You are on page 1of 20

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

http://jcc.sagepub.com/

Individualism, Masculinity, and the Sources of Organizational Commitment
Garry A. Gelade, Paul Dobson and Katharina Auer Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2008 39: 599 DOI: 10.1177/0022022108321308 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/39/5/599

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology

Additional services and information for Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jcc.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/39/5/599.refs.html

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at City University Library on August 13, 2010

Individualism, Masculinity, and the Sources of Organizational Commitment
Garry A. Gelade Paul Dobson
Cass Business School, City University, London

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology Volume 39 Number 5 September 2008 599-617 © 2008 Sage Publications 10.1177/0022022108321308 http://jccp.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Katharina Auer
Shell International BV

The authors examine the dependence of organizational commitment on satisfaction with job characteristics that are valued differently in 29 nations. Evidence is found for the moderating effects of national culture. Satisfaction with job characteristics that are highly valued in individualistic cultures has an increasingly strong effect on commitment as national individualism increases, while satisfaction with collectivist job characteristics has an increasingly weaker effect. Similarly, satisfaction with job characteristics that are highly valued in masculine cultures has an increasingly strong effect on commitment as national masculinity increases, while satisfaction with feminine job characteristics has an increasingly weaker effect. These findings show that the sources of organizational commitment are culturally conditioned and that their effects are predictable from Hofstede’s value dimensions. The authors discuss the practical implications of these findings and suggest that cultural differences in the psychological contract may also affect the relationships between job satisfaction and commitment. Keywords: individualism; masculinity; cultural values; organizational commitment

S

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

Authors’ Note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Garry Gelade, Cass Business School, City University, 106 Bunhill Row, London EC1Y 8TZ, UK; e-mail: g.gelade@city.ac.uk.

599
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at City University Library on August 13, 2010

2010 .600 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology frequently cited social scientists of all time (Hofstede. Palich. and normative commitment. affective commitment develops through work experiences that “fulfil employees’ needs to feel comfortable within the organization and competent in the work role” (p. 2007).sagepub. on the other hand. however. Organizations wishing to maximize commitment in nations other than the United States therefore have only scattered empirical evidence to guide them. Organizational Commitment in a Cross-Cultural Perspective Organizational commitment is a key construct in organizational psychology and has been defined as a “psychological link between an employee and his or her organization that makes it less likely that the employee will voluntarily leave the organization” (Allen & Meyer. We first review cross-cultural research on organizational commitment. many of the implications of Hofstede’s findings still remain to be confirmed empirically. 4). It seems reasonable to suppose that the effectiveness of organizational practices will depend on the extent to which they address the high-value priorities of the workforce and. Commitment is widely thought to consist of three components: affective. Meyer. & Aycan. 1996.. pension contributions) and the perceived lack of alternative employment opportunities. 2004.com at City University Library on August 13. that to maximize and sustain the organizational commitment of a culturally diverse workforce. Hom. we introduce the “values-asmoderators” framework as the theoretical underpinning for our research hypotheses and then describe how we derive our specific hypotheses from the structure of Hofstede’s individualism and masculinity dimensions. we examine the relationship between Hofstede’s dimensions and the sources of organizational commitment in different nations. Continuance commitment. continuance. This has clear relevance to multinational enterprises. 1996). 1998. focusing on studies that have examined its attitudinal antecedents. We then describe the method and results and discuss their practical implications. Weinzimmer. Erez. 1995) have found that the sources of commitment vary between nations. practices should be aligned to the local culture. none has found a systematic relationship with cultural values. and in this article. their competitiveness becomes increasingly dependent on their ability to motivate a diverse labor force (Reade. & Topolnytsky. 2002. However. 1997). The rest of the article is organized as follows. 2001). 252). p. The aim of this article is thus to examine cross-cultural variation in the antecedents of organizational commitment (specifically various job characteristics) and to test whether Hofstede’s cultural values can explain this variation. Buchko. According to Allen and Meyer (1990). 2000).g. and an understanding of the extent to which the development of commitment depends on cultural values would be of value in designing management systems that prioritize the key sources of commitment in different cultures. As firms disperse their assets and operations across the globe (Bartlett & Ghoshal. and the development of organizational commitment in a multinational context thus becomes an increasingly important strategic imperative. Downloaded from jcc. Herscovitch. & Sergeyev. therefore. while normative commitment is based more on early experiences of socialization than on experiences in the employing organization (Allen & Meyer. is largely based on the investment that an employee has made in the organization (e. & Griffeth. Stanley. Most research on organizational behavior has been carried out in Western countries (Gelfand. Previous researchers (Andolšek & Štebe. Next.

Stinglhamber.sagepub. 1996). While organizational commitment levels vary significantly between countries. (1998) found that job involvement and promotion were stronger predictors of commitment for Russian workers than is typically found for American workers. / Individualism. (1995) failed to detect any meaningful effect of cultural values on the relationship between commitment and job scope. Finally. Kenya (Walumbwa. (2002) found that role conflict and role ambiguity were stronger predictors of commitment within the United States than outside it. supervisor satisfaction. Gallagher.S. in nine studies summarized by Allen and Meyer (1996). Wang. This is somewhat surprising. and correlations with normative commitment were small and negative. Andolšek and Štebe (2004) found that material job values such as job quality were more predictive of commitment in individualistic societies. Buchko et al. also appears to show no cultural moderation (Vandenberghe et al. permit them to test whether cultural values moderated these relationships.. commitment should be most influenced by the job characteristics that are most highly valued. Substantial evidence (from research conducted in Western countries) supports this view. First. 1993. as it would be expected that in any particular culture. The evidence for national differences in the sources of commitment is rather sparse. however. although the correlation of job satisfaction with affective commitment was positive and significant in every study. whereas postmaterialistic job values such as helping others were more predictive of commitment in collectivistic societies. Randall. Steers. 2003).. 1995). 1997) have questioned the factor validity of commitment measures in East Asian samples. Palich et al. the relationship between commitment and intention to quit.g. In a seven-nation study. studies replicating previous U. 2006. the meta-analysis of Meyer et al. extrinsic rewards. Belgium (Vandenberghe. 2001). (1995) and Vandenberghe. 2002. Vandenberghe et al. Tetrault. Some (e. Bentein. previous research has failed to provide convincing evidence for a systematic effect of cultural values on the sources of organizational commitment. research have been conducted on employees from the United Arabs Emirates (Yousef. However. Meyer et al. their data did not. or coworker satisfaction. work satisfaction. & Wakabayashi. Japan (White. affective commitment has been shown to covary with many facets of work satisfaction (Mathieu & Zajac. & Gilbert. and participative management across 15 nations. Ko. Parks.Gelade et al.. Price. In the two most extensive studies to date. and China (Cheng & Stockdale. 2005). and significant in only four studies. Hofstede’s dimensions either fail to correlate significantly with national means at all or fail to predict them in a theoretically meaningful way (Gelade.com at City University Library on August 13. although there were no differences for pay satisfaction. 1990. and Delhaise (2001) found support for measurement equivalence across a variety of Western countries. Palich et al. 2001). Orwa. The cross-cultural construct invariance of organizational commitment is fairly well established. and Commitment 601 This suggests that although affective commitment should covary with job satisfaction. & Lawler. Considered overall. such evidence as exists points to the absence of any effect. & Mueller. We explain this in further detail in the next section. On the other hand. role clarity. correlations with normative commitment were consistently lower. Second. a wellestablished consequence of commitment. 2010 . Furthermore. Downloaded from jcc. there is little reason to expect continuance and normative commitment to do so. 2003). there is no evidence for a systematic effect of cultural values on the national means. Masculinity. Dobson. 1977)..

