HRM has been defined in many ways and various models have been developed and discussed to tease

out its specific character (see for example Legge, 199 for a thorough review and analysis of the literature!" HRM is clearly rooted in its ancestor, personnel management, with a strategic slant (Legge, 19#9$ %oole, 199&$ 'torey, 199($ 'chuler et al", 199)!" 'o in fact one still deals with issues such as selection, recruitment, training, remuneration, and the li*e, the preserve of personnel management" +ut all these issues are considered with regard to the overall strategies of the firm and the ways in which HRM can contribute to those strategies" HRM has been viewed from two different perspectives (Legge, 199 !, hard and soft ('torey, 19#-$ Hendry and %ettigrew, 199&!" .ccording to the hard model, reflecting utilitarian instrumentalism, HRM is used to drive the strategic ob/ectives of the firm (0omburn et al", 19#1! and the 2human resource3, the ob/ect of formal manpower planning, is a resource, li*e other factors of production, and an expense of doing business, rather than the only resource capable of turning inanimate factors of production into wealth (4yson and 0ell, 19#5!" 4he soft model, developmental humanism view of HRM, while still emphasi6ing the importance of integrating human resource policies with business ob/ectives, sees this as involving treating employees as valued assets, a source of competitive advantage through their commitment, adaptability and high 7uality ('torey, 19#-$ 8aughan, 1991!" .ccording to this view, employees are proactive inputs in production processes and are capable of development, worthy of trust and collaboration, to be achieved through participation and informed choice" 4he stress is therefore on generating commitment via communication, motivation and leadership" 9f employees3 commitment yields better economic performance, it is also sought as a route to greater human development (+eer and 'pector, 19# $ :alton, 19# $ 'torey, 19#-!" 4he definition and ma/or models of HRM, as outlined earlier, have certain underlying assumptions which are by their nature highly culture specific" HRM is essentially an .merican invention, bearing the hallmar*s of that country3s managerial priorities$ it is a product of a professional and scholarly culture rooted in its originators3 own wider societal culture, which is not universally valued or appreciated as relevant (4ayeb, (&&&b!" Having been transferred across the 2pond3 and beyond, HRM has not 7uite ta*en root in ;urope (<lar* and %ugh, (&&&!, let alone in countries further afield, especially the developing nations with widely diverse political&, social and business priorities and preferences" <lar* and %ugh ((&&&!, building on the vast literature on the implications of national culture for management techni7ues and models, conducted a 2polycentric3 study into the conceptions of HRM in a sample of ;uropean countries, namely =ermany, the >?, @enmar*, 'pain, 0rance, 'weden and the Aetherlands" 4he authors found that the concept of HRM has not been accepted or established as an academic discipline evenly among the sampled nations" 0or instance, there has been little discussion of HRM in 'pain, due to a period of sha*eBout of labour, with rising redundancies and unemployment, which the country has been undergoing for some time until recently" 4his has meant that appreciation of the competitive value of human resources, which is at the basis of HRM, has not been much in evidence" 4he authors further argue that 'weden3s strong collectivist culture counters the development of a more individualistic orientation to employment relationships, and the @utch 2feminine3 culture encourages the antipathy of @utch employees to 2hard3 HRM" 'imilarly, the institutional factors in =ermany of the strong role of the unions and the formal consultative structures between employers and employees

attenuate the rise of the managerial prerogative" hinders decentrali6ation"

