaree & Wolf, 1984,

1993; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). Divergent views or subcultures can be integrated in model building

and the effect of this variation can be tested (Colquitt, Noe & Jackson, 2002; Lindell & Brandt,

2000).

Related to this point, it is crucial to assess the homogeneity of answers within a specific unit

of interest (organization, culture) before aggregating responses. In case of emerging heterogeneity


of responses, this variance might provide further meaningful information and might be integrated in

theory testing. Lindell and Brandt (2000) argued that consensus within groups (e.g., variance)

would moderate the impact of the strength of opinions within the groups (e.g., mean level). Colquitt

et al. (2002) found supporting evidence for this mechanism. Studying work groups in organizational

settings, the authors found that the effect of climate was stronger if members of work groups shared

a common climate perception. We might expect similar effects at a national level. If there is a

strong and homogeneous cultural belief, the cultural norms will be more influential than if members

do not share a common culture. Therefore, we predict that the effect of socio-cultural context

variables on organizational practices is weakened (a moderator effect) when sizeable subcultures

exist and little agreement about a dominant culture exists. Consensus or agreement about a common

national culture will moderate the effect of national culture on work practices. Similarly, turning to

the effect of organizational practices on individual attitudes and behaviour, it is necessary to

establish whether there is agreement within the organization about the dominant organizational

practices (Klein, Conn, Smith, & Sorra, 2001). We predict that consensus will strengthen the impact

of organizational practices on individual work behaviour and attitudes. Disagreement will weaken

the link between organizational practices and work behaviour and attitudes.

Proposition 9: Value consensus within a national culture will strengthen the link between

national culture and organizational practices.

Proposition 10: Consensus about organizational practices will strengthen the link between

organizational practices and individual level work behaviour.

Inclusiveness of levels applied to national cultures: The traditional approach to multi-level

modelling relies on the assumption that lower level units are nested within the higher level. House

et al. (1995) called this inclusiveness. They argued that effects of superior level on the lower levels

will increase with the level of inclusiveness. Inclusiveness is increased when members of a unit

spend more time proportionally within the higher unit than with other units, when members of a


lower unit are under constant influence of the higher-level unit, when members are attracted to each

other or when resources and information are shared. Applied to national culture, this implies that

organizations (and their members) operate mainly within their native socio-cultural context rather

than in another socio-cultural context (e.g., country), are continuously exposed to the influence of

their own native national culture, that members within a socio-cultural environment as well as

within an organization are attracted to each other, and finally, that resources and information are

shared.

However, the reality is often slightly different and this hierarchy of levels might break down

(Chao, 2000). For example, organizations often operate subsidiaries in other countries and

employees in subsidiaries are exposed to both the socio-cultural environment prevalent in a given

country as well as the organizational structures imposed by the multinational organization that has

been shaped by a different socio-cultural environment. At the same time, many organizations have a

mixed work force with employees coming from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

Expatriate managers, foreign specialists and experts work with host-nationals and thereby exert

considerable influence. Attraction and cohesion is lower in diverse work groups (Williams &

O’Reilly, 1998). Many leaders and CEO’s (especially within the developing world) have been

trained in Western European or North American institutions. Upon returning to their country of

origin they try to implement management techniques that were developed in different socio-cultural

environments. Therefore, the commonly assumed hierarchy in multi-level models of organizations

is not so clear when including socio-cultural variables. We would expect that the effect of socio-

cultural variables on organizational practices is stronger in indigenous (owned and operated by

nationals) organizations than in multinational organizations. Therefore, the status of the

organization (multinational versus indigenous organization) is expected to be a moderator of all the

relationships between socio-cultural dimensions and organizational practices.


Proposition 11: The effect of national culture on organizational practices will be stronger

for indigenous organizations compared with multinational organizations.

