Where is culture in Cross Cultural Research?

Summary Ronald Fischer

Victoria University Wellington, and Centre for Applied Cross Cultural Research, Wellington, New Zealand

Culture is often seen as shared meaning system. This definition has important implications for cross cultural management research. The main focus of level-oriented cross cultural research has been around the level of analysis, mainly addressing the question of whether psychological constructs show the same structure at individual and nation levels (e.g. Leung and Bond, 1989; Peterson and Castro, 2006; Smith , 2002. There has also been some debate about how to measure culture appropriately (e.g. Fischer, 2008; Fischer et al., 2005; Peterson and Castro, 2006) and how to use culture to explain differences in work attitudes and behavior (e.g. Leung and Van de Vijver, 2008; Matsumoto and Yoo, 2006; Poortinga and Van de Vijver, 1987). Using definitions of Culture in management, anthropology and psychology as starting point, the proposed model assigns theory a central role in the measurement process in order to align the operationalization and measurement of culture as an empirical construct with theoretical definitions. The model is based on developments in multilevel research. The application of this process to two core areas of cross cultural management research is discussed: (a) the measurement of cultural dimensions, (b) the practices of unpacking of cultural differences at the individual level. The proposed model therefore integrates the two streams of cross cultural management research and outlines a single research process that can be followed when measuring culture as a shared meaning system. The measurement of cultural values and practices by the GLOBE project (House et al., 2004) has created one of the most heated and controversial debates in contemporary cross cultural management research ( e.g. Dansereau and Yammarino, 2006; Hanges and Dickson, 2006; Hofstede, 2006, Javidan et al., 2006, Peterson and Castro, 2006; Smith, 2006. The meaning of GLOBE dimensions and the adequacy of their analysis remain in dispute. Can individual-level scales be used for cross cultural studies analyzed at the country level? How should items be phrased to measure culture? The continuing debate indicates that these issues are of importance

for both management researchers as well as practioners, as consumers of management research. For example, managers have to select skilled and motivated staff. At the individual level may reflect individual (generic) differences; however economic or educational differences at the culture level may influence difference between groups of applicants (Lubke et al., 2003). Managers have to motivate employees to exert sufficient effort to ensure organizational success and long-term survival, and to intervene in situations of conflict. Chinese compared to US employees (e.g. Morris et al., 1998)? Are observed differences in conflict strategies a result of cultural variables or individual differences? The framework proposed in this article is based on the assumptions that theories and definitions of culture should take a more central place in cross cultural management research, especially when operationalizing cultural variables. The implications for management, it is important to critically question both our theoretical approach as well as the adequacy of our current tools and methods. The application to cross cultural management research in the form of a research process model may be seen as novel and controversial at the same time. The article is written in this spirit, in order to highlight these controversial aspects and stimulates discussion. To discuss all of the different processes, first review work on composition model as a tool to operationalize multilevel constructs. The model is then applied to the two aforementioned areas of cross cultural research, addressing both advantages of the current model as well as limitations. Defining culture has remained a formidable challenge. First, culture is typically defined as a collective phenomena that is approximately shared among members of a culture (e.g. Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Leung and van de Vijver, 2008; Rohner, 1984. A second characteristic of most contemporary definitions of culture in modern (American) anthropology (Kuper, 1999) is that culture is learned and not transmitted genetically. Culture is passed within specific groups, which requires communication of key symbols, ideas, knowledge, and values between individuals from one generation to the next. It may also be possible that researchers have no priori theory of culture and interpret emerging findings post hoc as reflecting cultural processes. If researchers agree with his definition of culture, any operationalization of culture as a construct should be in line with his shared meaning system definition. Cultural variables in management research typically fall into this latter category. Chans (1998) work on composition models is useful. Composition models specify the functional relationship

