24~~garrygelade pauldobson individualism, masculinity and sources of organizational commitment

7/29/2019 24~~Garrygelade Pauldobson Individualism, Masculinity and Sources of Organizational Commitment

1/20

http://jcc.sagepub.com/

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/39/5/599The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0022022108321308

2008 39: 599Journal of Cross-Cultural PsychologyGarry A. Gelade, Paul Dobson and Katharina Auer

Individualism, Masculinity, and the Sources of Organizational Commitment

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology

can be found at:Journal of Cross-Cultural PsychologyAdditional services and information for

http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jcc.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/39/5/599.refs.htmlCitations:

at City University Library on August 13, 2010jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jcc.sagepub.com/http://jcc.sagepub.com/http://jcc.sagepub.com/http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/39/5/599http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/39/5/599http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/39/5/599http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.iaccp.org/http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jcc.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jcc.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jcc.sagepub.com/content/39/5/599.refs.htmlhttp://jcc.sagepub.com/http://jcc.sagepub.com/http://jcc.sagepub.com/http://jcc.sagepub.com/http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/39/5/599.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jcc.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.iaccp.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/39/5/599http://jcc.sagepub.com/


2/20

Individualism, Masculinity,and the Sources of OrganizationalCommitment

Garry A. GeladePaul DobsonCass Business School, City University, London

Katharina AuerShell International BV

The authors examine the dependence of organizational commitment on satisfaction with jobcharacteristics that are valued differently in 29 nations. Evidence is found for the moderatingeffects of national culture. Satisfaction with job characteristics that are highly valued in indi-vidualistic cultures has an increasingly strong effect on commitment as national individualismincreases, while satisfaction with collectivist job characteristics has an increasingly weakereffect. Similarly, satisfaction with job characteristics that are highly valued in masculine cul-tures has an increasingly strong effect on commitment as national masculinity increases, while

satisfaction with feminine job characteristics has an increasingly weaker effect. These findingsshow that the sources of organizational commitment are culturally conditioned and that theireffects are predictable from Hofstedes value dimensions. The authors discuss the practicalimplications of these findings and suggest that cultural differences in the psychological con-tract may also affect the relationships between job satisfaction and commitment.

Keywords: individualism; masculinity; cultural values; organizational commitment

S ince the publication ofCultures Consequences in 1980, Hofstedes model of nationalculture has exerted a widespread influence on cross-cultural and social psychology. InHofstedes (1980) original model, culture was explained in terms of four dimensions,called, respectively, power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity.Hofstedes seminal contribution was to use empirical methods to position 50 major nationsand three cultural regions on these dimensions and to relate this map of the worlds psy-chology to a vast body of previous research, theory, and national statistics. Hofstedesdimensions have been invoked by numerous scholars to account for observed differences inbehaviors between people from different cultures and countries, and he is one of the most

599

Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology

Volume 39 Number 5September 2008 599-617

2008 Sage Publications10.1177/0022022108321308

http://jccp.sagepub.comhosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Authors Note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Garry Gelade, Cass BusinessSchool, City University, 106 Bunhill Row, London EC1Y 8TZ, UK; e-mail: [email protected].

http://jcc.sagepub.com/http://jcc.sagepub.com/http://jcc.sagepub.com/http://jcc.sagepub.com/


3/20

frequently cited social scientists of all time (Hofstede, 1997). However, many of the impli-cations of Hofstedes findings still remain to be confirmed empirically, and in this article,we examine the relationship between Hofstedes dimensions and the sources of organiza-

tional commitment in different nations.It seems reasonable to suppose that the effectiveness of organizational practices will dependon the extent to which they address the high-value priorities of the workforce and, therefore,that to maximize and sustain the organizational commitment of a culturally diverse workforce,practices should be aligned to the local culture. This has clear relevance to multinational enter-prises. As firms disperse their assets and operations across the globe (Bartlett & Ghoshal,2000), their competitiveness becomes increasingly dependent on their ability to motivate adiverse labor force (Reade, 2001), and the development of organizational commitment in amultinational context thus becomes an increasingly important strategic imperative.

Most research on organizational behavior has been carried out in Western countries

(Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007). Previous researchers (Andolek & tebe, 2004; Buchko,Weinzimmer, & Sergeyev, 1998; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002;Palich, Hom, & Griffeth, 1995) have found that the sources of commitment vary betweennations; however, none has found a systematic relationship with cultural values.Organizations wishing to maximize commitment in nations other than the United Statestherefore have only scattered empirical evidence to guide them, and an understanding ofthe extent to which the development of commitment depends on cultural values would beof value in designing management systems that prioritize the key sources of commitmentin different cultures.

The aim of this article is thus to examine cross-cultural variation in the antecedents oforganizational commitment (specifically various job characteristics) and to test whetherHofstedes cultural values can explain this variation. The rest of the article is organized asfollows. We first review cross-cultural research on organizational commitment, focusing onstudies that have examined its attitudinal antecedents. Next, we introduce the values-as-moderators framework as the theoretical underpinning for our research hypotheses andthen describe how we derive our specific hypotheses from the structure of Hofstedes indi-vidualism and masculinity dimensions. We then describe the method and results and dis-cuss their practical implications.

Organizational Commitment in a Cross-Cultural Perspective

Organizational commitment is a key construct in organizational psychology and has beendefined as a psychological link between an employee and his or her organization that makesit less likely that the employee will voluntarily leave the organization (Allen & Meyer,1996, p. 252). Commitment is widely thought to consist of three components: affective, con-tinuance, and normative commitment. According to Allen and Meyer (1990), affective com-mitment develops through work experiences that fulfil employees needs to feelcomfortable within the organization and competent in the work role (p. 4). Continuancecommitment, on the other hand, is largely based on the investment that an employee has

made in the organization (e.g., pension contributions) and the perceived lack of alternativeemployment opportunities, while normative commitment is based more on early experiencesof socialization than on experiences in the employing organization (Allen & Meyer, 1996).

