A~ount/n~ Organ/a~at/onsandSooMty,VoL 18, No. 7/8,plx 621-628,1993. 0361-3682/93 g6.00+.

O0
Printed in Great Britain O 1993PergamonPrem Ltd

THE INTERACTIO BETWEENNATIONALAND ORGANIZATION

NCULTUREIN ACCOUNTINGFIRMS:AN ALEXTENSION*

JAMIE PRATT
Indiana University
LAWRENCE C. MOHRWEIS
Northern Arizona University
and
PHIL BEAULIEU
Untt~rstty o f Calgary

Aimract

Soem~ & sdaeu(~ (mzmmung ~ & s o d ~ , pp. 7~..85, 19so) ~ me

between natim~ aml ocg~,'~,-mal cukure in ~ firms ~ . ~ 4 ~ 'me ~ This ~ ~
an cxtenslon cf that ~ t~ dm we examine the impact ~ mtioml and ~ culture on Brlmh
and Aumaltm chartered accountan~ UX public acommants are aim reed tn the re~m~ ~ as a
~ gmup. The resu~ m~owa strong tm _ or~n between mtioml md mgmizattoml culmre f~
accoumtng from operatin8 in the UY~,but are ~ f~r Ires oper~n8 ta Aural~ impacmtom ~
these remi~ and ~ for fuume research are aim ¢il~umed.

In a sample o f Dutch public accountants w o H d l ~ in
The Nethedands, Soeters & Schrcuder
(1988, hereafter S&S) s h o w e d that national
culture can interact with organizational culture. Using
measures of Hofstede's ( 1 9 8 0 ) four
culUtre ~ (Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance,
Individnali~m, and Masculinity), they c o m p a r e d the
cultural values o f Dutch accountants working in Dutch
firms to the cultural values o f DUtch accountants
working in U~ . - owned firms operating in The
Netherlands, noting significant differences in
Uncertainty Avoidance and Masculinity. The authors
explained the results b y suggesting that the
organizational culture of the U.S. firms, primarily
through their
self-selection practices, may have helped to determine
the cultural values of the Dutch employees w o r k i n g
in those firms.
The p u r p o s e o f this study is to test the findings of
S&S o n chartered accountants working in b o t h Britain
and Australi~ For each o f these t w o countries the
cultural values of three groups are compared: Group 1,
British (Australian) accountants working in British
(Australian) firms operating in Britain (Australia);
Group 2, British (Australian) accountants working in
U.S. firms operating in Britain (Australia); and Group 3,
U . S . accountants working in U.S. firms operating in
the U.S. For each c o u n t r y w e hypothesize that the
cultural values of Group 2

* The ~ are indebted to Peter Moizer, C. G. Pctmo~ ~KI L Slmneu jm. theh. he~ in gathefl~ d.t. ~ ~ ~ , and to
Geert Hofstede and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on an earlier dralt.