9n 0rance the power of the patronat

9n an ongoing study of HRM in a sample of international /oint ventures in 9ran Aama6ie ((&&&! has found that 9ran3s perception and role of HRM is very different from that seen in developed countries" :hereas, as was previously discussed, western and many other developed countries view HRM as a strategic function, see*ing to achieve competitive advantage by ma*ing full use of human resources ('torey, 199 $ Lu and +/or*man, 199#!, in 9ran the role of HRM is more basic and has been dependent on internal and external politics" 4he redundancy of female staff in top managerial and industrial sectors following the 9slamic revolution and the recruitment of large numbers of war veterans following the 9ranC9ra7 eight year war are telling examples here" .s 4ayeb ((&&1! points out, HRM in this country is really the 2old3 personnel management with a heavy local colour, especially in recruitment and training areas" ;ven in the >nited ?ingdom, a country second only to the >' in its enthusiasm to embrace HRM, and where the present author has conducted a number of empirical studies, many companies have simply renamed their personnel department the HR department, not because the function has any strategic role (Legge, 19#9, 199 $ %oole, 199&$ 'torey, 199($ 'chuler et al", 199)! but because the title is considered to be 2cool3" 9n addition, in small ownerBmanaged firms, which characteri6e the industrial scene in large sections of the <hineseBspea*ing economies, and indeed many developing ones as well, it is hard to imagine a formal concept such as HRM, more suitable for large elaborate organi6ations, ta*ing root" Marlow and %atten3s (199)! study, conducted in a sample of small enterprises in a western nation, found no indication that strategic employee management was being employed with the intent of gaining competitive advantage" 4hey found few owners indulged in forward planning in terms of employment" 4he researchers3 tentative conclusion was that although there is some evidence that HRM strategies and techni7ues are accessible to small firms and some elements are being incorporated into the management of the employment relationship, it is doubtful if this is HRM or a new variant of informal uns*illed management" =iven these arguments, cross cultural researchers may not be able to understand employee management in different cultures if they restrict themselves to studying HRM as is currently being discussed in many western publications and practised in some western companies" 4he HRM case puts in sharp focus the problem of trying to find explanations for certain wor*Brelated attitudes and behaviours of a nation(s! by using a concept, a measureable study ob/ect, which is alien to that nation(s!" 9n other words, it is li*e trying to find out the rules of a particular game across cultures when the existence of the game itself in some of those cultures is in doubt" 4o assume universality for the phenomena that are not universal undermines the soundness of the research methodology of one3s study and renders its findings unreliable" 9deally, relevant issues in each case, from the ob/ect of study to cultural and institutional factors which influence its character, should be identified in location and measuredD studied using locally meaningful and understood tools" .dmittedly, such a course of action, apart from the huge amount of time, manpower and money involved, has the potential for diminishing, on the face of it at least, the comparability of findings across cultures" +ut this is a challenge which we have to face and meet some day" In search of a definition of (national) culture :hen tal*ing about culture, one 7uic*ly notices that many different understandings and definitions derived from different methodological assumptions exist" <ulture is hard to grasp

in concepts, let alone to define in precise terms" .lthough many scholars in different disciplines have tried to come up with an allBinclusive and universal definition of what culture actually is, to this day a universally agreedBupon definition of culture is lac*ing (e"g", Magala (&& , 5!" :hat then is cultureE . number of relevant definitions include the following, <ulture consists in patterned ways of thin*ing, feeling and reacting, ac7uired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts$ the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i"e", historically derived and selected! ideas and especially their attached values (?luc*hohn 19 1, #5!" <ulture is the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes members of one group or category of people from another (Hofstede (&&1, 9!" <ulture is a way of life of a group of people, the configuration of all the more or less stereotyped patterns of learned behavior which are handed down from one generation to the next through means of language and imitations (.dler (&&(, 15!" <ulture is a set of parameters of collectives that differentiate the collectives from each other in meaningful ways" <ulture is variously defined in terms of several commonly shared processes, shared ways of thin*ing, feeling, and reacting$ shared meanings of identities$ shared socially constructed environments$ common ways in which technologies are used$ and commonly experienced events including the history, language, and religion of their members (House et al" (&&1, 1 , -!" +ased on such interpretations, generally spea*ing, culture seems to distinguish one group from another based on, a certain set of values, beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes$ which is shared, interpreted, and transmitted over time within a collective$ and that ma*es the collective uni7ue and distinguishes that collective from other collectives"

4his study focuses on national cultures, more specifically on crossBnational cultural differences" Aational culture functions as a proxy for societal culture" Aational culture comprises values, beliefs, norms, and behavioral patterns of national group (Leung et al" (&& !" 4he dominant forces that shape national cultures comprise, amongst others, ecological factors, history, language, wars, and religions"1-) 4hese dominant forces are reflected in a country3s culture, which in turn is intertwined with many phenomena within that country, law, educational systems, political structures, communication traits, emotional expressions, technological development, etc" .s shown in studies by Hofstede, 'chwart6, 4rompenaars, and House et al", analy6ing societal cultures according to national borders is a concept that proved to wor* within the field of management science" 4hese studies have been preceded by and to a large extent based on %arsons and 'hills3 (19 1! 1-5 F=eneral 4heory of .ctionG and ?luc*hohn and 'trodtbec*3s value orientation (1951!

Hofstedes dimensions of cultural variability (1980, 2001)