600 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology



4/20

This suggests that although affective commitment should covary with job satisfaction,there is little reason to expect continuance and normative commitment to do so. Substantialevidence (from research conducted in Western countries) supports this view. First, affective

commitment has been shown to covary with many facets of work satisfaction (Mathieu &Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002; Steers, 1977). Second, in nine studies summarized byAllen and Meyer (1996), although the correlation of job satisfaction with affective commit-ment was positive and significant in every study, correlations with normative commitmentwere consistently lower, and significant in only four studies, and correlations with norma-tive commitment were small and negative.

The cross-cultural construct invariance of organizational commitment is fairly wellestablished. Some (e.g., Ko, Price, & Mueller, 1997) have questioned the factor validity ofcommitment measures in East Asian samples. However, studies replicating previous U.S.research have been conducted on employees from the United Arabs Emirates (Yousef,

2003), Kenya (Walumbwa, Orwa, Wang, & Lawler, 2005), Belgium (Vandenberghe,1996), Japan (White, Parks, Gallagher, Tetrault, & Wakabayashi, 1995), and China (Cheng& Stockdale, 2003). In the two most extensive studies to date, Palich et al. (1995) andVandenberghe, Stinglhamber, Bentein, and Delhaise (2001) found support for measure-ment equivalence across a variety of Western countries. While organizational commitmentlevels vary significantly between countries, there is no evidence for a systematic effect ofcultural values on the national means. Hofstedes dimensions either fail to correlate sig-nificantly with national means at all or fail to predict them in a theoretically meaningfulway (Gelade, Dobson, & Gilbert, 2006; Randall, 1993; Vandenberghe et al., 2001).

The evidence for national differences in the sources of commitment is rather sparse.Buchko et al. (1998) found that job involvement and promotion were stronger predictors ofcommitment for Russian workers than is typically found for American workers, althoughthere were no differences for pay satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction, work satisfaction, orcoworker satisfaction. In a seven-nation study, Andolek and tebe (2004) found that mate-rial job values such as job quality were more predictive of commitment in individualisticsocieties, whereas postmaterialistic job values such as helping others were more predictiveof commitment in collectivistic societies. On the other hand, Palich et al. (1995) failed todetect any meaningful effect of cultural values on the relationship between commitmentand job scope, role clarity, extrinsic rewards, and participative management across 15

nations. Furthermore, the relationship between commitment and intention to quit, a well-established consequence of commitment, also appears to show no cultural moderation(Vandenberghe et al., 2001). Finally, the meta-analysis of Meyer et al. (2002) found thatrole conflict and role ambiguity were stronger predictors of commitment within the UnitedStates than outside it; their data did not, however, permit them to test whether culturalvalues moderated these relationships.

Considered overall, previous research has failed to provide convincing evidence for a sys-tematic effect of cultural values on the sources of organizational commitment; such evidenceas exists points to the absence of any effect. This is somewhat surprising, as it would beexpected that in any particular culture, commitment should be most influenced by the job char-acteristics that are most highly valued. We explain this in further detail in the next section.

Gelade et al. / Individualism, Masculinity, and Commitment 601



5/20

Theoretical Foundations: The Values as Moderators Framework

The value theory of Schwartz and Bilsky (1987) holds that a persons value system is a

structured domain whose elements are prioritized relative to one another; thus, a personsvalues can be ordered in terms of their importance. According to the values-as-moderatorsframework (Oishi, Diener, Suh, & Lucas, 1999), attaining goals or satisfying needsdeemed important has a greater effect than attaining goals or satisfying needs deemed lessimportant. Thus, for example, Malka and Chatman (2003) found that the effect of incomeon a persons subjective well-being (SWB) depends on the value he or she attaches toextrinsic rewards; thus, income and SWB are more strongly related for extrinsically ori-ented than intrinsically oriented persons. Similarly, Oishi, Diener, Suh et al. (1999) foundchanges in SWB to be strongly influenced by the degree of success in the domains thatindividuals value most, and Harris, Daniels, and Briner (2003) found that the achievement

of high-importance goals at work increased pleasurable affect more than the achievementof low-importance goals.

Similar reasoning can be applied at the cultural level. Personal feelings are deemed moreimportant in individualistic cultures than in collectivist ones, and accordingly, Suh, Diener,Oishi, and Triandis (1998) found that affect balance was a stronger predictor of life satisfac-tion in individualistic cultures than in collectivist ones. Similarly Oishi, Diener, Lucas, and Suh(1999) found that satisfaction with esteem needs, such as freedom, predicts global life satisfac-tion more strongly among people in individualist nations than people in collectivist nations.

The values-as-moderators framework also underlies prior theorizing on the cross-

cultural sources of commitment. For example, Palich et al. (1995) hypothesized that indi-vidual rewards should have a stronger influence on commitment in individualistic soci-eties than in collectivist societies, because members of individualistic societies valueindividual rewards highly and regard them as indicators of success. Similarly, they sug-gested that job scope should foster commitment in individualist societies because complexwork offers an opportunity for personal achievement, a highly valued aspiration in indi-vidualist societies. Generalizing, we may suppose that any aspect of the work environmentthat is highly valued in a culture will have a strong and positive effect on commitment andthat in a culture where that aspect is less valued, its effect on commitment will be corre-spondingly weaker.

Individualism, Masculinity, and Research Hypotheses

We focus on individualism and masculinity in this article because Hofstede derived thesedimensions entirely from employee ratings of the importance of various job characteristics.For example, employees were asked, How important is it to you to have . . . sufficient timefor your personal or family life? or How important is it for you to have training opportu-nities . . . ? and responded by rating on a scale of 1 (of utmost importance to me) to 5 (ofvery little or no importance). As described later, knowing how job characteristics are val-

ued in different cultures is key to our hypothesis generation; thus, Hofstedes power dis-tance and uncertainty avoidance dimensions, which are measured by opinion scores, areunsuitable for the analyses we wish to conduct.




6/20

In individualistic societies, individuals are independent of one another. Accordingto Hofstede (2001), in individualistic societies, the ties between individuals are loose(p. 225) and everyone is expected to fend for themselves and their immediate families.