Secondly, it seems useful to include diversity measures at an organizational level

(percentage of ethnic and cultural minority employees) as well as indicators of whether

organizations adopt Western style management models, the number of foreign nationals within the

work force as specialists, advisors or experts and the country where the top leaders have been

educated. This information can be obtained from company records, public relations material and

through interviews with top managers. Similar to the previous hypothesis, we predict that these

measures of diversity and impact of foreign management techniques will moderate the effect of

socio-cultural variables on organizational practices. Organizations with a diverse work force and

strong influence of foreign management techniques are expected to be less influenced by socio-

cultural variables.

Proposition 12: Organizational practices of an organization with a culturally diverse work

force are less strongly influenced by national culture compared with less diverse

organizations.

Proposition 13: The impact of national culture on organizational practices will be

weakened if the organization is strongly influenced by foreign management techniques.

Measurement of Multi-Level Constructs

Measuring concepts at the appropriate and intended level is crucial. In the following, we will

review and outline some the issues related to measuring variables at different levels. Concerning

our individual level variables, they were previously defined, conceptualised and measured at an

individual level. Variables at an organizational and national level are more difficult to measure and

therefore, we will concentrate on these issues.


We conceptualised organizational practices as an organizational level variable. However,

numerous researchers have debated whether higher-unit constructs are actually measured at and

aggregated to the right level (Glick, 1985; James, 1982; Klein, et al., 1994; Kozlowski & Klein,

2000). Chan’s (1998) work on composition models is helpful for determining and measuring the

appropriate level of organizational practices. ‘Composition models specify the functional

relationship among phenomena or constructs at different levels of analysis … that reference

essentially the same content but that are qualitatively different at different levels’ (Chan, 1998, p.

234). Therefore, composition models are concerned with the content of dimensions as well as the

phrasing of items and can help to provide conceptual precision in construct development and

measurement.

Five models were discussed by Chan (1998) which can be grouped in three different basic

types (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), two of which are relevant for our purposes. First, global unit

properties are relatively objective, descriptive and easily observable single level phenomena that

originate at the respective unit level. For example, the number of minority employees in an

organization is a global unit property. Second, shared unit properties are the characteristics that are

common to and shared by members of a unit, such as organizations. Consequently, the relevant unit

is the organization. Items should be phrased so that they direct the attention of respondents to the

predicted level of the theory (Klein et al., 1994,). Hence, the relevant composition model is a

referent-shift consensus model (Chan, 1998). The referent is the organization, but the data is

obtained from respondents at the lower level, namely the individual members of an organization.

These answers are then combined to represent the higher level construct. Within-group consensus

(James et al., 1984; George & James, 1993) as well as between group variability (Yammarino &

Markham, 1992) are needed to ensure that the measured data (obtained from the lower level, e.g.,

individuals) can be used to represent the higher level (e.g., organizations). Researchers should test

the consensus or homogeneity assumption (Klein et al., 1994) in their studies to justify aggregation.


Turning to socio-cultural variables, culture is often conceptualised as collective

programming of the mind (Hofstede, 1980). The definition as well as the aggregation of values to a

culture level implies homogeneity (Klein et al., 1994). However, most culture-level research has

failed to test this assumption (Bond, 2004; Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 2004; Smith et al., 1996).

Correlations of such aggregated scores with economic indices are taken as an indicator of validity

(Hofstede, 2002), although the reliabilities at an individual (Hui, 1988) or cultural level (Spector,

Cooper, Sparks, et al., 2001) have been shown to be questionable.

The problem of the appropriate level is aggravated by the fact that conceptually similar

socio-cultural dimensions have also been conceptualised at an individual level (e.g., Hui, 1988;

Schwartz, 1992; Singelis, 1994; Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995; Triandis & Gelfand,

1998; Triandis, McCusker & Hui, 1990). Dimensions identified at an individual level are

interpreted to ‘reflect psychological dynamics of conflict and compatibility that individuals

experience in the course of pursuing their different values in everyday life’ (Schwartz, 1994, p. 92).