Hofstede3s study of the cultural dimensions, conducted in the 19-&s and first published in 19#&, was the first study mapping over & countries on a limited number of cultural dimensions"1-# Hver the last )& years, it has been Fthe best *nown crosscultural studyG (House et al" (&&1, ()9! and used by many scholars as a starting point for crossBcultural management studies"1-9 9t has been replicated on at least a number of dimensions in over 1&& studies (Hofstede (&&1, 15)B155!" >ntil the =LH+; study (House et al" (&&1!, it has been the most comprehensive comparative nationBlevel study in terms of both range of countries and the number of respondents involved" F4he robustness of Hofstede3s model, in spite of growing criticism, is being ac*nowledged far beyond the academic worldG (Magala (&&9, (1!"1#& 9n summary, the five cultural dimensions of Hofstede are described as follows (based on Hofstede 199-, (&&1!, Power Distance is the extent to which the less powerful members of organi6ations and institutions accept and expect that power is distributed une7ually" 4he basic problem involved is the degree of human ine7uality that underlies the functioning of each particular society" Uncertainty Avoidance is the extent to which a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations" >nstructured situations are novel, un*nown, surprising, and different from usual" 4he basic problem involved is the degree to which a society tries to control the uncontrollable" Individualism versus collectivism is the degree to which individuals are supposed to loo* after themselves or remain integrated into groups, usually around the family" Masculinity versus its opposite, femininity refers to the distribution of emotional roles between the genders$ it opposes FtoughG masculine to FtenderG feminine societies" Male achievement reinforces masculine assertiveness and competition$ female care reinforces feminine nurturance, a concern for relationships and for living environment" Long-term versus short-term orientation refers to the extent to which a culture programs its members to accept delayed gratification of their material, social, and emotional needs"

@espite the popularity of Hofstede3s FfoundingG study and its fre7uent use by academia, a number of scholars have critici6ed his wor* (e"g", Mc'weeney (&&($+as*erville (&&), (&& $ Iavidan et al" (&&5a! or were FonlyG able to partially replicate Hofstede3s dimensions (e"g", 'ondergaard 1991$ Hoppe 199#$ Merrit (&&&!" Hne of the main limitations of Hofstede3s study is generally considered to be that it was based on 9+M 7uestionnaires that were designed to measure something other than cultural differences and that subse7uently was reinterpreted to reflect cultural dimensions" 4his is one of the main reasons for increasing criti7ue on Hofstede3s study over the last decade and why some researchers may 7ualify Hofstede3s study as landmar* )& years ago (e"g", Mc'weeney (&&($ +as*erville (&&), (&& $ Iavidan et al" (&&5a!, yet today less plausible and tenable because of the changing pattern of sociali6ation and increased hybridi6ation of cultural contents due to intensive communications on a global scale (the internet effect!"

Schwartzs cultural value types (1992, 1999)

.nother prominent study is that of 'chwart6" 9n his 1999 study, which built on his 199( and 1991 theories and studies, 'chwart6 contributed to a further understanding of cultural values of countries, Fthe implicitly and explicitly shared abstract ideas about what is good, right, and desirable in a society (J!" 4hese cultural values are the bases for the specific norms that tell people what is appropriate in various situationsG ('chwart6 1999, ( !" 4he priorities or choice of these cultural values are considered to be reflected in Fthe ways that societal institutions (e"g", the family, education, economic, political, and religious systems! function, their goals and their modes of operationG ('chwart6 1999, ( !" 8alues can be drawn upon Fto select socially appropriate behavior and to /ustify their behavioral choices to othersG ('chwart6 1999,( !" 'chwart6 derived seven types of values, structured along three polar dimensions, which were validated using 'chwart6 (199(! value survey of 5 single values (of which 1 values showed e7uivalence! submitted to ) ,&&& respondents (teachers and students! from 19 countries" 4hese seven (individual level! value types are considered to form three bipolar (societal level! dimensions that express the contradictions between the alternative resolutions of the following issues (based on 'chwart6 1999, (5 ff!, Conservatism (or Em eddedness! versus (Intellectual and Affective! Autonomy , which is based on the issue of the nature of the relationship between the individual and the group" 4his value type addresses two 7uestions, :hose interests should ta*e precedence, the individual3s or the group3sE .nd, to what extent are persons autonomous versus embedded in their groupE "ierarchy versus Egalitarianism (power difference versus societal basis!, which deals with the issue of how to guarantee responsible behavior that will preserve the social fabric" 4o manage the unavoidable social interdependencies some sort of hierarchy is considered necessary" Mastery versus "armony addresses the issue of human*ind to the natural and social world" @o people in the society generally tend to believe they can actively master and change the world and get ahead through active selfBassertion and ambitionE Hr do people generally accept the world as it is, and rather try to fit in harmoniously rather than to change or exploit itE

'chwart6 has put these value types into a structure where certain poles contradict the others (e"g" conservatism and autonomy!, whereas other poles of different issues are complementary (e"g" hierarchy and mastery, which value types are found to exist simultaneously in cultures!" 'chwart63 study and cultural scales are Fclearly assessing cultural valuesG (House et al" (&&1, 111! rather than practices or behaviors, although 'chwart6 hypothesi6ed the impact of his cultural values on dimensions of wor* ('chwart6 1999, 1&!"