In collectivist societies, group identity and cohesion are valued; here, people are inte-grated into strong cohesive in-groups which . . . protect them in exchange for unquestion-ing loyalty (p. 225).

Masculinity measures the degree to which social gender roles are differentiated.According to Hofstede (2001), in masculine societies, social gender roles are clearlydistinct: Men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focussed on material success;women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality oflife (p. 297); conversely, in feminine societies, social gender roles overlap. Bothmen and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality oflife (p. 297).

In Hofstedes derivation of his individualism and masculinity dimensions, 14 job char-acteristics were rated for importance in 40 different countries. Ecological factor analysis ofthe importance ratings (i.e., at national level) recovered two interpretable, bipolar factors;these formed the basis for defining the two dimensions of individualism/collectivism andmasculinity/femininity and for calculating the country scores for individualism and mas-culinity (denoted here as IDV and MAS, respectively).

Hofstede called nations scoring high on his first factor individualistic and thosescoring low collectivist; similarly, nations scoring high on his second factor werecalled masculine, and those scoring low were called feminine. The importance of a

job characteristic in a particular nation is indicated by its factor loading. Thus, for exam-ple, the importance of having sufficient personal and family time loads positively on theIndividualism/Collectivism factor. This means that employees in individualist (highIDV) nations say they value personal time more than do employees in collectivist (lowIDV) nations. Conversely, the importance of training opportunities loads negatively onthe Individualism/Collectivism factor. This means that employees in high IDV nationssay they value training opportunities less than do employees in low IDV nations.

Drawing on the values-as-moderators framework, we may therefore state our researchhypotheses as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Satisfaction with job characteristics that are valued in individualistic nations (i.e.,characteristics positively associated with Hofstedes IDV factor) will have a progressivelystronger influence on commitment as national individualism increases. Conversely, satisfac-tion with job characteristics that are valued in collectivist nations (i.e., negatively associatedwith Hofstedes IDV factor) will have a progressively weaker influence on commitment asnational individualism increases.

Hypothesis 2: Satisfaction with job characteristics that are valued in masculine nations (i.e., char-acteristics positively associated with Hofstedes MAS factor) will have a progressivelystronger influence on commitment as national masculinity increases. Conversely, satisfactionwith job characteristics that are valued in feminine cultures (i.e., negatively associated with

Hofstedes MAS factor) will have a progressively weaker influence on commitment asnational masculinity increases.




7/20

Method

Analysis Sample

The data were drawn from an employee satisfaction survey conducted in a large multi-national pharmaceutical company. The survey (conducted globally every 2 years) was admin-istered by a commercial survey provider and was designed to monitor opinions on a widerange of work-related topics and not for the purposes of this study. There were 100 survey items,and responses were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with endpoints labeled agree anddisagree and with higher numbers representing increasing degrees of favorability. The surveywas administered in the local language, and items were back-translated to ensure accuracy.

All company employees were invited to take part in the survey, which was completedonline by 66.6% of respondents and on paper by the remainder, and a combined data file

was made available to the researchers (note that methodological biases between electronicand traditional pencil-and-paper surveys are usually small and nonsignificant; e.g., Knapp& Kirk, 2003; Mehta & Sivadas, 1995; Stanton, 1998). The total number of respondentswas 51,380, and the response rate was 80%. A number of contextual factors probably con-tributed to this high response rate. These included assured anonymity of respondents, fre-quent and consistent communication with the workforce in the planning stages (e.g., via thecompany intranet), visible support for the survey project from senior executives, theappointment of local survey coordinators in each country, and agreed timetables for surveyactivities. The prompt dissemination of the results of previous surveys and an emphasis onlocal follow-up and action planning probably also stimulated positive attitudes toward the

survey process and increased the likelihood of responding.For compatibility with Hofstedes data, Egypt (n = 181), Kuwait (n = 18), Saudi-Arabia

(n = 101), and the United Arab Emirates (n = 40) were combined into a single Arab region.After eliminating countries with less than 100 respondents, there were 29 nations (i.e., 28countries and one region) in common with Hofstedes data set. In this subset of the data,which comprised the analysis sample, there were 48,625 respondents and the mediannational sample size was 349. Tenure was recorded on a scale of 1 to 4, with successivepoints representing less than 2 years (19%), 2 to 5 years (28%), 5 to 10 years (25%), andmore than 10 years (28%), with the remainder (0.2%) unspecified. Job level was recordedas a dichotomous variable according to whether a respondent had direct reports. Gender wasrecorded, but age was not. Sample characteristics for the 29 nations are listed in Table 1.

Analytical Strategy

The analysis consisted of several steps. First, we identified survey questions having sim-ilar content to Hofstedes items. We then constructed satisfaction scores for each and exam-ined the statistical justification for aggregation to the cultural level. We then tested formoderation using a slopes-as-outcomes approach to analyzing multilevel data (Kreft & deLeeuw, 1998). This is a two-stage method, where regression parameters defined at the lower

(individual) level are treated as outcomes that are subsequently analyzed at the higher(national) level. In Stage 1, we use regression modeling (with commitment as the dependentvariable) to determine the influence of individualist, collectivist, masculine, and femininejob characteristics in each nation and then test for the moderating effects of national culture




8/20

in Stage 2. Rather than use regression slopes as the Stage 1 outcomes, however, we use mea-sures of variable importance, as described below. The reason is that in the presence of cor-related predictors, a variables regression slope does not accurately reflect its influence.

Quantifying the influence of an independent variable in a regression equation is a seem-ingly simple problem but more complex than it first appears. In this article, we use relativeimportance (Budescu, 1993) as our measure of influence. Various definitions of regressorimportance, and associated importance metrics, have been proposed over the years.According to Budescu, however, none of the previous measures are entirely satisfactory,

and he therefore proposed a new method for quantifying importance called dominanceanalysis. Dominance analysis has been described in Budescu (1993) and Azenand Budescu (2003); these articles should be consulted for a complete account, but a briefsummary is given here.