among phenomena or constructs at different levels of analysis. Composition models are concerned wit both the content of dimensions and the phrasing of items, and can help provide conceptual precision in construct development and measurement. In summary, the organizational literature would suggest that cultural variables should be operationalized using referent-shift models. Theories of culture also imply that cultural constructs differentiate between groups of people; therefore, sufficient variability across cultural groups needs to be shown. Cross cultural researchers have been concerned with issues of equivalence. Four types of equivalence can be distinguished (Fontaine, 2005; van de Vijver and Leung, 1997): functional equivalence (does the construct have the same functions across cultural samples?), structural equivalence (can we use the same items to measure the construct?), metric equivalence (do the items have the same factor loadings across cultural groups?) and full score equivalence. Equivalence issues have been studied in situations where a limited number of samples were available; therefore, culture is mathematically treated as fixed variable, and equivalence can be estimated using multi group means and covariance structure analysis (Cheung and Rensvold, 2000; little, 2000; Selig et al., 2008. Composition models were developed to address conceptual issues associated with measuring aggregate constructs. The phrasing would need to be changed and within-group agreement would need to be estimated to capture team-efficacy as a collective construct. The same rationale could be applied to measuring culture as a shared meaning system. Researchers can start off with defining the construct (Culture as a shared meaning system), operationalizing items to measure constructs (using the most appropriate composition models) and evaluating necessary statistics for the composition model (most importantly, agreement within groups and variability between groups. Hofstede (1980) explicitly states that culture is a collective programming of the mind where values are used as key components of such mental programming. In some cases, it may be difficult to use referent-shift models (e.g. when groups are too large and individual members might not be aware of the larger overall picture. If there is inconsistency across composition models then more research is needed to examine the source and meaning of the constructs.

Javidan et al., (2006). Identifying broad aspects of culture, such as individualism collectivism or power distance, has helped to elucidate the possible dimensions along which groups of people can be ordered, and that may account for differences in behavior across groups. For example, if we observe a difference in participation across cultural groups, a researcher would need to consider which cultural variables could be responsible for the difference and then measure them in an empirical study to see whether they actually explain the observed difference. This unpackaging approach is becoming increasingly popular. For example, Tinsley (2001) found that differences in the conflict management strategies of German, Japanese and US managers were completely explained by cultural values, and Flefe et al. (2008) reported that collectivism explained differences in organizational commitment across samples of Romanian, German and Chinese employees. The central question that arises is: to what extent do these explanatory variables actually capture culturally shared meanings systems? Using definitions of culture as a shared meaning system, this use is theoretically problematic. These findings may reflect universal psychological processes, but not culture as a shared meaning system. If researchers have only a limited number of cultural groups, analyses must proceed at the individual level. For example, cultural process variables can be used in regression analyses or analysis of covariance to examine whether they mediate differences in samples. Summary of research process model firstly, suggest that new cross cultural research projects start with a definition of culture that is relevant for the research process. At the individual level, both direct consensus and referent shift models are available. Equivalence needs to be tested, and possibly isomorphism (if large number of samples are available). Such findings may indicate cultural processes worth exploring in more depth. The current discussion is based on recent developments in the methodological and statistical literature. This is a challenge for any managerial survey conducted across cultural groups. Using an example from a public domain data set, using all Likert-type items from the European Social Survey.

A second limitation is that statistical procedure of examining equivalence in a large number of cultural samples. Concerning outputs, research also suggest that referent-group models predict variance at both the individual (Fischer, 2006, Fischer et al., in press; Shteynberg et al., in press) and the cultural levels (Heine et al., 2008). These findings concerning the validity of referentshift models are promising, but more research is clearly needed. Concerning data discussed in management research, the debate about the meaning of the GLOBE practice versus values scales will probably continue unless their data are made available for reanalyses. In contrast, Hofstedes (1980) dimensions cannot be applied at the individual level, but it is possible to include his dimensions in multilevel analysis at the country level. The finding of interaction process in equivalence and isomorphism research (Fontaine, 2008) also opens avenues for managerial practice. In summary, equivalence and isomorphism should be central concerns for managers whenever they deal with measurements (personality, ability, climate, leadership, etc.) from different cultural groups. These differing representations can lead to miscommunication and misunderstandings between individuals from diverse backgrounds, which in turn would require managers to recognize the contextual conditions that explain differences in the psychological make-up of individuals. The purpose of this article is to argue for a theory-driven examination of culture and to integrate developments in multilevel research into an overarching research framework that helps in the operationalization and measurement of cultural variables in current cross cultural management research. In this spirit, it is hoped that this article has inspired some discussion and reflection in our struggle to make further inroads in the study of culture and how it affects management.