Trompenaars seven dimensions of culture

0ons 4rompenaars built on Hofstede3swor* by expanding the framewor* for stereotyping and comparing different national cultures and by focusing more on the management implications of cultural differences" >sing initial research involving 1 ,&&& employees in & countries,

4rompenaars explored the Fcultural extremes and the incomprehension that can arise when doing business across cultures,G even when people are wor*ing for the same company" 11 4rompenaars arrived at seven distinctive dimensions of culture and used the 7uestionnaire responses in his study to map a wide variety of countries along a continuum from one extreme to the other within each dimension" 4he *ey to understanding this mapping approach is to identify where each country or culture is positioned relative to others on one or more of these dimensions" Relative positioning gives insights into the *inds of conflicts, misunderstandings, and organi6ational and management problems that are li*ely to arise when individuals, groups, or firms from these countries interact in any of the ways described above" 1 Universalism versus particularism" 9n universalistic cultures rules and regulations are applied in all situations, regardless of particular conditions or circumstances" 4he example used by 4rompenaars refers to a salesman who does not fulfill his monthly sales 7uota because he was loo*ing after his sic* son" 'hould he be penali6ed according to standard company regulations or should he be excused because of the particular circumstancesE .ccording to 4rompenaars3 findings, 'wit6erland, <anada, and the >nited 'tates are among the most universalist" .ustralia and the >? are also toward this end of the scale" =ermany is closer to the center, as is 0rance, but the latter sits on the particularist side of the scale" ?orea, Russia, and <hina are the most particularist of countries" (Aote that some of the countries studied by Hofstede, li*e the strongly particularist Kugoslavia, no longer exist"! 2 Individualism versus collectivism. This dimension, clearly building on Hofstede, centers on whether individual rights and values are dominant or subordinate to those of the collective society. 4he most individualist countries are <anada, the >nited 'tates, 'wit6erland, and the >?" .mong the most collectivist are Iapan, ;gypt, and 9ndia (and Aepal and ?uwait!" 3 Neutral versus emotional" 4his reflects how much emotions are displayed in the wor*place" More importantly it indicates whether emotional or sub/ective (rather than ob/ective! forms of assessment are thought to be the basis for good decision ma*ing in organi6ations" 'ome organi6ations emphasi6e reports, data, and analytical decision ma*ing by managers, whereas others feel that opinions, intuition, and gut feelings are credible or valid criteria" %redictably the most emotional countries include 9taly and 0rance and the least emotional groups (in the wor*place at least! are the Iapanese, =ermans, 'wiss, <hinese, and 9ndonesians"
Specific versus diffuse. Do work relationships (such as the hierarchical relationship between a senior manager and a subordinate) exist ust in the workplace (are they specific!, or do they extend into

the social context outside the wor*place (diffuse!E Here a telling example is whether an employee is willing to help paint a senior manager3s house over a wee*end" <learly .ustralian bosses are li*ely to get a characteristically blunt answer to this re7uestL <hina, Iapan, 9ndia, and 'ingapore display highly diffuse relationships, .ustralia and the Aetherlands the most specific" ! Achievement versus ascription. This dimension refers to one!s status within organi"ations, contrasting those cultures where status, credibility, authority, and ultimately power tend to be based on merit (achieved) against those where class, gender, education, or age tend to be the defining characteristics (status is ascribed). #ountries where status tends to be ascribed include $gypt, Turkey,

and %rgentina (and slightly less so, &ussia, 'apan, and (rance), and those where it is achieved include )orway, *weden, and predictably the +nited *tates, %ustralia, #anada, and the +,. " Attitudes toward time. Sequential (time as a se-uence of events) versus synchronic (several events uggled at the same time) views of time tend to relate to punctuality for meetings and deadlines. *wedes and other northern $uropean cultures tend to be punctual and plan according to specific timetables..any southern $uropean, /atin %merican, and %rabic cultures see punctuality and chronological precision as far less important. They also tend to naturally cope with a range of issues simultaneously, rather than one by one. # Attitudes toward the environment. This dimension reflects the emphasis a particular culture places on people!s relationship with nature and the natural environment. 0n the one hand some cultures emphasi"e control and sub ugation of environmental forces, whereas others emphasi"e the need to work with nature, in harmony with the environment. #learly religious and philosophical differences around the world influence differences within this dimension. 4rompenaars3 seven dimensions have been used in a variety of ways to gain insights into the *inds of problems that might arise in the contexts (face to face, company to company, and company to customer! outlined in 0igure "1" 9n general they indicate the organi6ational characteristics we can expect from firms based in particular countries or dominated by certain nationalities" 4hey are also used to measure changes in cultural values and behavior over time" Research shows that in both Iapan and <hina, for example, achievement orientation is on the increase alongside some elements of individualism" 1( 4he Iapanese are moving away from a reliance on collectivism in the form of the state, large firms, and group associations and placing more value on personal responsibility and individual performance" 9n <hina there is a shift in companies toward performanceBrelated rewards and individual initiative, built on the changing views of the growing urban elite" +ut there are also wider concerns regarding the social costs as well as the benefits of selfBinterest"

Trompenaars cultural diversity in business (1997)