thus. . Oishi. . sufficient time for your personal or family life?” or “How important is it for you to have training opportunities . Similarly Oishi. attaining goals or satisfying needs deemed important has a greater effect than attaining goals or satisfying needs deemed less important. 1999). The values-as-moderators framework also underlies prior theorizing on the crosscultural sources of commitment. and Harris. . a person’s values can be ordered in terms of their importance. Individualism. (1999) found changes in SWB to be strongly influenced by the degree of success in the domains that individuals value most.com at City University Library on August 13. because members of individualistic societies value individual rewards highly and regard them as indicators of success. For example. which are measured by opinion scores. “How important is it to you to have . and Research Hypotheses We focus on individualism and masculinity in this article because Hofstede derived these dimensions entirely from employee ratings of the importance of various job characteristics. Personal feelings are deemed more important in individualistic cultures than in collectivist ones. are unsuitable for the analyses we wish to conduct. and Suh (1999) found that satisfaction with esteem needs. Lucas. Palich et al. Similarly. predicts global life satisfaction more strongly among people in individualist nations than people in collectivist nations. Similarly. & Lucas. Thus.602 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology Theoretical Foundations: The Values as Moderators Framework The value theory of Schwartz and Bilsky (1987) holds that a person’s value system is a structured domain whose elements are prioritized relative to one another. such as freedom. and Triandis (1998) found that affect balance was a stronger predictor of life satisfaction in individualistic cultures than in collectivist ones. a highly valued aspiration in individualist societies. Daniels. (1995) hypothesized that individual rewards should have a stronger influence on commitment in individualistic societies than in collectivist societies. Diener. Masculinity.sagepub. thus. Downloaded from jcc. Suh. and accordingly. income and SWB are more strongly related for extrinsically oriented than intrinsically oriented persons. thus. for example. Suh. Diener. Hofstede’s power distance and uncertainty avoidance dimensions. Diener. ?” and responded by rating on a scale of 1 (of utmost importance to me) to 5 (of very little or no importance). According to the “values-as-moderators” framework (Oishi. we may suppose that any aspect of the work environment that is highly valued in a culture will have a strong and positive effect on commitment and that in a culture where that aspect is less valued. employees were asked. For example. Generalizing. and Briner (2003) found that the achievement of high-importance goals at work increased pleasurable affect more than the achievement of low-importance goals. 2010 . Diener. they suggested that job scope should foster commitment in individualist societies because complex work offers an opportunity for personal achievement. Similar reasoning can be applied at the cultural level. its effect on commitment will be correspondingly weaker. Suh et al. As described later. . knowing how job characteristics are valued in different cultures is key to our hypothesis generation. Oishi. Malka and Chatman (2003) found that the effect of income on a person’s subjective well-being (SWB) depends on the value he or she attaches to extrinsic rewards.

Conversely. . and concerned with the quality of life” (p. conversely. . these formed the basis for defining the two dimensions of individualism/collectivism and masculinity/femininity and for calculating the country scores for individualism and masculinity (denoted here as IDV and MAS.e.” and those scoring low were called “feminine. the importance of training opportunities loads negatively on the Individualism/Collectivism factor. “social gender roles are clearly distinct: Men are supposed to be assertive. In Hofstede’s derivation of his individualism and masculinity dimensions.. tough. Hofstede called nations scoring high on his first factor “individualistic” and those scoring low “collectivist”. / Individualism. 297). Thus. here. the importance of having sufficient personal and family time loads positively on the Individualism/Collectivism factor. “the ties between individuals are loose” (p.sagepub. characteristics positively associated with Hofstede’s MAS factor) will have a progressively stronger influence on commitment as national masculinity increases. Masculinity measures the degree to which social gender roles are differentiated. According to Hofstede (2001). “social gender roles overlap. Conversely. at national level) recovered two interpretable. Ecological factor analysis of the importance ratings (i. for example. Drawing on the values-as-moderators framework. This means that employees in individualist (high IDV) nations say they value personal time more than do employees in collectivist (low IDV) nations. In collectivist societies. Hypothesis 2: Satisfaction with job characteristics that are valued in masculine nations (i. negatively associated with Hofstede’s MAS factor) will have a progressively weaker influence on commitment as national masculinity increases. we may therefore state our research hypotheses as follows: Hypothesis 1: Satisfaction with job characteristics that are valued in individualistic nations (i. people are “integrated into strong cohesive in-groups which .Gelade et al. nations scoring high on his second factor were called “masculine. protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (p. and focussed on material success.e. tender. 225) and everyone is expected to fend for themselves and their immediate families. 225). satisfaction with job characteristics that are valued in collectivist nations (i. 14 job characteristics were rated for importance in 40 different countries.com at City University Library on August 13. negatively associated with Hofstede’s IDV factor) will have a progressively weaker influence on commitment as national individualism increases. and Commitment 603 In individualistic societies. and concerned with the quality of life” (p.” The importance of a job characteristic in a particular nation is indicated by its factor loading. satisfaction with job characteristics that are valued in feminine cultures (i. bipolar factors. group identity and cohesion are valued. Conversely. Downloaded from jcc. women are supposed to be more modest.e. characteristics positively associated with Hofstede’s IDV factor) will have a progressively stronger influence on commitment as national individualism increases. respectively). Both men and women are supposed to be modest.. in individualistic societies..e..e. in masculine societies. in feminine societies. individuals are independent of one another. According to Hofstede (2001). 297). This means that employees in high IDV nations say they value training opportunities less than do employees in low IDV nations. tender. similarly. 2010 . Masculinity..