In contrast, culture-level dimensions are supposed to reflect properties of larger social structures

(Hofstede, 1980), like regulation of human activities or the emphasis of institutions within a larger

social structure. In line with Bond (2001), Klein et al. (1994) and Fischer (2004), we argue that this

necessitates items asking individuals about their culture, rather than items addressing individual

preferences and characteristics. Research by Fischer (2004) has shown that individuals are able to

provide reliable and valid reports on their national cultural characteristics. Consequently, we would

recommend that researchers more clearly differentiate between individual and culture levels of

theory and analysis by phrasing cultural items at a culture level.

Finally, most previous culture level research has neglected the issue of consensus or

agreement (for exceptions see Brodbeck, Frese et al., 2000; Fischer, Smith, & Richey, 2003) that

would indicate the presence of heterogeneous subcultures or a fragmented culture. To ensure that

variables can be aggregated to a culture level, researchers should consider not only reliabilities at an


individual, but also agreement (within-unit homogeneity) at an individual level as well as cultural

differences between countries (between-unit heterogeneity). If respondents from a specific cultural

background agree with each other about certain cultural values, and groups of cultures can be

differentiated on the basis of these perceptions (there are significant mean differences across

groups), this would indicate that these perceptions are characteristics that can be used to describe

the particular groups. Therefore, an aggregation of answers to the national culture level would be

justified.

Sampling

Efforts to ensure adequate sampling is crucial for any theory testing efforts, however,

sampling issues are even more important and complex for multi-level models compared with

individual level models because researchers need to ensure that samples show adequate variability

for all constructs of interest at all relevant levels in their model (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). This

constitutes a formidable challenge for multi-level research, especially when involving national

culture as one of the explanatory variables of interest. The primary goal is to ensure that samples

have within-unit homogeneity and between-unit variability. In the next few sections, we describe

various variables that might influence both factors and strategies to ensure adequate sampling.

Addressing the problem of between-unit variability, Georgas and Berry (1995) argued that

cross-cultural psychologists should sample nations that show sufficient differences. Georgas and

Berry (1995) clustered countries using eco-cultural indices related to ecology, economics,

education, mass communication, population and religion. Ronen and Shenkar (1985) reviewed and

synthesised previous studies that used attitudinal data and clustered individual countries into sets of

similar country clusters. They identified seven major clusters (Near Eastern and Arab, Nordic,

Germanic, Anglo, Latin European, Latin American, Far Eastern) with four independent countries

(Brasil, Japan, India, Israel). Hickson and Pugh (1995) suggested adding two more clusters, namely


an East-Central European and a Developing Nations cluster (India, African and South-East Asian

countries). Therefore, researchers should attempt to sample at least one country from each of the

major clusters. This will enhance cross-cultural differences and between-unit variability.

Assuring within-unit homogeneity, is more problematic. In times with radical societal and

economic upheavals and changes, extraneous variables are likely to affect responses and

participants might not be able reach consensus, threatening the within-unit homogeneity

assumption. Collecting data from individuals in countries undergoing radical economic or political

changes might not allow aggregation to higher units. However, the question of ‘how much change

is too much’ has not been addressed in the literature with reference to multi-level modelling. For

example, Eastern European nations underwent radical transformations during the late 1980’ and

mid-1990’s. These changes are on-going, however it could be assumed that processes have been

stabilised by now and participants have become accustomed to the new life. Schwartz and Bardi

(1997) went even further by suggesting that cultural values prevalent in a society are stable and are

not easily influenced by even such dramatic changes as in Eastern and Central Europe.