9n their boo* FRiding the waves of cultureG (199-! 4rompenaars and HampdenB4urner focused on explaining cultural diversity in business" :hen loo*ing at 4rompenaars3 seven cultural dimensions, one will recogni6e them to be based on %arsons and 'hils3 five dimensions of cultural systems (19 1! and two of the value orientations of ?luc*hohn and 'trodtbec* (1951!" 4hese dimensions are (based on 4rompenaars and HampdenB4urner 199-!, Universalism versus Particularism, rules versus relationships" :hereas in universalistic cultures people generally adhere to the standards which are universally agreed, in particularistic cultures people encounter particular obligations to people they *now" Individualism versus Communitarianism, the individual versus the group" @o we relate to others by discovering what each one of us individually wants and then trying to negotiate the differences, or do we place ahead of this some shared concepts of the public and collective goodE$ #eutral versus Affective, the range of feelings expressed" Members of cultures which are affectively neutral do not telegraph their feelings but *eep them carefully controlled and subdued" 9n contrast, in cultures high on affectivity people show their feelings plainly by

laughing, smiling, grimacing, scowling and gesturing$ they attempt to find immediate outlets for their feelings$ $%ecific versus Diffuse, the range of involvement" @o we engage with others in specific areas of life and single levels of personality only, or in multiple areas of our lives and at several areas of personality at the same time (diffuse!" 9n diffuse cultures, the concept of Fsaving faceG is related to the belief that something made public is always personal too" Achievement versus Ascri%tion, how status is accorded" :hile some societies accord status to people on the basis of their achievements, others ascribe it to them by virtue of age, class, gender, education, and so on (ascription!" $e&uential versus $ynchronic, How we thin* about time (past, present and future! is related to whether our view of time is se7uential, as series of passing events which happen one after the other, or whether it is synchronic, with past, present, and future all interrelated and with several events happening at the same time" Internal versus E'ternal Control, 'ocieties either believe that they can and should control nature by imposing their will, or they believe that man is part of nature and must go along with its laws, directions and forces"1#1 4hese dimensions, however, were only partly validated (Hooghiemstra (&&), 51! and academically not very well accepted"1#( However, from a business and practice standpoint, 4rompenaars3 wor* is much appreciated and finds ample application"

ouse et al!s "ro#ect $%&'( (2))*)

4he 1&Byear research pro/ect F=LH+;G (=lobal Leadership and Hrgani6ational +ehavior ;ffectiveness research program! refers to Fa worldwide, multiphase, multimethod (J! programmatic research effort designed to explore the fascinating and complex effects of culture on leadership, organi6ational effectiveness, economic competitiveness of societies, and the human condition of members of the societies studiedG (House et al" (&&1, 1&B11!" 4o address these issues, an extensive 7uantitative and 7ualitative crossBcultural study was conducted based on responses on -) 7uestionnaire items of 1-,)-& managers from 9 1 organi6ations functioning in 5( societies" 4he cultural part of pro/ect =LH+;, which was used in their study to explain different preferences in leadership styles, 1#) is of specific relevance to this study" .s a result of this research effort, pro/ect =LH+; presents 5( society scores on 9 ma/or attributes of culture"1#1 4hey define culture as (House et al" (&&1, 1 !, 'hared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and interpretations or meanings of significant events that result from common experiences of members of collectives that are transmitted across generation" %ro/ect =LH+; too* prior (cultural! studies, such as ?luc*hohn and 'trodtbec* (1951!, Mc<lelland (1951!, and Hofstede (19#&, (&&1!, a step further by Fun6ippingG 1# them"1#5 4he =LH+; dimensions form the newest set of dimensions that can be pragmatically applied in management science" 4he nine cultural dimensions House et al" identified through pro/ect =LH+;, which are discussed in more detail in M )"), are the following (ta*en from House et al" (&&1, )&!,