All company employees were invited to take part in the survey. 1998). We then tested for moderation using a “slopes-as-outcomes” approach to analyzing multilevel data (Kreft & de Leeuw. For compatibility with Hofstede’s data. and items were back-translated to ensure accuracy. We then constructed satisfaction scores for each and examined the statistical justification for aggregation to the cultural level. with successive points representing less than 2 years (19%). A number of contextual factors probably contributed to this high response rate. and more than 10 years (28%).. and the United Arab Emirates (n = 40) were combined into a single Arab region. 5 to 10 years (25%). 2010 . Saudi-Arabia (n = 101). The survey was administered in the local language. masculine. and agreed timetables for survey activities. via the company intranet).. After eliminating countries with less than 100 respondents. Tenure was recorded on a scale of 1 to 4. 2 to 5 years (28%). there were 48. Job level was recorded as a dichotomous variable according to whether a respondent had direct reports. with endpoints labeled agree and disagree and with higher numbers representing increasing degrees of favorability. but age was not. and responses were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Egypt (n = 181). The total number of respondents was 51. frequent and consistent communication with the workforce in the planning stages (e.com at City University Library on August 13. Sample characteristics for the 29 nations are listed in Table 1. which was completed online by 66.g. Knapp & Kirk. There were 100 survey items. Stanton. 2003.e. 1998). where regression parameters defined at the lower (individual) level are treated as outcomes that are subsequently analyzed at the higher (national) level. visible support for the survey project from senior executives.625 respondents and the median national sample size was 349.6% of respondents and on paper by the remainder.2%) unspecified. with the remainder (0. we identified survey questions having similar content to Hofstede’s items. and the response rate was 80%. The prompt dissemination of the results of previous surveys and an emphasis on local follow-up and action planning probably also stimulated positive attitudes toward the survey process and increased the likelihood of responding. the appointment of local survey coordinators in each country. we use regression modeling (with commitment as the dependent variable) to determine the influence of individualist. The survey (conducted globally every 2 years) was administered by a commercial survey provider and was designed to monitor opinions on a wide range of work-related topics and not for the purposes of this study. e. and feminine job characteristics in each nation and then test for the moderating effects of national culture Downloaded from jcc. and a combined data file was made available to the researchers (note that methodological biases between electronic and traditional pencil-and-paper surveys are usually small and nonsignificant. In Stage 1. These included assured anonymity of respondents. This is a two-stage method. there were 29 nations (i. which comprised the analysis sample.. Kuwait (n = 18).604 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology Method Analysis Sample The data were drawn from an employee satisfaction survey conducted in a large multinational pharmaceutical company. collectivist. Gender was recorded. In this subset of the data.g.sagepub. First. 1995.380. 28 countries and one region) in common with Hofstede’s data set. Analytical Strategy The analysis consisted of several steps. Mehta & Sivadas.

Rather than use regression slopes as the Stage 1 outcomes.62 2.38 2. Saudi Arabia.26 2.58 2. and associated importance metrics. and he therefore proposed a new method for quantifying importance called “dominance analysis.64 1. but a brief summary is given here.774 2.55 2.260 203 879 194 1.16 2. as described below.com at City University Library on August 13.91 2. in Stage 2.64 2. In this article.73 2.74 2. none of the previous measures are entirely satisfactory.51 2. have been proposed over the years.625 % Male 43 49 43 47 46 53 29 64 35 46 53 66 58 81 57 73 70 46 39 45 57 57 43 31 63 56 50 37 82 48 % With Direct Reports 21 23 32 24 31 31 27 16 27 27 34 20 17 24 22 24 30 23 22 24 21 28 20 17 13 23 21 26 21 24 Mean Tenure Band 2. Masculinity. however.46 2. a variable’s regression slope does not accurately reflect its influence.23 2.52 2.61 2.61 2.62 a.26 2.94 2.07 2.09 2. According to Budescu.44 2.” Dominance analysis has been described in Budescu (1993) and Azen and Budescu (2003).226 349 311 798 1. however.67 2. we use relative importance (Budescu.33 2. 1993) as our measure of influence.Gelade et al.sagepub.276 260 336 48.27 2. The reason is that in the presence of correlated predictors. Downloaded from jcc. Various definitions of regressor importance.18 2. / Individualism. and United Arab Emirates. Egypt.137 157 1. and Commitment 605 Table 1 National Samples Nation Austria Australia Belgium Canada Switzerland Germany Denmark Spain Finland France United Kingdom Greece Indonesia India Italy Japan South Korea Malaysia Netherlands Norway Philippines Portugal Sweden Thailand Turkey Taiwan United States South Africa Arab regiona Overall N 154 732 447 1.58 2. Kuwait.84 2. we use measures of variable importance.53 2.334 216 478 180 14.809 8. Quantifying the influence of an independent variable in a regression equation is a seemingly simple problem but more complex than it first appears. these articles should be consulted for a complete account.486 239 121 268 243 599 159 10. 2010 .