Table 1

National Samples

Nation N % Male % With Direct Reports Mean Tenure Band

Austria 154 43 21 2.26Australia 732 49 23 2.44Belgium 447 43 32 2.61Canada 1,137 47 24 2.58Switzerland 157 46 31 2.27Germany 1,260 53 31 2.73Denmark 203 29 27 2.67Spain 879 64 16 2.58Finland 194 35 27 2.53France 1,809 46 27 2.52United Kingdom 8,226 53 34 2.91Greece 349 66 20 2.33Indonesia 311 58 17 2.26India 798 81 24 2.84Italy 1,774 57 22 2.61Japan 2,486 73 24 2.64South Korea 239 70 30 1.94Malaysia 121 46 23 2.23Netherlands 268 39 22 2.38Norway 243 45 24 2.62Philippines 599 57 21 2.64Portugal 159 57 28 2.55

Sweden 10,334 43 20 2.74Thailand 216 31 17 2.16Turkey 478 63 13 2.07Taiwan 180 56 23 2.18United States 14,276 50 21 2.46South Africa 260 37 26 2.09Arab regiona 336 82 21 2.51Overall 48,625 48 24 2.62

a. Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates.

http://jcc.sagepub.com/http://jcc.sagepub.com/http://jcc.sagepub.com/


9/20

Budescu defined the relative importance of a regression predictor as its proportionate con-tribution to the total explained variance, considering both its unique contribution and its con-tribution when combined with other predictors. Relative importance is assessed by examining

all the possible regression equations that can be formed from the predictors. Suppose thereare n predictors. We can enumerate the possible regression equations as follows: There is asingle null equation with no predictor; there are n equations with a single predictor; there aren(n 1) / 2 equations with two predictors, and so on. Suppose we regress a dependent vari-able (Y) on two predictors (A and B). There are four regression models, viz. the null model,Y|A, Y|B, and Y|AB (where | indicates regressed on). The importance of a given predictor iscalculated by adding it in turn to each of the equations in which it does not already partici-pate and summing the increases in explained variance. This is done for each predictor, and anappropriate scaling is applied to find the relative importance of each predictor as a percent-age. A particular advantage of this metric is that it provides an index of importance based on

a predictors direct effect (i.e., when considered by itself), total effect (i.e., conditional on allother predictors), and partial effect (i.e., conditional on subsets of predictors) (Budescu,1993, p. 544.) Furthermore, relative importances are additive and sum to the modelR2. Thispermits a meaningful decomposition of modelR2 even in the presence of collinearity amongthe predictors. For more than five predictors, the number of regression equations that must besolved becomes prohibitively large, and the calculations become impractical. However,Johnson (2000) developed a computationally efficient approximation that can be used withlarge numbers of predictors; it produces closely similar results to the longhand method (Azen& Budescu, 2003), and Johnsons approximation is used here.

Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment

Because our analysis examines cultural differences in the relationship between commit-ment and job satisfaction, affective commitment was chosen as the dependent variable forthis study, in preference to its normative or continuance counterparts. As we were relyingon archival data, it was not possible to use a standard commitment scale. Commitment wasthus measured by two items: I am proud to work for [organization name] and I wouldrecommend [organization name] as a good place to work. Similar items (I am proud totell others that I am part of this organization and I talk up this organization to my friends

as a great organization to work for) appear in the Organizational CommitmentQuestionnaire (OCQ; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979), which, as Dunham, Grube, andCastaeda (1994) have demonstrated, is a measure of affective rather than normative orcontinuance commitment. Both items (with similar changes in wording) also appear inCook and Walls (1980) Organizational Commitment Scale, and the first item also appearsin Marsden, Kalleberg, and Cooks (1993) measure of commitment designed for the 1991General Social Survey.

Commitment Antecedents: Job Satisfaction Items

We examined the survey questionnaire for items similar in content to those by Hofstedeand classified them according to their loadings on his Individualism/Collectivism andMasculinity/Femininity factors (Hofstedes factor loadings are reported in Table 2). Not all




10/20

items could be matched exactly; for example, Hofstedes [Importance of] Opportunity foradvancement to higher levels was matched to the slightly different survey item I have theopportunity for personal development and growth in my company. Nevertheless, reason-

able matches were found for all except one of Hofstedes items ([Importance of] Live ina desirable area), for which there was no matching survey item. Next, items were desig-nated as I, C, M, or F according to Hofstedes factor analytic loadings. For example, thesurvey item I have enough flexibility in my job to be able to balance my work and per-sonal life was designated an I item because it corresponds to Job Characteristic A18,which loads positively on Hofstedes Individualism/Collectivism factor. I items assess sat-isfaction with job characteristics that are rated as important in Hofstedes individualisticcultures. Conversely, survey items assessing characteristics that are rated as important inHofstedes collectivist cultures were designated C items and so on. Similarly, items load-ing positively on the Masculinity/Femininity factor were designated F, and those loading

negatively were designated M. (Note that when calculating the Masculinity/Femininityscale, Hofstede reversed the sign of this factor.) Where a Hofstede item had salient load-ings on both factors, the designation of the corresponding survey item was determined bythe largest loading. Note that Job Characteristic A5, which has similar loadings on both fac-tors, was initially assigned to M; as explained later, it was reassigned to I following furtheranalysis.

Measurement Equivalence and Aggregation Issues

In any cross-cultural analysis, it is important to consider the extent to which the mea-sures used are comparable across nations and consistently reliable within nations. Thesefactors limit the degree to which aggregation to the national level is permissible.

We calculated ICC1 and ICC2 statistics for commitment and each of the satisfactionmeasures defined in Table 2. ICC statistics are commonly used in organizational researchto ascertain whether it is justifiable to aggregate individual scores to the group level (Bliese,2000). ICC1, the intraclass correlation, is a measure of within-group consensus, and ICC2is the reliability of the group mean that is formed when individual scores are aggregated;its value depends on the degree of group consensus and the average group size.