Schwartz and Sagie (2000) provided some evidence that both democratisation and economic

development have an influence on value consensus within nations. They found that increased socio-

economic development is associated with greater cultural consensus, whereas increased

democratisation leads to greater value disagreement. Socio-economic development and

democratisation are inversely related (Schwartz & Sagie, 2000), so it is hard to increase within-

culture homogeneity through selective sampling. Furthermore, the events of 11/09 and subsequent

developments have led to polarisation of value orientations on a global scale. According to social

identity theory (Hogg & Abrams, 1988), many of these events are considerable threats to group

identity, which is likely to lead to strengthened cultural identities. These events might have resulted

in greater within-unit (within-cultural) homogeneity. Schwartz and Sagie (2000) did not focus on

such radical and polarizing events, therefore, in absence of any large scale investigation of the


impact of these events, careful attention to current political and economic events has to be paid

during data collection efforts.

At an organizational level, researchers should attempt to obtain comparable samples from

countries that reflect dominant subcultures, samples show strong within-group agreement (at an

organizational level); there is sufficient differentiation across organizations and the organizations

samples are relevant to the theory being tested. Since Chatman and Jehn (1994) demonstrated that

industry has a significant impact on organizational culture, organizations across a variety of

industries should be sampled. One of the major problems in comparative cross-cultural research is

that samples are often not directly comparable. However, such differences might already be

indicators of cultural differences (Smith & Peterson, 2002). For example, in feminine cultures,

participation of women in the workforce is higher, compared with more masculine cultures

(Hofstede, 2001). The dominance of public sector organisations within an economy might be

explicable by cultural characteristics (Sinha, 1992). Such differences are expressions of cultural

differences rather than error variables in the common sense. Therefore, sampling should focus on

organizations that maximize variability between organizations within a country, but show some

representative in terms of dominant subcultures and industry characteristics within the country.

Addressing the issue of within-unit homogeneity (agreement about practices within

organizations), employees have to be able to assess the organizational practices and reach adequate

consensus concerning these practices. This again depends on a number of factors. For example, at

an individual level, recently recruited members might not be able to report on organizational

practices since they are still in their socialisation stage (Levine & Moreland, 1994). Newly founded

organizations or organizations undergoing restructuring or merging with other organizations would

not constitute ideal research partners since organizational practices might not be crystallized or are

changing at the moment of investigation (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Larger organizations might be

less homogeneous due to less interaction between units or departments and their individual


members and less interdependence (Klein et al., 2000). It is important to sample employees that are

knowledgeable about organizational practices. Concerning the size of organization, the effect of

size on homogeneity has to be empirically established (by relying on indicators of within-unit or

within-organizational agreement). As presented before, agreement can be used as a moderator

because it can be meaningfully integrated in a theoretical multi-level framework.

Data analytical strategy

Various data analytical strategies exist to test multi-level effects and they have to be

matched to both the theoretical framework, assumptions about the type of construct as well as data

sampling and research methodologies (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Our theoretical framework is

concerned with top-down processes whereby higher level units are influencing lower level units.

The common approach is to measure variables at the lowest level of analysis using survey methods

and then aggregate responses at the respective level of interest. Once aggregated, the theoretical

relationships are tested. The data analytical technique best suited for this approach is random

coefficient modelling (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) or shorter, multi-level modelling (Bryk &

Raudenbusch, 1992; Hofmann, 1997; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The assumptions of within-unit

homogeneity can be tested using both intraclass correlations (Fleiss & Shrout, 1979) and the

coefficient of interrater agreement rwg (James et al., 1984, 1993). Between-unit variability can be

established using ANOVA methods. These statistical details are discussed elsewhere (Hofmann,

1997; Hoffmann, Griffin, & Gavin, 2000; Hox, 1995; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) and the interested

reader is referred to consult these sources.