sagepub. However. p. in preference to its normative or continuance counterparts. affective commitment was chosen as the dependent variable for this study. This is done for each predictor. Y|B. and Cook’s (1993) measure of commitment designed for the 1991 General Social Survey. Kalleberg. the null model. when considered by itself). conditional on all other predictors). Grube. and Castañeda (1994) have demonstrated. total effect (i. 1993. A particular advantage of this metric is that it provides an index of importance based on a predictor’s “direct effect (i. and partial effect (i.e.e. The importance of a given predictor is calculated by adding it in turn to each of the equations in which it does not already participate and summing the increases in explained variance. Relative importance is assessed by examining all the possible regression equations that can be formed from the predictors. As we were relying on archival data. 1979). it was not possible to use a standard commitment scale. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Because our analysis examines cultural differences in the relationship between commitment and job satisfaction. We can enumerate the possible regression equations as follows: There is a single null equation with no predictor. Not all Downloaded from jcc.” Similar items (“I am proud to tell 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 Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ. There are four regression models. 544. and so on.. is a measure of affective rather than normative or continuance commitment. and the first item also appears in Marsden. as Dunham. and Y|AB (where | indicates regressed on). and the calculations become impractical. the number of regression equations that must be solved becomes prohibitively large. there are n(n – 1) / 2 equations with two predictors. it produces closely similar results to the longhand method (Azen & Budescu.e. & Porter. conditional on subsets of predictors)” (Budescu. This permits a meaningful decomposition of model R2 even in the presence of collinearity among the predictors. and Johnson’s approximation is used here. Suppose there are n predictors. considering both its unique contribution and its contribution when combined with other predictors.606 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology Budescu defined the relative importance of a regression predictor as its proportionate contribution to the total explained variance. 2003).com at City University Library on August 13. which. and an appropriate scaling is applied to find the relative importance of each predictor as a percentage.. relative importances are additive and sum to the model R2. Mowday. Commitment Antecedents: Job Satisfaction Items We examined the survey questionnaire for items similar in content to those by Hofstede and classified them according to their loadings on his Individualism/Collectivism and Masculinity/Femininity factors (Hofstede’s factor loadings are reported in Table 2). Suppose we regress a dependent variable (Y) on two predictors (A and B). Commitment was thus measured by two items: “I am proud to work for [organization name]” and “I would recommend [organization name] as a good place to work. there are n equations with a single predictor. Both items (with similar changes in wording) also appear in Cook and Wall’s (1980) Organizational Commitment Scale. Y|A.. Johnson (2000) developed a computationally efficient approximation that can be used with large numbers of predictors. 2010 . For more than five predictors. viz.) Furthermore. Steers.

Hofstede’s “[Importance of] Opportunity for advancement to higher levels” was matched to the slightly different survey item “I have the opportunity for personal development and growth in my company.001) between-nation effects. which has similar loadings on both factors. and Commitment 607 items could be matched exactly. Within-nation reliabilities were also calculated.4% of the variance of the job satisfaction scores was due to nation. it is important to consider the extent to which the measures used are comparable across nations and consistently reliable within nations. the intraclass correlation. or F according to Hofstede’s factor analytic loadings.sagepub. Conversely. the survey item “I have enough flexibility in my job to be able to balance my work and personal life” was designated an I item because it corresponds to Job Characteristic A18. and all the measures in Table 3 easily meet this criterion. for the two-item measures. Downloaded from jcc. which loads positively on Hofstede’s Individualism/Collectivism factor. I items assess satisfaction with job characteristics that are rated as important in Hofstede’s individualistic cultures. Common practice suggests that an ICC2 of at least . Additionally.70 is acceptable (Klein et al. and to determine the significance of the ICC1 values. Note that Job Characteristic A5.” Nevertheless. ICC1. These factors limit the degree to which aggregation to the national level is permissible. (Note that when calculating the Masculinity/Femininity scale. 518). and ICC2 is the reliability of the group mean that is formed when individual scores are aggregated. We also examined the multiple-item measures (i. We calculated ICC1 and ICC2 statistics for commitment and each of the satisfaction measures defined in Table 2. Hofstede reversed the sign of this factor. ICC statistics are commonly used in organizational research to ascertain whether it is justifiable to aggregate individual scores to the group level (Bliese. indicating that all the ICC1s were significantly different from zero. and those loading negatively were designated M. survey items assessing characteristics that are rated as important in Hofstede’s collectivist cultures were designated C items and so on. / Individualism. items were designated as I. Each measure was subjected to a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in which the measure was represented by a single latent variable and the factor loadings and error variances of the observed variables were constrained to equality across nations. we performed a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on each measure. it was reassigned to I following further analysis. reasonable matches were found for all except one of Hofstede’s items (“[Importance of] Live in a desirable area”).e. M.) Where a Hofstede item had salient loadings on both factors. For example. A12. The results are summarized in Table 3. for which there was no matching survey item. was initially assigned to M. the error variances of the observed variables were set equal to each other to achieve model identification. All the ANOVAs had significant (p < . Similarly. A11. and Commitment) for measurement equivalence.. C. 2000). 2010 .. for example. is a measure of within-group consensus. its value depends on the degree of group consensus and the average group size. A10. A16. Masculinity.Gelade et al. A13. p. 7. items loading positively on the Masculinity/Femininity factor were designated F. A7.com at City University Library on August 13. the designation of the corresponding survey item was determined by the largest loading. 2000. Next. Measurement Equivalence and Aggregation Issues In any cross-cultural analysis. The ICC1 values showed that on average. as explained later.

608 Factor Loadingsb No. of Survey Items Designationc M — M F C C M C I M F C I My work gives me a sense of personal accomplishment.54 1 M/F Survey Item or Sample Item A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A15 A16 A17 A18 No. How satisfied are you with your benefits package? In my company people are recognized for innovation.69 — 2 1 1 –. I = Individualist.70 .49 –. See Hofstede (2001. M = Masculine. My work area is a safe place to work. p. I have the opportunity for personal development and growth in my company.40 –.63 .56 .35 –. c.59 –. a.com at City University Library on August 13. 2010 Fully use skills and abilities Time for personal or family life Note: Job Characteristic A5 was reassigned to I in later analysis. My immediate manager involves me in making decisions that affect my work. . I feel safe to express my opinions in my company.46 . See Hosftede (2001. b. 467-468). C = Collectivist.86 3 –.a I/C . No available item How satisfied are you with your pay? My team works well together. F = Feminine.69 –.59 –. 255).69 . Table 2 Mapping of Hofstede’s Job Characteristics to Survey Items Job Characteristic Sense of personal achievement Live in a desirable area Opportunity for high earnings People who cooperate with each other Training opportunities Good fringe benefits Recognition for a good job Good physical working conditions Freedom to adopt own approach to the job Opportunity for advancement to higher levels Good work relationship with manager Downloaded from jcc.sagepub. My job offers sufficient opportunity to use my skills and abilities.37 –. I receive the training and development I need to do my current job.40 1 3 2 2 3 2 1 .82 –. pp. I have enough flexibility in my job to be able to balance my work and personal life.