We also examined the multiple-item measures (i.e., A7, A10, A11, A12, A13, A16, and

Commitment) for measurement equivalence. Each measure was subjected to a multigroupconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in which the measure was represented by a single latentvariable and the factor loadings and error variances of the observed variables were con-strained to equality across nations. Additionally, for the two-item measures, the error vari-ances of the observed variables were set equal to each other to achieve model identification.Within-nation reliabilities were also calculated. The results are summarized in Table 3.

The ICC1 values showed that on average, 7.4% of the variance of the job satisfactionscores was due to nation, and to determine the significance of the ICC1 values, we per-formed a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on each measure. All the ANOVAs hadsignificant (p < .001) between-nation effects, indicating that all the ICC1s were signifi-

cantly different from zero. Common practice suggests that an ICC2 of at least .70 is accept-able (Klein et al., 2000, p. 518), and all the measures in Table 3 easily meet this criterion.




11/20

608

Table2

MappingofHofstedesJobC

haracteristicstoSurveyIt

ems

No.of

Survey

JobCharac

teristic

No.a

I/C

M/F

Items

SurveyItemorSampleItem

D

esignationc

Senseofpersonalachievement

A5

.46

.54

1

Myworkgivesmeasenseofpersonal

M

accomplishment.

Liveinadesirablearea

A6

.35

.59

Noavailableitem

Opportunityforhighearnings

A7

.70

2

Howsatisfiedareyo

uwithyourpay?

M

Peoplewhocooperatewitheachother

A8

.37

.69

1

Myteamworkswelltogether.

F

Trainingopportunities

A9

.82

1

IreceivethetraininganddevelopmentIneed

C

todomycurrentjob.

Goodfring

ebenefits

A10

.40

2

Howsatisfiedareyo

uwithyourbenefitspackage?

C

Recognitionforagoodjob

A11

.59

2

Inmycompanypeoplearerecognizedforinnovation.

M

Goodphysicalworkingconditions

A12

.69

3

Myworkareaisasafeplacetowork.

C

Freedomto

adoptownapproachtothejob

A13

.49

2

Ifeelsafetoexpressmyopinionsinmycompany.

I

Opportunityforadvancementtohigherlevels

A15

.56

1

Ihavetheopportunityforpersonaldevelopment

M

andgrowthinmy

company.

Goodwork

relationshipwithmanager

A16

.69

3

Myimmediatemanagerinvolvesmeinmaking

F

decisionsthataffectmywork.

Fullyuseskillsandabilities

A17

.63

.40

1

Myjobofferssufficientopportunitytousemy

C

skillsandabilities.

Timeforpersonalorfamilylife

A18

.86

3

Ihaveenoughflexib

ilityinmyjobtobeable

I

tobalancemywo

rkandpersonallife.

Note:JobCharacteristicA5wasreassignedtoIinlateranalysis.

a.SeeHosftede(2001,pp.467-468).

b.SeeHofstede(2001,p.255).

c.I=Indiv

idualist;C=Collectivist;M=Ma

sculine;F=Feminine.

FactorLoadingsb



12/20

As shown by the CFA fit indices, all the multiple-item measures showed a highdegree of measurement equivalence. Median alpha reliabilities were less satisfactory butstill adequate. Using the criteria for research scales proposed by Devellis (2003), three arein the minimally acceptable range (.65 to .70), two are respectable (.70 to .80), twovery good (.80 to .90), and only one is undesirable (.60 to .65).

Overall, we may conclude that the satisfaction measures defined in Table 3 meet the con-ditions for a cross-cultural analysis. Commitment scores and satisfaction scores for the 12job characteristics were computed for each employee. Where a measure was represented bymore than one item, its score was the mean of the constituent items. Employee scores werethen aggregated to the national level.

Control Variables

Gender (0 for females and 1 for males), job level (0 for a respondent with no directreports, 1 for a respondent with direct reports), and tenure band (1 = less than 2 years, 2 =2 to 5 years, 3 = 5 to 10 years, 4 = more than 10 years) were used as control variables.

Cultural Dimensions

National measures of IDV and MAS were taken from Hoftsede (2001, p. 500).


Table 3

Measurement Equivalence and Aggregation Statistics

for Satisfaction and Commitment Measures

Alpha ReliabilitiesMultigroup CFA Statistics Within Country

2 df GFI CFI TLI RMSEA Median Minimum ICC1a ICC2

Multiple-Item MeasuresA7 543 56 .99 .98 .99 .014 .64 .47 .11 .99A10 1,008 56 .98 .93 .97 .019 .75 .59 .13 .99A11 688 56 .99 .95 .98 .015 .65 .45 .11 .99A12 3,152 140 .96 .88 .92 .021 .69 .39 .12 .99A13 547 56 .99 .96 .98 .013 .65 .50 .06 .97A16 1,319 140 .98 .98 .99 .013 .76 .66 .03 .97

A18 1,228 140 .98 .97 .98 .013 .80 .64 .06 .99Commitment 2,509 56 .95 .93 .97 .030 .82 .68 .09 .99

Single-item measuresA5 .07 .99A8 .05 .97A9 .05 .97A15 .05 .98A17 .04 .97

Note: df= degrees of freedom; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-LewisIndex; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

a. Random effects model.



13/20

Analysis and Results

To assess the relationship between commitment and its antecedents, we conducted a

series of regression analyses. In each case, commitment was regressed on the demographiccontrols and a subset of the job satisfaction scores. Separate regressions were carried out ineach of the 29 nations. Johnsons (2000) method was used to calculate the relative impor-tances of each job characteristic in each nation.

We investigated two regression models. Model 1 examined satisfaction with individual-ist (I) and collectivist (C) job characteristics, and Model 2 examined satisfaction with mas-culine (M) and feminine (F) job characteristics. The independent variables were therelevant satisfaction scores for each job characteristic, and gender, tenure, and job levelwere included as controls. For each nation, we calculated the relative importance of eachjob characteristic and control variable and then summed the importances of each subset of

variables (controls, I characteristics, C characteristics, M characteristics, and F characteris-tics) to give the total importance for each subset. Finally, we determined the moderatingeffect of national culture by correlating the importances of the job characteristics in eachnation with Hofstedes national scores for individualism and masculinity.