Conclusions

The present paper was concerned with reviewing theoretical and methodological issues for

conducting multi-level research with a specific focus on national culture. Furthermore, it illustrated


some of the main points by attempting to develop a theoretically derived meso-level model of

organizational behaviour that can be empirically tested. This framework integrates variables at the

national and organizational level to explain variation in work behaviours at an individual level. This

framework is in line with previous work, but expands it by specifically focusing on level of theory

and analysis issues. Empirical work based on this model will be of great importance for both

practitioners and academics because it provides a better understanding of the relationship between

national culture, organizational practices and employee behaviour. For example, managers

interested in understanding levels of voice can identify relevant organizational and socio-cultural

dimensions. Levels of voice might be raised by changing the organizational practices of an

organization (more participation and open communication) in line with prevalent cultural norms

within a culture. From a theoretical perspective, the framework acknowledges the complex nature

of organizations and the influence of multiple forces that influence work behaviour. Aycan (2000a)

criticized the reductionist and atheoretical state of theory and research in international

organizational behaviour. This framework is a step toward more comprehensive and integrated

models to address this problem. Various issues for developing and testing multi-level models

involving culture as an explanatory variable have been discussed and it is hoped that researchers

will increasingly use this powerful theoretical and methodological tool for their investigations of

organizational phenomena.

References

Aguinis, H. & Henle, C.A. (1994). The search for universals in cross-cultural organizational

behavior. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The state of the science (2nd

ed.).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


Ashkanasy, N.M., Broadoot, L.E., & Falkus, S. (2000). Questionnaire measures of organizational

culture. In In N.N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom & M.F. Peterson (eds.), The handbook of

organisational culture and climate (pp. 131-146). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Aycan, Z. (2000a). Cross-cultural Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Contributions, past

developments, and future directions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 110-128.

Aycan, Z. (July 2000b). Implications of paternalism for human resource management practices: A

cross-cultural perspective. Paper presented at the XVth International Congress for Cross-

Cultural Psychology of the IACCP, Pultusk, Poland.

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G. & Kurshid, A. (2000).

Impact of culture on human resource management practices: A 10-country comparison. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 49, 192-221.

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R.N. & Sinha, J.P. (1999). Organizational culture and Human Resource

Management Practices: The Model of Culture Fit. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30,

501-526.

Bettencourt, L. A; Gwinner, K. P; Meuter, M. L. (2001) A comparison of attitude, personality, and

knowledge predictors of service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86, 29-41.

Bies, R.J. & Moag, J.S. (1986). Interactional Justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R.J.

Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard & B.H. Bazerman (eds.), Research on Negotiation in organizations

(Vol. 1): 43-55. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bond, M. H. (2001). Surveying the foundations: Approaches to measuring group, organizational

and national variations. In M. Erez, U. Kleinbeck, & H. Thierry, (eds), Work motivation in the

context of a globalizing economy (pp.395-412). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Bond, M. H. (2004). Culture level dimensions of social axioms and their correlates across 41

cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 548-570.


Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M. & 43 co-authors (2000). Cultural variation of leadership prototypes

across 22 European countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 1 –

29.

Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different

levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234-

246.

Chao, G. T. (2000). Multilevel issues and culture: An integrative view. In J. K. Klein, & S. W. J.

Kozlowski (eds), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations. Foundations,

extensions, and new directions, pp. 308-348. San Francisco: Josey Bass.

Chatman, J. A., & Jehn, K. A. (1994). Assessing the relationship between industry characteristics

and organizational culture: how different can you be? Academy of Management Journal, 37,

522-553.

Chinese Culture Connection (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of

culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143-164.

Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and

consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83-109.

Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and

moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555-590.

Delobbe, N., Haccoun, R. R., & Vandenberghe, C. (2002). Measuring core dimensions of

organizational culture: A review of research and development of a new instrument.

Unpublished manuscript, Universite catholique de Louvain, Belgium.

Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader^member exchange and organizational

citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 67, 315-326.

Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1996). Linking transformational

leadership and organizational culture. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 3, 68-83.


Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and

effectiveness. Organization Science, 6, 204-223.

Detert, J. R., Schroeder, R. G., & Mauriel, J. J. (2000). A framework for linking culture and

improvement initiatives in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 25, 850-863.

Earley, P. C. (1994). Self or group? Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and performance.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 89-117.

Erez, M. (1994). Toward a Model of Cross-Cultural I/O Psychology. In H. M. Triandis, M.D.

Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology (2nd

ed. Vol. 4). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Erez, M. (1997). A Culture Based Model of Work Motivation. In Earley, P.C. & Erez, M. (eds.).

New Perspectives on International Industrial and Organisational Psychology (pp.193-242). San

Francisco: The New Lexington Press.

Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Fischer, R. (2004). My values or my culture’s values? The importance of referent choice for cross-

cultural comparisons. Unpublished manuscript, Victoria University Wellington, New Zealand,

Fischer, R., Smith, P. B., & Richey, B.E. (July 2003). Reward allocation in organizational settings:

Investigating organizational and cross-cultural differences. Paper presented at the Regional

congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology in Budapest, Hungary.

Gelfand, M. J. & Dyer, N. (2000). A cultural perspective on negotiation: Progress, pitfalls and

prospects. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 62-99.

Georgas, J. & Berry, J.W. (1995). An ecocultural taxonomy for cross-cultural psychology. Cross-

cultural research, 29, 131-157.

George, J.M. & James, L.R. (1993). Personality, affect and behavior in groups revisisted: Comment

on aggregation, levels of analysis and a recent application of within and between analysis.


Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 798-804.

Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualising and measuring organizational and psychological climate:

Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 601-616.

Hickson, D. J. & Pugh, D. S. (1995). Management worldwide: the impact of societal culture on

organizations around the globe. New York: Penguin.

Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models.

Journal of Management, 23, 723-744.

Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear

modelling to organizational research. In J. K. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (eds), Multilevel

theory, research and methods in organizations. Foundations, extensions, and new directions,

pp. 467-511. San Francisco: Josey Bass.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.

Beverly Hills: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2002). The pitfalls of cross-national survey research: A reply to the article by Spector

et al. on the psychometric properties of the Hofstede values survey module 1994. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 51, 170-173.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and

organizations across nations, 2nd

ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G., Neuihen, B., Ohayv, D.D. & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures:

A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35,

286-316.

Hogg, M. A. & Abrams, D. (1988). Social Identifications: A social psychology of intergroup

relations and group processes. London: Routledge.


House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the

integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. In B. Staw & L. L . Cummings (Eds.),

Research in organisational behaviour, Vol. 17, (pp. 71-114). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Hui, C.H. (1988). Measurement of Individualism-collectivism. Journal of research in personality,

22, 17-30

James, L.R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 67, 219-229.

James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with

and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.

James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater

agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.

Kagitcibasi, C. (1997). Individualism and collectivism. In J.W. Berry, S.H. Segall & C. Kagitçibasi

(eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2nd

ed., Vol. 3, (pp. 1-49). Needham Heights,

MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kanungo, R.N. & Jaeger, A.M. (1990). Introduction: The need for indigenous management in

developing countries. In A.M. Jaeger & R.N. Kanungo (eds.), Management in developing

countries (pp. 1-23). London: Routledge.

Klein, J. K. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000) (eds). Multilevel theory, research and methods in

organizations. Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Josey Bass.

Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., Smith, D. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Is everyone in agreement? An

exploration of within-group agreement in employee perceptions of work environment. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 86, 3-16.

Klein, K.J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R.J. (1994). Level issues in theory development, data collection

and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195-229.


Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Klein, J. K. (2000). A multi-level approach to theory and research in

organizations: Contextual, temporal and emergent processes. In J. K. Klein, & S. W. J.

Kozlowski (eds), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations. Foundations,

extensions, and new directions, (pp. 3-90). San Francisco: Josey Bass.

Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level

mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 249-277.

Lam, S. S. K., Hui, C. & Law, K. S. (1999). Organizational citizenship behavior: Comparing

perspectives of supervisors and subordinates across four international samples. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 594-601.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 83, 853-869.

Leung, K. (1997). Negotiation and Reward Allocation Across Cultures. In Earley, P.C. & Erez, M.