%ower @istance, >ncertainty .voidance, .ssertiveness, 9nstitutional <ollectivism, 9nB=roup <ollectivism, 0uture Hrientation, %erformance Hrientation, Humane Hrientation, and =ender ;galitarianism" House et al" ((&&1! measure both cultural practices and cultural values"1#- 0urthermore, they measure culture at both national (societal! and organi6ational level" +y collecting data on both practices and values at both the society and organi6ation levels of analysis, =LH+; answered the 7uestion of whether both values and practices differ meaningfully at both the society and organi6ation levels" House et al" confirmed this 7uestion positively (as further covered in M )"1"(!" 9ts primary strength, according to House et al", is that =LH+; has not made Fassumptions about how to best measure cultural phenomena NbutO used multiple measurement methods to empirically test which methods are most meaningfulG ((&&1, (1!" +ased on specific methodological measures ta*en,1## House et al" conclude that Fthe constructs measured by the =LH+; scales generali6e beyond the sample from which the data were obtained, the method used to collect these data, and the 2sets of operations3 applied on these data Nand thus thatO NtOhe findings reflect the broader societal and organi6ational cultures under studyG ((&&1, 9(!" However, comparing pro/ect =LH+; with the earlier cultural studies, one must also ac*nowledge that FNeOach has inherent errors, and neither can be considered as providing the one best way to denote national cultureG ('mith (&&5, 91 !" 4he =LH+; pro/ect is, nevertheless, the most sophisticated pro/ect to date involving over 1 & researchers in 5( countries, has incorporated )& years of cumulative experience after the landmar* wor* of Hofstede, and is specifically designed to measure cultural differences" 4o go with Iavidan et al"3s conclusion on the (&&5 exchange between Hofstede and House et al" ((&&5b, #99!, FN9Ot is time to move beyond Hofstede3s approach and to design constructs and scales that are more comprehensive, crossBculturally developed, theoretically sound, and empirically verifiable"G 4his last remar* is particularly true after recent waves of empirical criticism of Hofstede (e"g", by +rendan Mc'weeney cited earlier!" 0or this study, House et al"3s pro/ect =LH+; will be the frame of reference of cultural dimensions as it is the most upBtoBdate national culture study, it addressed a number of important limitations of the nextBbest alternative (Hofstede3s study!, and because it is the most elaborate cultural study compared with other available culture schemes (e"g", 'chwart6 and 4rompenaars!" 4he =LH+; pro/ect, however, ends up with nine *ey cultural dimensions, 1 Assertiveness. The +nited *tates, %ustria, 1ermany, and 1reece are high2 *weden, 'apan, and )ew 3ealand are low. 2 Future orientation. % propensity for planning, investing, delayed gratification4 *ingapore, *wit"erland, and the )etherlands are high2 &ussia, %rgentina, and 5taly are low.

+chievement oriented
:here status is earned rather than a right$ recruitment and promotion opportunities tend to be more dependent on performance, as in a meritocracy

+scription oriented
:here status is more of a right than earned$ recruitment and promotion opportunities tend to be more dependent on seniority, ethnicity, gender, religion, or birth

Se,uential
<ultures that view time in a se7uential or linear fashion$ order comes from separating activities and commitments

Synchronic
<ultures that view events in parallel over time$ order comes from coordinating multiple activities and commitments 3 Gender differentiation. The degree to which gender role differences are maximi"ed4 *outh ,orea, $gypt, 5ndia, and the #hina are high2 Hungary, 6oland, and Denmark are low. Uncertainty avoidance. % reliance on societal norms and procedures to improve predictability, a preference for order, structure, and formality4 *weden, *wit"erland, and 1ermany are high2 &ussia, 7olivia, and 1reece are low. ! Power distance. &ussia, Thailand, and *pain are high2 Denmark, the )etherlands, and 5srael are low. - Institutional collectivism (individualism vs. collectivism). Promoting active participation in social institutions, 'weden, 'outh ?orea, and Iapan are high$ =reece, .rgentina, and 9taly are low" # In-group/family collectivism. % pride in small8group membership, family, close friends, etc.4 5ran, 5ndia, and #hina are high2 Denmark, *weden, and )ew 3ealand are low. 8 Performance orientation (much like achievement orientation). *ingapore, Hong ,ong, and the +nited *tates are high2 &ussia, %rgentina, and 5taly are low. 9$ Humane orientation. %n emphasis on fairness, altruism, and generosity4 5reland, .alaysia, and $gypt are high2 1ermany, *pain, (rance, *ingapore, and 7ra"il are low. %s you can see, many of these dimensions match those of Hofstede and Trompenaars, and the overall 1/07$ framework is very much an extension of their approach. 4he =LH+; researchers have examined the HRM implications of these cultural differences for practicing managers and loo*ed at ways to avoid the pitfalls of ignorance and insensitivity"11 . similar longBrunning study by the <R.A;4 networ* has focused on ;uropean cultural differences and reports similar findings" 1 .s with the other cultural mapping studies by Hofstede and 4rompenaars, =LH+; has faced some critical appraisal, which helps us understand the strengths and wea*nesses of its concluding framewor*" . recent set of debates has usefully raised some methodological issues associated with these *inds of studies, and provides interesting points of contention we should be aware of, rather than blindly accepting the above *ind of research