In an initial analysis, not reported here, we found that the effect of Job Characteristic A5(initially designated as M) was significantly moderated by country individualism but not bymasculinity. As shown in Table 2, however, A5 has similar loadings on both Hofstedes fac-tors and its designation is somewhat open to question; we therefore redesignated A5 as anI characteristic. The results we report are after this reassignment.

Regression and importance statistics are shown in Table 4, where to conserve space wesummarize across the 29 nations rather than report the results for each nation separately.TheR2 values in Table 4 show that the independent variables explain a substantial pro-

portion of commitment variance in most nations (on average 49.4% in Model 1 and 42.4%in Model 2). The control variables are generally weak predictors, with relative importancesof only 3.1% in Model 1 and 3.5% in Model 2. In Model 1, the I and C characteristics bothhave substantial effects on commitment (average importances 55% and 41.9%, respec-tively), but in Model 2, the overall importance of the F characteristics (25.4%) was substan-tially less than that of the M characteristics (71.2%). This might indicate that feminine jobcharacteristics are intrinsically less strongly related to commitment than masculine ones,

but another explanation is that omission of the Facet A6, for which there was no availablesurvey item, meant that the feminine work domain was not fully represented. In any case,it is the variation in importance levels by nation that matters, and absolute importance lev-els are not relevant to our calculations.

Table 5 shows the correlations of Hofstedes IDV and MAS dimensions with the relativeimportances of each antecedent and antecedent subset. A significant correlation indicatesthat a dimension moderates the commitment-antecedent relationship.1

In Model 1, the moderating effects of individualism are revealed by the positive correla-tions between IDV and the relative importance of I characteristics, which show that I char-

acteristics are stronger antecedents of commitment in individualist nations than incollectivist ones. Similarly, the negative correlations between IDV and the relative impor-tance of C characteristics show that C characteristics are stronger antecedents in collectivistnations. Although not all job characteristics show the effect, significant correlations in the




14/20

expected direction are obtained for four of the seven job characteristics and for the summedimportances of the I and C characteristics. Hypothesis 1 is thus supported.

In Model 2, the moderating effects of masculinity are indicated by positive correlationsbetween MAS and the relative importance of M characteristics and by negative correlationsbetween MAS and the relative importance of F characteristics. The findings here are less

clear cut; three of the five job characteristics show a salient correlation in the predicteddirection, but only one of these reaches significance. However, the summed importances ofthe M and F characteristics do correlate significantly with MAS in the predicted directions,and the findings therefore offer qualified support for Hypothesis 2.


Table 4

Summary of Regression and Dominance Analyses in 29 Nations

Unstandardized Relative Importance as

Regression Coefficients Predictor of Commitment (%)

Independent Variables M SD Min. Max. M SD Min. Max.

Model 1: Satisfaction With Individualist (I) vs. Collectivist (C) Job Characteristics

Controls Gender 0.01 0.06 0.13 0.15 1.0 1.6 0.0 8.1Tenure 0.05 0.05 0.17 0.06 1.4 1.2 0.2 5.8Org. level 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.06 0.7 0.4 0.1 1.8All controls 3.1 1.9 0.7 9.0

I A5 0.25 0.08 0.04 0.32 21.7 6.1 6.3 32.9A13 0.21 0.08 0.04 0.33 20.3 5.8 9.8 31.5

A18 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.27 12.9 4.9 5.7 24.4All I 55.0 8.2 37.0 66.7C A9 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.21 8.6 3.7 3.7 17.0

A10 0.13 0.06 0.02 0.27 11.3 4.0 4.3 20.6A12 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.22 9.4 4.0 2.3 19.0A17 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.25 12.5 4.8 4.0 24.9All C 41.9 7.8 28.3 60.7

R2 49.4 5.7 38.0 58.3

Model 2: Satisfaction With Masculine (M) vs. Feminine (F) Job Characteristics

Controls Gender 0.01 0.06 0.10 0.15 1.1 1.7 0.0 8.2

Tenure 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.07 1.4 1.3 0.2 6.6Org. level 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.09 0.9 0.8 0.1 3.8All controls 3.5 2.0 0.5 9.4

M A7 0.15 0.06 0.01 0.24 16.5 4.7 4.3 24.3A11 0.26 0.06 0.16 0.46 28.5 6.0 19.6 46.9A15 0.23 0.06 0.13 0.39 26.3 5.9 16.3 39.7All M 71.2 6.7 59.8 85.2

F A8 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.25 10.7 4.7 0.5 21.4A16 0.11 0.07 0.01 0.24 14.7 5.2 6.4 27.4All F 25.4 7.1 7.9 37.2

R2 42.4 4.4 33.6 52.6

Note:N= 29, SD = standard deviation.



15/20

Discussion

This research was subject to some methodological limitations. First, our analytical sam-ple was not a statistically representative one, as the respondents were all employees of thesame multinational organization. Similar samples have of course been frequently used incross-cultural research before (e.g., Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Palich et al., 1995;Vandenberghe et al., 2001). Furthermore, Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, and Sanders (1990)have shown that national culture is a stronger determinant of employee values than organi-zational membership, so this potential source of bias may not be as serious as imagined.

A second potential problem is that only two items were available to measure affective

commitment, and a broader measure would have been preferable. As a test of validity, wechecked our commitment measure against scores for the item I feel a strong sense of com-mitment to my organization in a database containing representative samples of 12 national


Table 5

Correlations of National Individualism and Masculinity

Scores With Relative Importances

IDV MAS

Model 1Controls Gender .33 .05

Tenure .07 .23Org. level .06 .28All controls .32 .16

I characteristics A5: Sense of personal achievement .39* .12A13: Freedom to adopt own approach to the job .54** .17A18: Time for personal or family life .03 .11All I characteristics .69*** .10

C characteristics A9: Training opportunities .40* .36A10: Good fringe benefits .12 .10A12: Good physical working conditions .56** .01A17: Fully use skills and abilities .19 .25All C characteristics .65*** .06

Model 2Controls Gender .35 .05

Tenure .18 .15Org. level .21 .09All controls .33 .10

M characteristics A7: Opportunity for high earnings .19 .35A11: Recognition for a good job .13 .17A15: Opportunity for advancement to higher levels .16 .35All M characteristics .11 .40*

F characteristics A8: People who cooperate with each other .12 .08A16: Good work relationship with manager .37* .47*All F characteristics .20 .40*

Note:N= 29. IDV = national individualism; MAS = national masculinity (Hofstede, 2001).*p .05. **p .01. ***p .001.