Leadership Behaviors around the World

The Relative Importance of Gender versus Cultural Background

Summary IJ. Hetty van Emmerik

Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Martin C. Euwema
Lewen University, Belgium

Hein Wendt
Hay Group, The Netherlands

This study examined the associations of gender and cultural clusters with two classical leadership styles: consideration and initiating structure. Over the years, there has been notable interest in the study of background characteristics and leadership behaviors of managers. Gender and cultural background are among the aspects that have received most attention. Cultural background is commonly found to have a pervasive influence on leader behaviors (Van de Vliert, 2006) and various studies have shown that a countrys culture helps to explain leadership behaviors (e.g. Brodbeck et al., 2000; Chhokar et al., 2007; Gerstner and Day, 1994; Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004; Shaw, 1990; Smith et al., 2002). In addition, there is much research on leadership in North America and Europe, but an enduring question remains to what extent these western research findings are generalizable to other cultures (Javidan and Dale, 2005). The main aims of the current study are to examine the relative importance of gender and cultural profile when explaining leadership behaviors in a worldwide sample of managers. This analysis is relevant for scientists and practitioners. Leadership behaviors refer to the abilities of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of organizations of which they are members (Chhokar et al., 2007; House et al., 2004). For the present study, consideration and initiating structure were chosen because many of the studies aimed at gender difference in leadership focused on these Ohio State dimensions (e.g. Becker et al., 2002; Day and Stogdill, 1972; Lewis and Fagenson- Eland, 1998). These types of leadership behaviors are particularly

relevant to the study of gender and cultural background differences because of the documented stereotypes people hold concerning these behaviors for male and female managers (Eagly and Johnson, 1990). According to the gender perspective, differences in leadership behaviors of men and women originate in socialization processes, whereby individuals learn to conform to societal expectations about their gender role. According to this gender perspective, the leadership behaviors of women include more consideration, whereas the leadership behaviors of men consist of more initiating structure behaviors (Carless, 1998; Eagly and Johnson, 1990). Men are believed to be more forceful, dominant, and motivated to master their environment and more inclined to use the initiating structure leadership style. In contrast, women are believed to be more concerned with others (e.g. more kind, helpful, understanding) and more inclined to use the consideration leadership style. The study of Konrad et al. (2000) showed that women attached greater importance to prestige, and challenge. These job attributes seem more consistent with masculine than with feminine preferences. Hypothesis 1a: Female managers score higher on consideration than male managers. Hypothesis 1b: Female managers score lower on initiating structure than male managers. Leadership behaviors are expected to differ in societies that have different cultural profiles. Differences in cultural background characteristics may result in different leadership behaviors, such as the different use of superiority, power, and close supervision (see for instance Hofstede, 2001; Inglehart, 1995; Triandis, 2006; Van de Vliert, 2006). Hypothesis 2a: Societal culture is significantly associated with a consideration leadership style of managers. Hypothesis 2b: Societal culture is significantly associated with an initiating structure leadership style of managers. Female managers are often perceived as sensitive to employees needs because they are socialized to be nurturing, but this may differ according to their cultural background. Gender-role

stereotyping by females varied across cultures. For males, there was a consistency in stereotyping across cultures, whereas the image of females differs largely. Hypothesis 3a: The association of gender with consideration by managers is moderated by societal culture. Hypothesis 3b: The association of gender with initiating structure by managers is moderated by societal culture. Studies comparing the role of gender and cultural background can provide evidence on the relative importance of biological and cultural factors, reflecting socialization and gender stereotypes (Costa et al., 2001). Information on the relative importance of these two factors on leadership behavior is lacking. Gender differences in leadership are more frequently defined as a political issue. We postulate that the relative importance of societal culture in explaining leadership behaviors is more substantial than the role of gender.

Hypothesis 4a: Societal culture is expected to explain more consideration by managers than gender. Hypothesis 4b: Societal culture is expected to explain more initiating structure by managers than gender.

This study used data from the database of a worldwide operating consulting firm (Hay Group). Data collection was part of the assessment of management training programs within each of the organizations and this guaranteed a response rate of almost 100%. Language issues are always a major concern in cross cultural studies. Accordingly, the items were all translated from English into the languages of the participating countries by native speakers, using the so-called application mode of translation (Van de Vijver and Tanzer, 2004).

The five items used to measure consideration were: (1) frequently demonstrates concern for employees, (2) Relies on what he/she learns through personal contact with employees to use each persons talent most effectively, (3) Works hard to ease tensions whenever they arise in work group, (4) Encourages employees to talk to him/her about personal problems, and (5) Devotes a great deal of time to employees job security and fringe benefits. As independent variables, we

used gender and the GLOBE clusters. It is possible that compared to the Anglo culture, the Chinese Confucian culture has a different conceptualization of leadership styles.