621
622 j. PaATr ~t a .
will fail b e t w e e n t h o s e o f G r o u p s 1 and 3.
That is, b e c a u s e o f the selection and
socialization p r o c e s s e s at w o r k in the U.S.
firms operatin g in Britain and Australia, the cultural
values o f G r o u p 2, as c o m p a r e d to G r o u p
1, will b e m o r e like those o f U.S. accountant s ( G
r o u p 3). Support for the hypothesis is strong in
Britain and w e a k in Australia.
Th e researc h design use d in this stud y is the sam e
as that used in S&S, w i t h t w o i m p o r t a n t
exceptions . First, o u r design c o m p a r e d the cultural
values o f t h r e e group s ( r a t h e r than two) , o n e o f
w h i c h was U.S. public accountant s w o r k i n g in the
U.S. T h e addition o f this g r o u p enables us to d e t e r
m i n e w h e t h e r the cultur e values o f non-U.S, e m
p l o y e e s w o r k i n g in U.S.
firms are mor e like those o f U.X public
a c c o u n t a n t s than are the cultural values o f non -
U.S. e m p l o y e e s w o r k i n g in non-U.S, firms. Th e t
w o - g r o u p c o m p a r i s o n used in S&S only enable d t
h e m to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r the D u t c h e m p l o y
e e s w o r k i n g in U.S. firms were different f r o m the D
u t c h employees w o r k i n g in D u t c h
flrm,z Second, unlike S&S, the g r o u p s in o u r
stud y w e r e m a t c h e d o n gender, age, functional
area, and r a n k Research has s h o w n that suc h
variables can c o n f o u n d m e a s u r e s o f cultural
values (e.g. see Hofstede, 1980; Pratt & Beaulieu,
1992).
DEFINITION AND MEASURE OF CULTURE
Following S&S, w e rely o n Hofsted e ( 1 9 8 0 ) for
the definition an d m e a s u r e o f culture, w h o notes
that cultur e refers to "a collective p r o g r a m m i n g o
f the m i n d " (p. 2 5 ) that manifests itself t h r o u g h
myths, rituals, habits, an d beliefs a b o u t reality. H e
note s furthe r that the values shared b y the m e m b e r
s o f a g r o u p are especially importan t in the definition
o f culture, defining values as attributes o f individuals
characterize d b y b r o a d tendencie s to p r e f e r
certain states o f affairs o v e r o t h e r s (Rokeach,
1972). While m a n y different definitions o f cultur e
have a p p e a r e d in the literature ( e . g see O u c h i &
WUkins, 1985), W i e n e r ( 1 9 8 8 ) notes, in a r e v i e
w o f cultur e
°
research, that m o s t researcher s agree that shared
values "are a ke y e l e m e n t in th e definition o f
culture " (p. 534).
According to Hofstede ( 1 9 8 0 ) , cultural value
system s are reflected in four separate dimen - sions:
P o w e r Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance,
Individualism, and Masculinity. P o w e r Distance
refers t o the e x t e n t t o w h i c h m e m b e r s o f a
g r o u p o b s e r v e and a c c e p t the fact that p o w
e r a m o n g grou p m e m b e r s is distributed
equally. Uncertainty Avoidance refers t o the need s o
f m e m b e r s o f a cultur e t o r e d u c e tension b y
establishing guide-lines for b e h a v i o r and
guaranteeing c a r e e r stability. Individualism refers
to the e x t e n t to w h i c h a cultural unit is b a s e d
o n a loosely knit social f r a m e w o r k w h e r e the
highest priority o f the m e m b e r s is to take care o f
t h e m s e l v e s and their i m m e d i a t e fatuities.
Masculinity refers to the e x t e n t to w h i c h the d o
m i n a n t values e n c o u r a g e d b y the cultur e are
"masculine", w h i c h includes assertiveness, the
acquisition o f material goods, and a lack o f interest
in the welfare o f o t h e r m e m b e r s .
T h e Valu e Survey M o d u l e (VSM) and the
Scoring Guid e f o r the Valu e Survey M o d u l e
(Hofstede, 1982 ) w e r e d e v e l o p e d to obtain
measure s o f eac h o f th e four dimensions . Th e
VSM is a p a p e r and pencil i n s t r u m e n t
containing a p p r o x i m a t e l y 50 items. Th e
response s to thes e items are c o m b i n e d accordin
g to formulas describe d in the Scoring Guide to p r o
v i d e m e a s u r e s o f the dimensions . More c o m
p l e t e descriptions o f thes e four dimension s and
their m e a s u r e s can b e foun d in Hofstede ( 1 9 8
0 ) , S&S, and Pratt & Beaulieu (1992) .
HYPOTHESIS
Th e basic p r e m i s e o f this p a p e r is that th e
processe s o f selection and socialization use d b y an
organization will help to d e t e r m i n e the cultural
values o f the m e m b e r s h i p (Prat t & Beaulieu,
1992). Selection o c c u r s in t w o forms: r e c r u i t
m e n t and self-selection (Wiener, 1988). R e c r u i t
m e n t refers to the w a y in w h i c h out-siders are
identified, screened, and invited into the cultural unit.
Organizations recrui t
 NATIONALAND ORGANIZATIONALCULTURE 623

EXHIBIT 1. Cuiun~ values of three WOUl~

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
British accountants British accountants U.g. accountants
in British fignw in U~. firms ill U~. firms
Austral/an accountants Australian accountants U~. aco~mtams
in Australian firms in U.S. films in U.S. firms

individuals w h o s e value systems are similar to those
of the organization. Serf-selection refers to the process
through w h i c h outsiders make themselves available
for recruitment Individuals w h o s e value systems are
similar to those of
certain organizations are attracted to those
organizations. O'Reiily et aL (1991) found that the fit b
e t w e e n the individual and the organiza-tion related to
the individual's organizational commitment, satisfaction,
and longevity.
Socialization o c c u r s after individuals have entered
the orsanizati0n. It refers to the process b y w h i c h
values o f the m e m b e r s are brought into line with
those o f the organization (Etzioni, 1961).
Organizational m e m b e r s gradually develop c o m m
o n sense value systems through c o m m o n
symbols, heroes, and rituals, that express the values held
by the founders and other significant leaders of the
organization (Hofstede et aL, 1990). Inherent in the
socializa-tion process, however, is an element o f selec-
t.ion. The r e m o v e r process can enhance the retention
of h/ghly socialized organizational m e m b e r s b y the
p r o m o t i o n of employees responsive to
organizational practices and the termination of those w h
o do n o t fit (Chatman, 1991; Harrison & Carroll, 1991).
employees to be even m o r e like those of U~.
accountants.
Recall that in this study w e c o m p a r e measures of
Hofstede's ( 1 9 8 0 ) four cultural dimensiolxs
across three groups: Group 1, British (Australian)
accountants worlang in British (Australian)
firms operating in Britain (Australia); Group 2, British
(Australian) accountants working in U.S. firms operating
in Britain (Australia); and Group 3, U~. accountants
working in U.S. firms operating in the U~. Exhibit 1
illustrates these three groups for both the British and
Australian samples.
The cultural values o f Groups 1 and 3 should reflect
those of the local accountants and U~. accountants,
respectively. The cultural values of Group 2 should
reflect some characteristics of b o t h groups, w h i c h
leads to the hypothesis stated below.
HI. The scores on each of the four cultural dimep-~tom
for Group 2 will be between the scot~ ofGroups I and3.
DATA COII.~-CTION