16/20

workforces overlapping with our data. The correlation was .69 (p = .013), providing somereassurance our two-item measure is a reasonable indicator of national commitment levels.

Finally, we note that all the data were self-reported and that some of the observed rela-

tionships may be subject to common method variance. This, however, can be confidentlyruled out as an explanation of our findings. The results show different correlations betweencommitment and its antecedents in different nations and different correlations for individ-ualist and collectivist job characteristics. If there were no cultural moderation effects, wewould have to suppose that common method variance differed for individualist and collec-tivist job characteristics and moreover was higher for individualist characteristics in indi-vidualist nations, a conjecture that seems unlikely to say the least.

Theory supposes that the relationships between organizational commitment and itsantecedents and consequences should be moderated by cultural values, but previousattempts at empirical confirmation have proved disappointing. The contribution of this arti-

cle is to demonstrate the existence of significant moderating effectsin the predicted direc-tionsfor individualism and masculinity. Satisfaction with job characteristics that arehighly valued (overtly rated as important) in individualistic cultures has a progressivelystronger influence on commitment as national individualism increases, while for character-istics that are highly valued in collectivist cultures, the effects of satisfaction decrease withincreasing individualism. Similarly, satisfaction with job characteristics that are highly val-ued in masculine cultures has a progressively stronger influence on commitment as nationalmasculinity increases, while for characteristics highly valued in feminine nations, theeffects of satisfaction decrease with increasing masculinity.

These results contrast with those of Palich et al. (1995), who reported no such modera-tion in the antecedents of commitment, and those of Vandenberghe et al. (2001), whoreported no such moderation in its consequences. One reason may be that their samples (15and 12 nations, respectively) were smaller than those used here and were less representa-tive because they were confined to Western countries; both factors may have limited theability to detect moderating effects. A further distinctive feature of the present research isthat the job characteristics we examined were carefully matched to those used by Hofstedeto define his cultural dimensions, which may also have increased sensitivity to the effectsof his cultural dimensions.

Cross-cultural variation in the sources of commitment has practical implications for

human resource management, where increasing globalization (connectivity and integra-tion) in the economic sphere is leading to more cross-national partnerships, corporate merg-ers, and outsourcing ventures, resulting in increasing contacts between managers andworkforces from different cultures. Managing in a culturally diverse environment requiresnew knowledge, and the data in Table 5 suggest some specific recommendations. Work thatfosters a sense of personal achievement and that allows employees some flexibility and dis-cretion is an important source of commitment in individualistic nations but less so in col-lectivist ones. We suggest that careful job design is thus of particular importance inindividualistic nations. Conversely, in collectivist nations, we would recommend that man-agers pay particular attention to providing comfortable working conditions and access totraining opportunities. The differences between masculine and feminine nations are lessclear cut but suggest that the encouragement of good managersubordinate relationshipsshould be particularly emphasized in feminine nations.




17/20

An obvious direction for future research is to test for the moderating effects of other cul-tural dimensions. However, as Gelfand, Erez, and Aycan (2007) remark, the explanation ofcultural differences in organizational behavior needs to move beyond consideration of cul-

tural values alone. It is clear that, at the fine-grained level of specific job characteristics, thecultural effects that we report are still somewhat inconsistent with theory, in that some jobcharacteristics show no discernable moderation. The failure to consistently confirm the pre-dicted moderating effects in this and other research could indicate that the values-as-moderators framework provides an incomplete theoretical model of the commitmentprocess.

One variable that might produce cross-cultural differences is the psychological contract(e.g., Rousseau, 1989, 1995). The development of attitudes such as commitment is gener-ally thought to occur within the context of an implied contractual relationship, which rep-resents the mutual beliefs, perceptions, and informal obligations between an employer and

an employee and sets the expectations and boundaries for the association. To function as asource of commitment in a particular culture, a job characteristic needs to be both highlyvalued and to be a normative element within the psychological contract. Aspects of thework environment that are excluded from, or peripheral to, the normative psychologicalcontract are not psychologically attributable to the organization and are thus less likely toaffect levels of commitment than aspects that are central.

There is good reason to believe that the scope of the typical psychological contract variesacross cultures. For example, in contrast to Western societies, employment relationships indeveloping countries are heavily grounded in interpersonal relationships and familial/

community sharing (e.g., Restubog & Bordia, 2006). Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaars(1996) have also shown that employers are expected to be more paternalistic in collectivistnations than in individualistic ones (see also Rousseau & Schalk, 2000). To illustrate howvalues and contractual contexts might interact, consider Facet A18 (importance of havingsufficient time for personal and family life), for which we observe no discernable moderat-ing effect of culture. In individualist nations, this is highly valued, but it tends to be periph-eral to the psychological contract because employers are not seen as responsible for theemployees life outside the work place. If this pattern of high value and low centrality inindividualist cultures is mirrored by low value and high centrality in collectivist ones, theeffects of value and centrality will counteract one another, and no cross-cultural moderation

will be observed.We therefore suggest that examination of the role of the psychological contract, and its

divergent scope in different cultures, might lead to a deeper understanding of cross-culturalvariation in the sources of organizational commitment.

Note

1. A moderator is a variable that affects the direction and/or strength of the relation between an indepen-dent or predictor variable and a dependent or criterion variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986, p. 1174). In the con-text of a single ordinary least squares regression equation, moderation is usually tested by examining the

significance of an interaction term, but this of course is not the only way to detect moderation.




18/20

References

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normativecommitment to the organization.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment: An examination of con-struct validity.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252-276.