98 .93 . p.99 .98 .65). Control Variables Gender (0 for females and 1 for males).45 . 3 = 5 to 10 years. 500).98 .99 . TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index.65 .97 .64 .97 .65 to . 4 = more than 10 years) were used as control variables.013 .97 .99 .99 .021 .47 .09 .319 1. Random effects model. 2 = 2 to 5 years. 2010 .50 .64 .05 . and only one is “undesirable” (.99 .93 .70 to .98 .013 .99 .76 .Gelade et al. Employee scores were then aggregated to the national level.80 .98 .99 .228 2.013 .95 .96 .98 .75 .80 to .98 . RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. three are in the “minimally acceptable” range (.07 .152 547 1. Masculinity.80). its score was the mean of the constituent items.60 to . Overall.05 . job level (0 for a respondent with no direct reports.97 GFI CFI TLI RMSEA Median Minimum ICC1a .98 .019 . CFI = Comparative Fit Index.com at City University Library on August 13. and tenure band (1 = less than 2 years.65 .97 .99 .99 . two “very good” (.12 .030 .96 . Downloaded from jcc.008 688 3.98 . As shown by the CFA fit indices. we may conclude that the satisfaction measures defined in Table 3 meet the conditions for a cross-cultural analysis.39 .69 .97 .03 .59 .06 .sagepub.97 . Cultural Dimensions National measures of IDV and MAS were taken from Hoftsede (2001.13 .66 .509 df 56 56 56 140 56 140 140 56 Alpha Reliabilities Within Country ICC2 .70).97 .014 .06 .99 .88 . Using the criteria for research scales proposed by Devellis (2003). all the multiple-item measures showed a high degree of measurement equivalence.11 .11 . a. Commitment scores and satisfaction scores for the 12 job characteristics were computed for each employee. GFI = Goodness of Fit Index.04 Note: df = degrees of freedom.015 . / Individualism.99 .95 .05 .68 . 1 for a respondent with direct reports). Median alpha reliabilities were less satisfactory but still adequate. Where a measure was represented by more than one item.99 .82 .90).92 . two are “respectable” (. and Commitment 609 Table 3 Measurement Equivalence and Aggregation Statistics for Satisfaction and Commitment Measures Multigroup CFA Statistics χ2 Multiple-Item Measures A7 A10 A11 A12 A13 A16 A18 Commitment Single-item measures A5 A8 A9 A15 A17 543 1.

the negative correlations between IDV and the relative importance of C characteristics show that C characteristics are stronger antecedents in collectivist nations. the moderating effects of individualism are revealed by the positive correlations between IDV and the relative importance of I characteristics. not reported here.5% in Model 2. In Model 1. In an initial analysis. Although not all job characteristics show the effect. we found that the effect of Job Characteristic A5 (initially designated as M) was significantly moderated by country individualism but not by masculinity. In each case. As shown in Table 2. meant that the feminine work domain was not fully represented. for which there was no available survey item. where to conserve space we summarize across the 29 nations rather than report the results for each nation separately. Johnson’s (2000) method was used to calculate the relative importances of each job characteristic in each nation. we calculated the relative importance of each job characteristic and control variable and then summed the importances of each subset of variables (controls. and F characteristics) to give the total importance for each subset.1 In Model 1.610 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology Analysis and Results To assess the relationship between commitment and its antecedents. M characteristics. respectively). and gender. with relative importances of only 3. we conducted a series of regression analyses. The results we report are after this reassignment. In any case. tenure. commitment was regressed on the demographic controls and a subset of the job satisfaction scores. but another explanation is that omission of the Facet A6. the overall importance of the F characteristics (25. For each nation. the I and C characteristics both have substantial effects on commitment (average importances 55% and 41. Table 5 shows the correlations of Hofstede’s IDV and MAS dimensions with the relative importances of each antecedent and antecedent subset. and job level were included as controls.4% in Model 1 and 42. which show that I characteristics are stronger antecedents of commitment in individualist nations than in collectivist ones. but in Model 2.4%) was substantially less than that of the M characteristics (71. however. Regression and importance statistics are shown in Table 4. I characteristics. A significant correlation indicates that a dimension moderates the commitment-antecedent relationship.sagepub. and absolute importance levels are not relevant to our calculations.9%. significant correlations in the Downloaded from jcc. C characteristics. Separate regressions were carried out in each of the 29 nations.1% in Model 1 and 3. The independent variables were the relevant satisfaction scores for each job characteristic. The control variables are generally weak predictors.4% in Model 2). 2010 .2%).com at City University Library on August 13. A5 has similar loadings on both Hofstede’s factors and its designation is somewhat open to question. We investigated two regression models. This might indicate that feminine job characteristics are intrinsically less strongly related to commitment than masculine ones. we determined the moderating effect of national culture by correlating the importances of the job characteristics in each nation with Hofstede’s national scores for individualism and masculinity. Similarly. it is the variation in importance levels by nation that matters. The R2 values in Table 4 show that the independent variables explain a substantial proportion of commitment variance in most nations (on average 49. and Model 2 examined satisfaction with masculine (M) and feminine (F) job characteristics. we therefore redesignated A5 as an I characteristic. Model 1 examined satisfaction with individualist (I) and collectivist (C) job characteristics. Finally.