Panel A shows relatively low scores on consideration for the Latin-Europe, Nordic, and Germanic male managers as compared to female managers in these clusters. Except for the overall European and Anglo clusters, the differences between the scores of the male and female managers are marginal. Panel B shows relatively low scores on initiating structure as rated by the subordinates of male and female managers in the Nordic and Eastern-Europe clusters for the male managers as compared to the female managers in these clusters. Overall, the differences between the scores of the male and female managers are also quite marginal. Hypothesis 1a, predicting that female managers score higher on consideration, therefore is supported. Hypothesis 1b, predicting that male managers will score higher on initiating structure, was not supported. Hypothesis 2a, predicting that cultural background is related to consideration, conclude that Hypothesis 2a is supported. Hypothesis 2b, predicting that cultural background is related to initiating structure, is also supported. To summarize the findings for Hypotheses 3a and 3b, we conclude that both hypotheses are supported. Hypothesis 4a predicts that the relative contribution of societal culture to consideration by managers is greater than for gender. This hypothesis was not supported. Hypothesis 4b was supported. The results of this study show that, from the subordinates point of view, female managers score higher on consideration and unexpectedly score higher on initiating structure than male managers. These results provide support for the suggestion of diminishing gender stereotypes, especially when we take into account the fact that female managers exhibit (somewhat) more initiating structure than male managers do. This outcome contradicts stereotypical images of female leadership as being more oriented towards relations and being less task-directed. In addition, this stereotype is sometimes advocated as a female approach to leadership, driving on soft powers. One might speculate that female managers actually do a better job worldwide, as they deploy both more consideration and more initiating structure. The gender effect is present in the Anglo, Nordic, Germanic, and Eastern-European clusters.

These summarized findings support the suggestion of convergence in the leadership behaviors of women and men in the traditionally masculine domain of management (Eagly and JohannesenSchmidt, 2001). One of the strengths of this study is the sample size of 64,038 subordinates assessing the leadership styles of 13,595 male and female managers across 42 countries.

The implicit assumption in the present study is that cultural cluster is a proxy for culture. This study ignores differences in corporate culture. Such differences are also important in crossborder acquisitions. With the increase of foreign subsidiaries and multinational companies, we recommend future studies to include the organizational culture concept in the analysis as well (see also Slangen, 2006). A unique finding of this study was that culture has a significant impact on initiating structure, whereas it only marginally contributed to consideration.

The results of this study can be useful for managerial training programs focusing on international management and leadership. More specifically, the results of this study are useful to explore and overcome stereotyped thinking regarding both gender differences and cultural differences in leadership styles. In addition, results should be helpful in understanding different managerial behaviors in country clusters. Finally, while many studies explored differences between different countries, it is perhaps more useful for future studies to examine cultural similarities from the convergence point of view.

Is National Culture Still Relevant to Management in a Global Context? The Case of Switzerland

Summary Sylvie Chevrier

Universite de Paris-Est, France

For over 20 years researchers have urged international managers to take culture into account.
This article advocates that national cultures should be considered even in the global economic

context. Switzerland is a country with multiple internal cultures and borders, a closer analysis shows that the Swiss people share a common political culture based upon attachment to local communities and institutions, to government through consensus and to conflict solving by resorting to arbitration and pragmatism. In the Swiss case, the article shows that management practices are embedded in national political cultures.

Most research in cross-cultural management uses country-level analyses to study cultures, however as borders and boundaries get blurred with globalization; the relevance of culture at the national level can be questioned. The challenge is to define at each level a consistent approach to culture, which may account for what is shared and what is not. This article addresses this challenge at the national level and demonstrates why and when this level is still relevant for managers faced with global business. The purpose of this article is to propose an alternative approach to national culture, namely political culture, which accounts for what very different people, in their behavior and opinions, still share in a given country. This national political culture, which relies on frames of meaning, deeply impacts the dynamics of organizations and should be considered by managers on international assignments as well as those wishing to transfer management practices from one country to another.

The Swiss example is particularly demonstrative because at first sight, Switzerland is characterized much more by multiple regional cultures than by cultural unity. The Swiss people themselves underline the diversity of the country and a common culture cannot be expected. When moving away from the traditional views of national culture as shared values and looking at political culture, the cultural unity of diversified countries may appear.

The concept of national political culture, borrow from symbolic anthropology the general conceptualization of culture as frames of meaning rather than values. In line with Turner (1967), Geertz (1973) and, more generally, symbolic anthropology, culture can be defined as a context of meanings. The symbolic approach could be applied to any cultural level. At the national level, the most significant shared templates for management activities are about the appropriate way to organize social life. Each society is faced with irreducible tensions, such as the need to conciliate individual freedom and social integration, and it develops its own way of managing them.