Andolek, D. M., & tebe, J. (2004). Multinational perspectives on work values and commitment.InternationalJournal of Cross-Cultural Management, 4, 181-209.

Azen, R., & Budescu, D. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multipleregression. Psychological Methods, 8, 129-148.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychologicalresearch: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, 1173-1182.

Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (2000). Transnational management: Text, cases, and readings in cross-bordermanagement(3rd ed.). Boston: Irwin/McGraw Hill.

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence and reliability: Implications for data aggrega-tion and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods inorganizational psychology (pp. 349-381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Buchko, A. A., Weinzimmer, L. G., & Sergeyev, A. V. (1998). Effects of cultural context on the antecedents,correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment: A study of Russian workers. Journal of

Business Research, 43, 109-116.Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predic-

tors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 542-551.Cheng, Y., & Stockdale, M. S. (2003). The validity of the three-component model of organizational commit-

ment in a Chinese context.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 465-489.Cook, J., & Wall, T. D. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal

need non-fulfilment.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39-52.Devellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A., & Castaeda, M. B. (1994). Organizational commitment: The utility of an inte-

grative definition.Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 370-380.Gelade, G. A., Dobson, P., & Gilbert, P. (2006). National differences in organizational commitment: Effect of econ-

omy, product of personality, or consequence of culture?Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 542-556.Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of

Psychology, 58, 479-514.Harris, C., Daniels, K., & Briner, R. B. (2003). A daily diary study of goals and affective well-being at work.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 401-410.Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.Hofstede, G. (1997). The Archimedes effect. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Working at the interface of cultures: 18 lives

in social science (pp. 47-61). London: Routledge.Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations

across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualita-

tive and quantitative study across twenty cases.Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 286-316.Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple

regression.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1-19.Klein, K. J., Bliese, P. D., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Dansereau, F., Gavin, M. B., Griffin, M. A., et al. (2000).

Multilevel analytical techniques: Commonalities, differences, and continuing questions. In K. J. Klein &S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.),Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizational psychology (pp. 512-553).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Knapp, H., & Kirk, S. A. (2003). Using pencil and paper, Internet and touch-tone phones for self-administered

surveys: Does methodology matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 117-134.




19/20

Ko, J., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1997). Assessment of Meyers and Allens three-component model oforganizational commitment in South Korea.Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 961-973.

Kreft, I., & de Leeuw, J. (1998).Introducing multilevel modeling. London: Sage.Malka,A., & Chatman, J. A. (2003). Intrinsic and extrinsic orientations as moderators of the effect of annual income

on subjective well-being: A longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 737-746.Marsden, P. V., Kalleberg, A. L., & Cook, C. R. (1993). Gender differences in organizational commitment:Influences of work positions and family roles. Work and Occupations, 20, 268-390.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and conse-quences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.

Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mailsurveys.Journal of the Market Research Society, 37, 429-439.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normativecommitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment.Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.Oishi, S., Diener, E. F., Lucas, R. E., & Suh, E. M. (1999). Cross-cultural variations in predictors of life satis-faction: Perspectives from needs and values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 980-990.

Oishi, S., Diener, E., Suh, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Value as a moderator in subjective well-being.Journal ofPersonality, 67, 157-184.

Palich, L. E., Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). Managing in the international context: Testing cultural gen-erality of sources of commitment to multinational enterprises.Journal of Management, 21, 671-690.

Randall, D. M. (1993). Cross-cultural research on organizational commitment: A review and application ofHofstedes Value Survey Module.Journal of Business Research, 26, 91-110.

Reade, C. (2001). Dual identification in multinational corporations: Local managers, and their psychologicalattachment to the subsidiary versus the global organization. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 12, 405-424.Restubog, S. L. D., & Bordia, P. (2006). Workplace familism and psychological contract breach in the

Philippines.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 563-585.Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Rights and

Responsibilities Journal, 2, 121-139.Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agree-

ments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Rousseau, D. M., & Schalk, R. (2000). Psychological contracts in employment: Cross-national perspective.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a psychological structure of human values.Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and values of organizational employees.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 231-264.Stanton, J. M. (1998). An empirical assessment of data collection using the Internet. Personnel Psychology, 51,

709-725.Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 22, 46-56.Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across

cultures: Emotions versus norms.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 482-493.Vandenberghe, C. (1996). Assessing organisational commitment in a Belgian context: Evidence for the three-

dimensional model.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 371-386.Vandenberghe, C., Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Delhaise, T. (2001). An examination of the cross-cultural

validity of a multidimensional model of commitment in Europe.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32,

322-347.Walumbwa, F. O., Orwa, B., Wang, P., & Lawler, J. J. (2005). Transformational leadership, organizational com-

mitment, and job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and U.S. financial firms.Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly, 16, 235-256.




20/20

White, M. M., Parks, J. M., Gallagher, D. G., Tetrault, L. A., & Wakabayashi, M. (1995). Validity evidence forthe Organizational Commitment Questionnaire in the Japanese corporate culture. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 55, 278-290.

Yousef, D. A. (2003). Validating the dimensionality of Porter et al.s measurement of organizational commitment

in a non-Western culture setting.International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 1067-1079.

Garry Gelade is a research fellow at Cass Business School and the director of Business Analytic Ltd, aprovider of organizational research services to corporate and government clients. He received his mastersdegree in natural sciences from Cambridge University and his PhD from the University of Nottingham. His cur-rent research interests include employee attitudes and creative thinking in organizations.

Paul Dobson is a chartered psychologist and senior lecturer in organizational behaviour at Cass BusinessSchool. His research interests include the assessment and development of team leadership skills in multiculturalgroups.

Katharina Auer is a specialist in strategic corporate communications and is head of Shells Global Internal andManagement Communications function. In her role, she is responsible for internal communication at the grouplevel, developing and executing internal communications strategy. Prior to joining Shell in 2007, she was head ofGlobal Internal Communications at Astrazeneca, where she led the companys global employee survey project.


24~~garrygelade pauldobson individualism, masculinity and sources of organizational commitment

Documents