SD = standard deviation.3 46.0 32. Collectivist (C) Job Characteristics Controls Gender Tenure Org.8 0.05 0.15 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.04 –0.08 38. Max.1 1.33 0. Model 1: Satisfaction With Individualist (I) vs.06 0.5 26.6 1.7 6. 2010 .0 0.1 5.05 0.0 20.9 1.8 2.7 20.4 27.4 0.27 0.7 85.5 28.06 0. However. Feminine (F) Job Characteristics Controls Gender Tenure Org.11 0.3 19.5 24. The findings here are less clear cut.27 0.3 71.2 7.06 0.04 –0.24 0. / Individualism.21 0.04 0.21 0.2 21.03 –0. three of the five job characteristics show a salient correlation in the predicted direction.9 55.9 8.9 8.7 37.05 0.7 25.3 0.4 0.3 1.4 –0.08 0.01 33.7 4.15 0.10 –0. expected direction are obtained for four of the seven job characteristics and for the summed importances of the I and C characteristics.1 5.0 0.26 0.4 37.3 9. but only one of these reaches significance.01 0.07 4.sagepub.3 4.8 5.09 –0.0 24.3 59.2 0.0 4.0 28.6 0.06 0.02 0.0 3.8 9.8 9.8 1.09 –0.10 –0.02 0.32 0.04 0.2 0.06 0.Gelade et al.01 0.4 24.12 0.8 4.17 –0.8 7. In Model 2.0 0. the moderating effects of masculinity are indicated by positive correlations between MAS and the relative importance of M characteristics and by negative correlations between MAS and the relative importance of F characteristics.7 –0.4 12.39 0. the summed importances of the M and F characteristics do correlate significantly with MAS in the predicted directions.3 12.4 7.25 58.6 16.2 6.5 4.4 0.0 5.8 0.7 4.1 0. Hypothesis 1 is thus supported. and the findings therefore offer qualified support for Hypothesis 2.7 14.9 6.5 16.08 5.5 6.4 0.6 3.13 –0.9 60.15 0. Max.23 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.24 52. Relative Importance as Predictor of Commitment (%) M SD Min.01 –0. and Commitment 611 Table 4 Summary of Regression and Dominance Analyses in 29 Nations Unstandardized Regression Coefficients Independent Variables M SD Min.4 66.7 1.07 0.0 8.7 5.1 0.7 3.7 I C R2 Model 2: Satisfaction With Masculine (M) vs.0 4. level All controls A7 A11 A15 All M A8 A16 All F 0.5 41.0 4.2 0.08 0.07 0.25 0.13 –0.08 49.3 9.01 –0.4 1.9 39. Masculinity. Downloaded from jcc. level All controls A5 A13 A18 All I A9 A10 A12 A17 All C 0.07 0.46 0.3 8.13 0.02 0.6 19.22 0.7 17.25 0.6 1.0 1.7 4.com at City University Library on August 13.04 0.1 21.3 2.11 42.2 3.9 31.9 3.1 0.06 0.6 11.4 1.16 0.12 –0.02 –0.7 6.9 6.2 10.2 M F R2 Note: N = 29.

10 .40* –.01 –.11 –. Palich et al.08 –..06 –. and Sanders (1990) have shown that national culture is a stronger determinant of employee values than organizational membership.06 –.12 .12 –. Similar samples have of course been frequently used in cross-cultural research before (e. 1995.sagepub.33 –. 1980.65*** –.19 –.17 .39* . First. ***p ≤ .03 .11 –. **p ≤ . Vandenberghe et al.32 .33 –.21 –.40* –.05. so this potential source of bias may not be as serious as imagined. level All controls A7: Opportunity for high earnings A11: Recognition for a good job A15: Opportunity for advancement to higher levels All M characteristics A8: People who cooperate with each other A16: Good work relationship with manager All F characteristics –.13 . *p ≤ .05 .10 .36 .54** ..09 .35 –. and a broader measure would have been preferable.07 –. Furthermore. 2001). MAS = national masculinity (Hofstede.001.612 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology Table 5 Correlations of National Individualism and Masculinity Scores With Relative Importances IDV Model 1 Controls Gender Tenure Org. Discussion This research was subject to some methodological limitations.35 –. Neuijen.16 –.01. As a test of validity.18 .56** –. our analytical sample was not a statistically representative one. 2001). A second potential problem is that only two items were available to measure affective commitment.com at City University Library on August 13. we checked our commitment measure against scores for the item “I feel a strong sense of commitment to my organization” in a database containing representative samples of 12 national Downloaded from jcc. 2001. as the respondents were all employees of the same multinational organization. 2010 .15 .12 –.23 .20 MAS –.25 .69*** –.40* I characteristics C characteristics Model 2 Controls M characteristics F characteristics Note: N = 29. level All controls A5: Sense of personal achievement A13: Freedom to adopt own approach to the job A18: Time for personal or family life All I characteristics A9: Training opportunities A10: Good fringe benefits A12: Good physical working conditions A17: Fully use skills and abilities All C characteristics Gender Tenure Org.10 –. Hofstede.16 . Hofstede..47* –.35 .05 .g.28 . Ohayv.17 –.37* . IDV = national individualism.19 –.

and the data in Table 5 suggest some specific recommendations. the effects of satisfaction decrease with increasing masculinity. however. These results contrast with those of Palich et al. and outsourcing ventures. (1995). while for characteristics highly valued in feminine nations. Finally. The contribution of this article is to demonstrate the existence of significant moderating effects—in the predicted directions—for individualism and masculinity. resulting in increasing contacts between managers and workforces from different cultures. Work that fosters a sense of personal achievement and that allows employees some flexibility and discretion is an important source of commitment in individualistic nations but less so in collectivist ones. A further distinctive feature of the present research is that the job characteristics we examined were carefully matched to those used by Hofstede to define his cultural dimensions. The results show different correlations between commitment and its antecedents in different nations and different correlations for individualist and collectivist job characteristics.sagepub. we would have to suppose that common method variance differed for individualist and collectivist job characteristics and moreover was higher for individualist characteristics in individualist nations. both factors may have limited the ability to detect moderating effects. and Commitment 613 workforces overlapping with our data. who reported no such moderation in the antecedents of commitment. and those of Vandenberghe et al. 2010 . This. Conversely. in collectivist nations. who reported no such moderation in its consequences. we note that all the data were self-reported and that some of the observed relationships may be subject to common method variance. respectively) were smaller than those used here and were less representative because they were confined to Western countries. Cross-cultural variation in the sources of commitment has practical implications for human resource management.013).Gelade et al. / Individualism. a conjecture that seems unlikely to say the least. the effects of satisfaction decrease with increasing individualism. while for characteristics that are highly valued in collectivist cultures. Theory supposes that the relationships between organizational commitment and its antecedents and consequences should be moderated by cultural values. Downloaded from jcc. corporate mergers. The correlation was . where increasing globalization (connectivity and integration) in the economic sphere is leading to more cross-national partnerships.com at City University Library on August 13. Satisfaction with job characteristics that are highly valued (overtly rated as important) in individualistic cultures has a progressively stronger influence on commitment as national individualism increases. can be confidently ruled out as an explanation of our findings. Masculinity.69 (p = . (2001). satisfaction with job characteristics that are highly valued in masculine cultures has a progressively stronger influence on commitment as national masculinity increases. Managing in a culturally diverse environment requires new knowledge. providing some reassurance our two-item measure is a reasonable indicator of national commitment levels. We suggest that careful job design is thus of particular importance in individualistic nations. but previous attempts at empirical confirmation have proved disappointing. we would recommend that managers pay particular attention to providing comfortable working conditions and access to training opportunities. The differences between masculine and feminine nations are less clear cut but suggest that the encouragement of good manager–subordinate relationships should be particularly emphasized in feminine nations. Similarly. One reason may be that their samples (15 and 12 nations. If there were no cultural moderation effects. which may also have increased sensitivity to the effects of his cultural dimensions.