Development of Cross-Cultural Research Questions

The Emic-Etic Issue

. combined emicBetic or a derived etic approach ma*es crossBcultural comparisons in organi6ational research" Rather than identifying emic dimensions from one culture and simply applying those dimensions to the other culture(s! in a study, a derived etic approach re7uires researchers to first attain emic *nowledge (usually through observation andDor participation! about all of the cultures in the study (+erry, 199&$ <heung, <onger, Hau, Lew, P Lau, 199(!" 4his allows researchers to put aside their culture biases and to become

familiar with the relevant cultural differences in each setting" :hen this is done, it may then be possible to ma*e crossBcultural lin*s between the emic aspects of each culture" .lthough some common dimensions will emerge in all cultures, some dimensions may emerge in only one of the cultures (<heung et al", 199(!" Hnly where there are observed commonalities can crossBcultural comparisons appropriately be made" 9n our sample, 1 Q of the studies used this bestBpractice approach" 4hese procedures are in line with <hurch and ?atigba*3s (19##! suggestion that researchers should search for universal (or derived etic! components of constructs by assessing whether the emerging dimensions are uni7ue to one culture, comparable across cultures, or overlapping" 4riandis (199(! effectively described this type of approach in the context of studying individualism and collectivism" His proposed steps are as follows, 1" +egin with a theoretical framewor* and decide what specific constructs are to be studied" (" ;ngage in idea sharing across different cultures about the constructs, with researchers from all cultures wor*ing together (emics!" )" =enerate items and have samples of convenience respond to all items" 9solate etic dimensions during this step, for example, factors that loo* ali*e (items that are determined to have different meanings across different cultures are dropped from the pool!" 1" Hnce etic dimensions are identified, develop emic item scales in each culture that measure the etic construct"
Treatment of Culture

4o ensure the integrity of their crossBcultural research, researchers should pay attention to whether their treatment of culture is appropriate" :e discuss here two related best practices" 0irst, researchers should minimi6e the use of country as a proxy for culture" 4he specific constructs or variables in a study should be carefully examined to assess the appropriateness of using other delimiters of culture (besides country!" 0or example, in using samples from both .ustralia and 'ri Lan*a, Ailes (1999! recogni6ed that both settings were multicultural societies and that ethnicity could be a confounding factor" .s such, the samples were drawn not on the basis of national boundaries alone but also on the basis of ethnic groups within each country (see also Lenartowic6 P Roth, (&&1!" %eterson and 'mith (199-! provided a comprehensive list of cultural determinants, other than country, that can help researchers with this issue" 4hese determinants include language, proximity and topography, religion, economic development, technological development, political boundaries, industry type, and climate" 0or example, language differences separate cultural groups because they affect the ease with which members communicate relationships between symbols and meanings (%eterson P 'mith, 199-!" Religious differences also may be a source of cultural variation among groups of people within the same country because of uni7ue traditions and customs" 4hese examples highlight only some of the potential factors that can be used in addition to country to identify sources of cultural differences" Hur second recommendation is for researchers to incorporate culture into their theoretical framewor*s" 4his recommendation is consistent with the last one, in the sense that using country as a proxy for culture can often be viewed as inherently atheoretical" 4o date, there

seems to be a lac* of ade7uate a priori theori6ing on why and how culture accounts for observed differences" Researchers need to base their designs on contextual variables and theory" 0or example, <heng3s (19#9! approach to crossBcultural research focuses on the organi6ation as the primary ob/ect of interest and uses *ey contextual variables that vary across nations, including economic, legal, and political structures (similar to %eterson P 'mith, 199-!" 9n a similar vein, 4riandis (1991b! referred to Fcultural syndromes,G such as societal complexity, and the tightnessDlooseness of a culture to illustrate how comparisons across contexts should ta*e into account such factors" 0rom a theoretical perspective, it may ma*e more sense to as*, How would employees in tight cultures be expected to differ from employees in loose cultures on a variable such as /ob satisfactionE rather than, How are employees in Iapan different from employees in the >nited 'tates on /ob satisfactionE 4he final best practice recommendation for this section concerns Hofstede3s cultural value dimensions" :e urge researchers to directly measure these dimensions in the specific research context" .dhering to this practice can be difficult, however, because the conceptuali6ation of these constructs has been inconsistent across different studies" .s a result, different measures for these dimensions have been used and discarded over the years (;arley P =ibson, 199#!" 0or example, numerous measures of individualismB collectivism have appeared in the literature, and a consensus has not been reached as to which one is the best" 4his construct was measured in a variety of ways in our sample of studies, +irnbaumBMore, :ong, and Hlve (199 ! measured individualismBcollectivism with Hofstede3s (19#&! 8alues 'urvey Module$ 4insley ((&&1! used a scale developed by ;arley (199)!$ <asimir and ?eats (1995! used the 9A@<HL scale (+ontempo, 199)!$ Iung and .volio (1999! used a scale developed by +ass and .volio (199-!$ 4homas (1999! used an #Bitem subscale from Ma6nevs*i, @i'tefano, =ome6, Aooderhaven, and :u (199-!$ and 'mith, @ugan, and 4rompenaars (1995! derived their own survey items to measure individualism collectivism" 4he development of a crossB cultural research 7uestion involves at least three important issues" 0irst, the researcher must consider the difficulties involved in balancing the etic and emic approaches" <rossBcultural comparability is an appropriate goal for researchers as long as they consider the idiosyncratic aspects of each particular culture in the study" 9n this section, we discussed the benefits of using a combined eticBemic approach in which emic dimensions are first generated for each culture and then analy6ed alongside each other to determine where etic comparisons would be appropriate" 'econd, the researcher must be aware of the potential difficulties involved in using country as a proxy for culture or as a proxy for Hofstede3s values" 9f the crossBcultural samples in the study come from countries with relatively homogeneous populations, then this issue might not be as pressing" Hn the other hand, when the countries have heterogeneous populations, researchers need to be aware of other cultural determinants and must recogni6e that withinBcountry differences may be inconsistent with preBestablished national categori6ations" 0inally, researchers must be cogni6ant of incorporating culture into theoretical framewor*s within their research designs"