Companies, like micro human societies, are necessarily affected by these cultural representations of acceptable ways of organizing and regulating social life; they directly entail appropriate ways to exert authority and possible forms of autonomy in work organization (Hickson and Pugh, 1995; Barsoux and Schneider, 2003). When drawing upon such a definition of culture, the national scale appears to be a relevant unit of analysis because political cultures can be closely related to nation-states. The political culture approach, presented in this article, differs from the widespread definition of national culture based on values and also from the majority of definitions focused on meanings. Institutional theory provides a framework, including a category designed to account for the specific context, which is quite close to the conceptualization of national political culture. The degree of cultural integration varies from one society to another.

Switzerland appears to have a series of vivid stories about the founding of the nation, all well known in Swiss communities. When thinking of Switzerland, diversity and contrasts first come to mind and suggest that one can brush aside the national level and study smaller homogenous units of culture such as the canton. Switzerland is divided by various internal borders. The most obvious ones are linguistic borders between French, German and Italian speaking Switzerland. Switzerland is also split between several religions. Switzerland is located in the centre of Europe and belongs both to the Germanic world and the Latin world as well as to the Mediterranean and Atlantic Europe. Swiss population has its roots in Germany, another part in France and another in Italy. The Swiss nation progressively constituted itself through the aggregation of small communities attached to local life.

Myths about the countrys founding illustrate several fundamental elements of the Swiss political culture. The leitmotiv of Swiss myths puts the emphasis on a strong will to maintain small communities, independent from any powerful neighbor eager to absorb them. The cantons all have their specificities, but the Swiss people share a feeling of belonging to the canton.

The quest for equality legitimates collegial power or the authority of a primus inter pares, which necessarily goes through consultation processes before making any decision, as the presidents of the numerous councils ruling Swiss political life actually do. Egalitarianism leads to consensus, endeavors to conciliate views, and search for concord. Swiss people have a strong feeling of belonging to their district and their canton; they are also attached to the confederation. Switzerland is a community of different people who have a sense of their unity. Any analysis at the local level puts the emphasis on diversity but national cohesion is grounded in a strongly shared political culture. Swiss people all have in common a conception of social life as rooted in local institutions, sustained, wherever required, by federal institutions, which exist to ensure equality between the members.

The history of social relations in Switzerland reveals a long experience of social dialogue. In July 1937, employers and the metal industries union signed an agreement through which they engaged to solve all their eventual conflicts through conciliation. This agreement, known in Switzerland as the peace at work, has been a model for similar agreements in other industries.

Management consists of making men and women work together on a collective project; it is a political activity. People cannot work together successfully if they do not share some basic conceptions of justice, human dignity, equality, liberty, and social order (dIribarne, 2000). In the Swiss employees speech, quality first relies on technical aspects of the products; it is associated with high standard supplies and up-market components. Performance of the state-of-the-art materials is evaluated through its reliability. Quality refers to the consideration granted not only to the core solution but to every detail, whether it be the precision of the final product the painting of the plant for example or the respect of rules in the working process itself (clear organization of the working place, clean presentation of working documents about the project, etc.). Switzerland is representative of nation-states that have a diversified population including

several minorities and a long history of internal stability, which has enabled them to build shared institutions. This unity also appears in heterogeneous countries as long as their institutions have been stable enough to diffuse a collective imaginary. Therefore the case of Switzerland is not unique. Diverse countries, some much bigger than Switzerland, such as China, India or the United States, where there are large minorities, also share a political culture.

National political cultures are of interest to managers in several respects. Two cross-cultural situations in organizations especially call for cultural understanding: international assignees who have to manage local employees and managers in charge of cross-cultural transfer of management practices. In both cases, managers have to find out about behaviors or to design tools that not only respect legal constraints but also fit the cultural context. Switzerland, quality management became problematic when French engineers advocated an approach which insisted more on the global consistency of the products than on the meticulous contribution of individuals. Developing knowledge of national political cultures is more difficult than applying lists of dos and donts, but more powerful. It provides a key element for interpreting social practices and meanings and, unlike directive guides, leaves room for innovation.

Research on cultures and management has been criticized for not being able to adequately account for individual differences or organizational choices. Some cross-cultural transfers of management practices turn into ceremonial adoption rather than effective implementation (Kostova and Roth,2002). The point is to identify the phenomenon that resists globalization. This article moves forward by opening the black box of cultural constraints that shape management practices.