the normative psychological contract are not psychologically attributable to the organization and are thus less likely to affect levels of commitment than aspects that are central. and Trompenaars (1996) have also shown that employers are expected to be more paternalistic in collectivist nations than in individualistic ones (see also Rousseau & Schalk. perceptions. Note 1. However..614 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology An obvious direction for future research is to test for the moderating effects of other cultural dimensions. 1989. Erez. If this pattern of high value and low centrality in individualist cultures is mirrored by low value and high centrality in collectivist ones. or peripheral to. A moderator is a “variable that affects the direction and/or strength of the relation between an independent or predictor variable and a dependent or criterion variable” (Baron & Kenny.g. a job characteristic needs to be both highly valued and to be a normative element within the psychological contract. In individualist nations. in contrast to Western societies. To function as a source of commitment in a particular culture. and its divergent scope in different cultures. Smith. might lead to a deeper understanding of cross-cultural variation in the sources of organizational commitment. Dugan. It is clear that. 2010 . moderation is usually tested by examining the significance of an interaction term. and informal obligations between an employer and an employee and sets the expectations and boundaries for the association. One variable that might produce cross-cultural differences is the psychological contract (e. We therefore suggest that examination of the role of the psychological contract. and no cross-cultural moderation will be observed. 1174). the explanation of cultural differences in organizational behavior needs to move beyond consideration of cultural values alone. the cultural effects that we report are still somewhat inconsistent with theory. Restubog & Bordia. Aspects of the work environment that are excluded from. at the fine-grained level of specific job characteristics. p. 2006). 1995). In the context of a single ordinary least squares regression equation. consider Facet A18 (importance of having sufficient time for personal and family life). the effects of value and centrality will counteract one another.. in that some job characteristics show no discernable moderation. which represents the mutual beliefs. The development of attitudes such as commitment is generally thought to occur within the context of an implied contractual relationship. and Aycan (2007) remark. this is highly valued. To illustrate how values and contractual contexts might interact. 1986. For example. Rousseau. for which we observe no discernable moderating effect of culture. There is good reason to believe that the scope of the typical psychological contract varies across cultures.g. but this of course is not the only way to detect moderation.sagepub. The failure to consistently confirm the predicted moderating effects in this and other research could indicate that the values-asmoderators framework provides an incomplete theoretical model of the commitment process. Downloaded from jcc. as Gelfand. 2000). but it tends to be peripheral to the psychological contract because employers are not seen as responsible for the employee’s life outside the work place. employment relationships in developing countries are heavily grounded in interpersonal relationships and familial/ community sharing (e.com at City University Library on August 13.

Griffin. Organizational commitment: The utility of an integrative definition. G.. Multinational perspectives on work values and commitment..). research. 2010 .. G. The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. CA: Sage. Thousand Oaks.. Downloaded from jcc. Kozlowski (Eds. non-independence and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. Y. Kozlowski. M. Multilevel theory. S. J. 1-19. (1994). New work attitude measures of trust. 479-514. V. (1980).. P. (2000). The validity of the three-component model of organizational commitment in a Chinese context. D. D. J. V. 117-134. R. Psychological Bulletin. M. & Castañeda. S. Neuijen. 401-410. M. 349-381). P. 252-276. H. & Sergeyev.. Klein. & Meyer. 465-489. (2003). N. A. & Aycan. J. continuance and normative commitment to the organization. B. C.. N.).. & Štebe. B. & Ghoshal. 35.. 62. 114. (2003). P. (2000). C. J. Knapp. Budescu. V. 79. Boston: Irwin/McGraw Hill. M. J. A.. 370-380. & Wall. 129-148. 109-116.. and readings in cross-border management (3rd ed. K. J. cases. Ohayv. Cross-cultural organizational behavior. (1990). Thousand Oaks. A. In M. (2000). Daniels. R.. Affective. Gavin. Multilevel theory.. Cheng. and consequences of organizational commitment: A study of Russian workers.. A. research. (1986). Hofstede. (1990). M. Dunham. (2000). or consequence of culture? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.. M. T. 8.. S. Psychological Methods. 286-316. Masculinity. D. 1-18. F. W. Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. correlates. London: Routledge. A. 63. Baron. product of personality. 35. D. G. Dansereau. organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment. behaviors. & Briner. A. S.. A. Effects of cultural context on the antecedents. G. J. Internet and touch-tone phones for self-administered surveys: Does methodology matter? Computers in Human Behavior. Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. B. Klein & S. Z. G. F. A. (1998). J. 47-61). & Kirk. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Kenny. J. Multilevel analytical techniques: Commonalities. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values. Newbury Park.Gelade et al. (2003). 4. institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed. P. D. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. and continuing questions. 76. Devellis. 49. Cook. (1993). Dobson. A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression.. Journal of Vocational Behavior.. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. In K. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual. B. Harris. CA: Sage. 512-553).com at City University Library on August 13. (1997). and statistical considerations. Weinzimmer. Buchko. 43. The Archimedes effect. Bartlett. Multivariate Behavioral Research. J. H. (1996). D. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Hofstede.. Journal of Vocational Behavior. (2003). Within-group agreement.. 51. Journal of Business Research. & Budescu. differences.). L.). and Commitment 615 References Allen. R. Journal of Occupational Psychology. Annual Review of Psychology.. National differences in organizational commitment: Effect of economy. strategic. R. Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed. P. Bliese. (1980). D.. In K. Johnson. 542-556. D. G. W. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management. J. Working at the interface of cultures: 18 lives in social science (pp. / Individualism. Hofstede. R. Administrative Science Quarterly. W.. (2003). & Meyer. CA: Sage. Grube. Andolšek. J. A daily diary study of goals and affective well-being at work.). P. Erez. M.). G. 37. Hofstede. & Gilbert. The measurement and antecedents of affective. 19.. et al.. 181-209. D. W. Kozlowski (Eds. M. Allen. (2006). Transnational management: Text. 39-52. 58. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. J. B. Gelfand. A. Azen. K. Klein & S. J. J. and methods in organizational psychology (pp. (2007). 53. 1173-1182. Bond (Ed. (2001). and normative commitment: An examination of construct validity. and methods in organizational psychology (pp. Gelade.sagepub. Bliese. (2004). Journal of Occupational Psychology. 542-551.. & Stockdale. & Sanders. Using pencil and paper.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. continuance.