Alignment of Research Contexts

9n summary, there are a number of issues that come into play when crossBcultural researchers attempt to align the research contexts" 4his section has presented the ones we feel might represent the biggest challenges" Researchers should be aware, however, that

other factors might also contribute to variability across contexts" 'uch factors include the use of ethical guidelines, the procedure of random assignment, and differential perceptions of demand characteristics" 4riandis (199(, 1991a! discussed the importance of the ethical acceptability of the research methodology" 9n crossBcultural research, it is important to establish standards that apply to all samples consistently" 0or example, respondents from different cultures should be provided the same information regarding the research pro/ect, and they should be given the same opportunities to participate in (or withdraw from! the study" 9n addition, researchers should be similarly familiar with all of the cultures in the study" 4o do research that is ignorant of or insensitive to the ma/or features of the local culture often means to do poor research and thuswastes the time of local sub/ects, as well as the funds, and that is unethical" (4riandis, 199(, p" ()(! Hne solution that is offered is for researchers to establish teams that collaborate with one another, with each collaborator being an expert on one of the cultures in the study" :ith respect to the fairness of random assignment, it should be noted that assignment to a research pro/ect could be either a positive or a negative experience for an individual" .ssignment procedures can be differentially fair to people (+aier, 19# $ =riffin, 19# !, and they can cause ill feelings toward the research or researchers in certain cases" 9ndividuals in different cultures might have varying degrees of feelings about being assigned to the research pro/ect, and these different feelings could set the table for some differences in survey responses" .nother factor, susceptibility to demand characteristics, can also vary across cultural settings" Respondents may have differential access to cues that might convey the purposes of the research" 4hese cues include rumors about the research, information conveyed during the orientations, the actual researchers themselves, the setting in which respondents fill out surveys, and any other implicit or explicit communications throughout the research process (Hrne, 195(!" 4hese types of demand characteristics, if not accounted for, can vary across samples from different cultures" 4hese additional factors are illustrated briefly here to highlight the need for researchers to continually monitor the contexts in which they conduct their studies" .s we suggested at the beginning of this section, ignoring potential sources of misalignment can conceal important cultural differences between samples"

ali!ation of the Research Instruments

"emantic E#uivalence

9n summary, some important best practices for establishing semantic e7uivalence in crossB cultural research are to use bac*Btranslation, to avoid the use of common figures of speech in survey items, to be cogni6ant ofwords or phrases that elicit cognitive or affective states, to use survey items in pilot studies, and to consider both insiders3 and outsiders3 perspectives together" 9n addition to these best practices, we briefly mention here some suggestions that are specifically geared toward the researcher who is writing a new instrument for a crossB cultural study" +rislin (19#5! offered a set of guidelines for optimi6ing the transferability of items in newly written instruments" 0rom these guidelines, we suggest that researchers use short, simple sentences (less than 15 words!, repeat nouns instead of using pronouns (because pronouns may have vague references!, and add sentences to provide context for important ideas" 0inally, crossBcultural researchers need to explicitly describe the

procedures they used to establish semantic e7uivalence" Most of the studies in our review( #Q! did not include statements about semantic e7uivalence" 0or crossBcultural studies to be properly evaluated and replicated, these *inds of statements become necessities" %onceptual and &calin' ()uivalence 0or assessing conceptual and scaling e7uivalence, we recommend two bestBpractice statistical approaches that have been previously established by researchers" 4hese are (a! covariance structure analysis (e"g", <heung P Rensvold, 1999$ RiordanP8andenberg, 1991$ Ryan, <han, et al", 1999$ A"Kang, <hen, <hoi,P Rou, (&&&! and (b! item response theory (e"g", +utcher P Han, 1995$ ;llis, +ec*er, P ?immel, 199)$ Hambleton P ?an/ee, 199 $ Hulin P Mayer, 19# $ Ryan, Horvath, %loyhart, 'chmitt, P 'lade, (&&&!"