(eds.), New Perspectives on International Industrial and Organisational Psychology (pp. 640-

675). San Francisco: The New Lexington Press.

Leung, K., Bond, M.H., de Carrasquel, S.R., Munoz, C., Hernandez, M., Murukami, F., et al.

(2002). Social axioms: The search for universal dimensions of general beliefs. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 33, 286-302.

Lindell, M. K., & Brandt, C. J. (2000). Climate quality and climate consensus as mediators of the

relationship between organizational antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology,

85, 331-348.

Mathur, P., Aycan, Z., & Kanungo, R. N. (1996). Work cultures in Indian organizations: A

comparison between public and private sector. Psychology and Developing Society, 8, 199-222.

McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences:

A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55, 89-118.

Medonca, M., & Kanungo, R. N. (1996). Managing human resources: The issue of culture fit.


Journal of Management Inquiry, 3, 189-205.

Moorman, R.H. & Blakely, G.L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference

predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127-

142.

O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D.F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile

comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal,

34, 487-516.

Organ, D.W. & Paine, J.B. (1999). A new kind of performance for industrial and organizational

psychology: Recent contributions to the study of organizational citizenship behavior. In C.L.

Cooper & I.T. Robertson (eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, vol. 14, (pp. 337-368). PLACE: PUBLISHER???

Organ, D.W. & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors

of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802.

Ostroff, C. & Bowen, D. E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices and organizational

effectiveness. In J. K. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (eds), Multilevel theory, research and

methods in organizations. Foundations, extensions, and new directions, (pp. 211-266). San

Francisco: Josey Bass.

Patterson, M., Payne, R. & West, M. (1996). Collective climates: A test of their sociopsychological

significance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1675-1691.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. 2nd

ed. London: Sage.

Rohner, R.P. (1984). Toward a conception of culture for cross-cultural psychology. Journal of

Cross-cultural psychology, 15, 111-138.

Ronen, S. & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and

synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10, 80-107.


Saddler, M. S., & Judd, C. M. (2001). Overcoming dependent data: A guide to the analysis of group

data. In M. A. Hogg, & R. S. Tindale (Eds.) Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group

processes. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109-119.

Schnake, M., Cochran, D & Dumler, M. (1995). Encouraging organizational citizenship: The

effects of job satisfaction, perceived equity and leadership. Journal of Managerial Issues, 12,

209-221.

Schwartz, S. & Sagie, G. (2000). Value consensus and importance: A cross-national study. Journal

of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 465-497.

Schwartz, S. H. & Bardi, A. (1997). Influences of Adaption to Communist rule on Value priorities

in Eastern Europe. Political Psychology, 18, 385-410.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and

empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental social psychology, 25, 1-65.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism-collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In

U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi & G. Yoon (eds) Individualism and

collectivism: Theory, method and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development and death. San Francisco:

W. H. Freeman.

Shrout, P.E. & Fleiss, J.L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.

Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.

Singelis, T. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.

Singelis, T.M., Triandis, H.C., Bhawuk, D.P.S. & Gelfand, M.J. (1995). Horizontal and Vertical

Dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism: A theoratical and measurement refinement.

Cross-cultural research. 29, 240-275.


Sinha, J. B. P. (1994). Cultural embeddedness and the developmental role of industrial

organizations in India. In H. M. Triandis, M.D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (eds.), Handbook of

Industrial and Organisational Psychology (2nd ed. Vol. 4). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Smith, P. B. & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social Psychology across cultures. 2nd ed., Harvester

Wheatsheaf.

Smith, P.B., Dugan, S. & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and the values of organisational

employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,

27, 231-264.

Smith, P.B., Fischer, R. & Sale, N. (2001). Cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology.

In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson (eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, 16 (pp. 147-194), John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Smith, P. B. & Peterson, M. (2003). Demographic effects on the sources of guidance used by

managers in widely differing cultural contexts. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sparks, K., & 25 co-authors (2001). An international stuffy of the

psychometric properties of the Hofstede values survey module 1994: A comparison of

individual and country/province level results. Applied Psychology: An International Review,

50, 269-281.

Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism-collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Triandis, H.C. & Gelfand, M.J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical

individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118-128.

Triandis, H.C., Bontempo, R., Betancourt, H., Bond, M., Leung, K., Brenes, A., Georgas, J., Hui,

C.H., Marin, G., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J.B.P., Verma, J., Spangenberg, J., Touzard, H., & de

Montmollin, G. (1986). The measurement of etic aspects of individualism and collectivism

across cultures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38, 257-267.


Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C. & Hui,C.H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and

collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020.

Van Dyne, L. & LePine, J.A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct

and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L. & McLean Parks, L. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of

construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). In L. L . Cummings & B.

Staw (Eds.), Research in organisational behaviour, Vol. 19, (pp. 214-285). Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Van Dyne, L., Vandewalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M.E. & Cummings, L.L. (2000). Collectivism,

propensity to trust and self-esteem as predictors of organizational citizenship in a non-work

setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 3-23.

Van Muijen, J. J., Koopman, P., De Witte, K., De Cock, G., Susanj, Z., Lemoine, C., Bourantas, D.,

Papalexandris, N., Branyicski, I., Spaltro, E., Jesuino, J., Gonzalves das Neves, J., Pitariu, H.,

Konrad, E., Peiro, J., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Turnipseed, D. (1999). Organizational culture: The

focus questionnaire. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 551-568.

Verbeke, W. (2000). A revision of Hofstede et al.’s (1990) organizational practice scale. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 21, 587-602.

Williams, K.Y. & O’Reilly, C.A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of

40 years of research. In B. Staw & L. L . Cummings (eds.), Research in organisational

behaviour, Vol. 20, pp. 77-140. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Zammuto, R. F. & Krakower, J. Y. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative studies of organizational

culture. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 83-114.


Table 1. A summary of taxonomies of organizational culture dimensions Summary Schein (1990) Detert,

Schroeder, Mauriel (2000)

Ashkanasy, Broadfoot & Falkus (2000)

Delobbe, Haccoun, & Vandenberghe (2002)

Environment: internal versus external focus and orientation

The organization’s relationship to its environment

Orientation and focus – internal and/or external

Environment

Innovation: Concern with stability and predictability versus innovation and organizational change

The nature of human activity

Stability versus change/innovation/personal growth

Innovation Innovation

Truth: Definition of truth and knowledge

The nature of reality and truth

The basis of truth and rationality in the organization

Time: Definition of time and time horizons (past, present, future)

The nature of time

The nature of time and time horizon

Planning

Motivation: Assumptions about human nature and motivation of employees

The nature of human nature

Motivation Socialisation on entry; development of the individual

Work organization: Assumptions about most effective ways of organizing work (individually, teams)

The nature of human relationships

Isolation versus collaboration/cooperation

Diversity: Focus on diversity or homogeneity within groups

Homogeneity versus diversity

Tasks vs people: Centrality of work and task

Orientation to work, task and co-workers

Humanistic workplace; Job performance

People orientation; Results/outcome orientation

Control: Degree of formalization, sharing of control and responsibilities

Control, coordination and responsibility

Structure; Leadership; Communication

Control


Figure 1. Expected mediator relationships between socio-cultural dimensions, organizational

practices and work attitudes and behaviour

_ _ _ _ +

+ + + +

Note: A minus sign denotes a negative relationship between variables, e.g., power distance at a national culture level is

expected to lead to less participation at an organizational level; a plus sign denotes a positive relationship, e.g.,

innovation at an organizational level is likely to lead to more voice behaviour at an individual level. See the text for

further explanations.

Power

distance

Paternalism Individualism Fatalism

Participation Open

Communication Support Innovation

Voice

behaviour

Helping

behaviour

A taxonomy of organizational culture dimensions:

Documents