Assessment of Meyer’s and Allen’s three-component model of organizational commitment in South Korea. Thousand Oaks. Oishi. (2003). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Diener. Suh. (1996). E. F. Administrative Science Quarterly. correlates. E. Hom.. V. 121-139. T. (1987). Applied Psychology: An International Review. & Bilsky. (1999). L. (1979). & Porter. 550-562. P. Personnel Psychology.. & Chatman. 429-439. Human Resource Development Quarterly. continuance. D. H. (1998). E.. R. 46-56. Work and Occupations. S. 231-264.. J. (1997). C. & Triandis. A. Diener... D. Psychological and implied contracts in organizations.. D. 74. 53. J.. Mathieu. C. W. (1977)..com at City University Library on August 13. S. & Delhaise. 563-585. 405-424. O.. B. R. 67. S. 671-690. 32. financial firms. Assessing organisational commitment in a Belgian context: Evidence for the threedimensional model. An examination of the cross-cultural validity of a multidimensional model of commitment in Europe. 2. (2006). 82. Thousand Oaks. Stanley. and consequences of organizational commitment. Workplace familism and psychological contract breach in the Philippines. (1995). Kalleberg. D. Journal of Vocational Behavior. organizational commitment. (1990). 2010 . and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents. L.. 61. (1993). & Griffeth. E. (1995).. R. R. J. 171-194. Suh. M. R. D. (1998)... B. Palich. Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal. T. 37. 482-493. & Topolnytsky. 20.. & Bordia. W. E. (2001). P. and their psychological attachment to the subsidiary versus the global organization. Rousseau. Rousseau.sagepub. 55. Steers. C. Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. Cross-cultural research on organizational commitment: A review and application of Hofstede’s Value Survey Module. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.. (2002).. 737-746. Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. L. L. 268-390. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. London: Sage. and consequences. C. (1999). (2000). Kreft. Vandenberghe. E. Applied Psychology: An International Review. Affective. Gender differences in organizational commitment: Influences of work positions and family roles. (1995). R. 14.616 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology Ko. F. P... Restubog. S.. Meyer. I. and job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and U. C. P. J. Mowday. E. & Sivadas. Lucas. Stinglhamber. F. Schwartz. Journal of Applied Psychology. Malka. (1998). 25. J. E. 235-256. W. M. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents. 16. & Mueller. & de Leeuw. & Schalk. Orwa. CA: Sage. 224-247. 157-184. 27. 21. J. P. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. (2005). Vandenberghe. Steers. D.. 45. 29. Rousseau.. C.. The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms. & Lawler. 91-110. 371-386. Smith. CA: Sage. & Suh. M. Toward a psychological structure of human values. 26. Journal of Personality. Herscovitch. Cross-cultural variations in predictors of life satisfaction: Perspectives from needs and values. E. Dugan. 108. R.. 961-973. F.. Oishi.. Journal of Management. P. (1996). Diener. (2001). Managing in the international context: Testing cultural generality of sources of commitment to multinational enterprises. Price.. Bentein. M.. Journal of Vocational Behavior. E. D... E. R. H. M. Oishi. J. M. Downloaded from jcc. (1993).. W. R. M. L. J. A... W. 322-347. 709-725. Randall. International Journal of Human Resource Management. Marsden. & Cook. Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. 12. 22. A. Journal of the Market Research Society. & Lucas. & Zajac. Psychological contracts in employment: Cross-national perspective. Dual identification in multinational corporations: Local managers. Walumbwa. Intrinsic and extrinsic orientations as moderators of the effect of annual income on subjective well-being: A longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. M. correlates. National culture and values of organizational employees. J. L. 51. (1989). J. Wang. Stanton. Psychological Bulletin. K. Introducing multilevel modeling. & Trompenaars. S. An empirical assessment of data collection using the Internet. Value as a moderator in subjective well-being. Journal of Business Research. L. Reade. M.S. 20-52. The measurement of organizational commitment. S. Transformational leadership.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Mehta. 980-990.

Yousef. A. He received his master’s degree in natural sciences from Cambridge University and his PhD from the University of Nottingham. J.sagepub. D. G. a provider of organizational research services to corporate and government clients. Educational and Psychological Measurement.Gelade et al. 14. In her role. Gallagher. His current research interests include employee attitudes and creative thinking in organizations. & Wakabayashi. D. (2003)..com at City University Library on August 13. (1995). and Commitment 617 White. Paul Dobson is a chartered psychologist and senior lecturer in organizational behaviour at Cass Business School. Tetrault. she is responsible for internal communication at the group level. Validating the dimensionality of Porter et al. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2010 . M. Downloaded from jcc. Masculinity. L. Prior to joining Shell in 2007. Validity evidence for the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire in the Japanese corporate culture.. Garry Gelade is a research fellow at Cass Business School and the director of Business Analytic Ltd. she was head of Global Internal Communications at Astrazeneca. 1067-1079. / Individualism. M.. M.. His research interests include the assessment and development of team leadership skills in multicultural groups. M. Parks. 55. developing and executing internal communications strategy. Katharina Auer is a specialist in strategic corporate communications and is head of Shell’s Global Internal and Management Communications function.’s measurement of organizational commitment in a non-Western culture setting. A. 278-290. where she led the company’s global employee survey project.