Questionnaires containing the items of the VSM w e r

The processes o f selection and socialization used b y
U.S. firms operating in Britain and Australia are
assumed to reflect the cultural values o f U.S. public
accountants. U~. firms in these countries, therefore,
should tend to recruit, attract, and keep from the
available local accountants individuals w h o s e values
are similar to those of U.S. accountants. In addition, the
socialization processes practised in the U.S. firms should
influence the values of the local
e distributed to firms of various sizes
in the U.IC ( B h ~ g h a m , Derby, Uverpool,
london, and Man~ester~ Australia (Melbourne,
Sydney, and Brisbane), and the U~. ( N e w York,
Chicago , Seattle, Denver, and South Bend). The
manasing partner of each firm was contacted
and permission was obtained for the question-
(mdudlnS a se~-~wm~.d,
envelope) to be distributed to all professional employees
b e l o w partner level) A total of 220,

Panners were exduded because a number of the items on the questionn=lre referred either to the ~ t ' s i ~
supervisor or to the system used to evzkmte the respondent's ~ neithex of which was ¢omklenst n:levmt to
624 J. PRATT et aL

154, a n d 3 3 8 u s a b l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e p r e s e n t eliminatingrespondentsfromthelargergroups.F
i n g r e s p o n s e r a t e s o f 4 4 % , 4 7 % , a n d 75 % w e r e o r e x a m p l e , in t h e c a s e o f t h e British c o m p a r i s o n , 2 3 r e
r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e U.K., Australia , a n d t h e U.S. s p o n d e n t s w e r e B r i t i s h c i t i z e n s e m p l o y e d b y Britis h
r e s p e c t i v e l y .2 The questio firms: 96 % m a l e ; 61 % o v e r t h e a g e o f 30, 96 % in non - MA S f
nnaire contained u n c t i o n a l areas , w i t h 52% s e n i o r s a n d 48 % m a n a g e r s .
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7 5 i t e m s in a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e f Respondentsfromtheothertwocomparisongroup
r o m t h e VSM, s o t w o v e r s i o n s w e r e d i s t r i b u t e s ( B r i t i s h w o r k i n g i n U.S. firms a n d A m e r i c a n s w o r k i
d . O n e v e r s i o n p l a c e d t h e VSM i t e m s first a n d a s n g in U.S. firms) , b o t h o f w h i c h c o n t a i n e d m o r e t h a n
e c o n d v e r s i o n p l a c e d t h e VSM i t e m s n e a r t h e e
n d . A n y f a t i g u e o r q u e s t i o n - o r d e r effec t w a s e 23respondents,wererandomlyeliminateduntilth
x p e c t e d t o r e v e a l i t s e l f in d i f f e r e n t r e s p o n s edemographicprofilesoftheremainingresponde
esbetweenthetwoversions.Student'st-tes n t s in t h e s e g r o u p s m a t c h e d t h a t o f t h e first g r o u p as c l
tsandchi-squaretestscomparingtherespon o s e l y as possible . A simila r p r o c e s s w a s f o l l o w e d f o r t h e
s e s t o q u e s t i o n s c h o s e n at r a n d o m t h r o u g h o u A u s t r a l i a n c o m p a r i s o n . 5 T a b l e s 1 a n d 2, r e s p e c t i v
t t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e v e a l e d n o s u c h effect . e l y , c o n t a i n t h e r e s u l t i n g d e n t o g r a p h i c profile s o f t h
Totestthehypothesis,respondentsweredivide e British a n d Australia n
d i n t o s i x g r o u p s , t h r e e fo r t h e Britis h c o m p a r i s o n a n d c o m p a r i s o n g r o u p s . N o t e t h a t G r o u p 3 (U.S. p u
t h r e e f o r t h e A u s t r a l i a n c o m - p a r i s o n . T h e Britis h a n b l i c a c c o u n t a n t s in U.S. f i r m s ) is n o t t h e s a m e
dAustraliancomparisonsweretreatedindepende fo r t h e Britis h a n d A u s t r a l i a n c o m p a r i s o n s . Thi
ntly.Thethreecompari-songroupsforeachcountr sdifferenceoccurredbecausethematchedp
y w e r e m a t c h e d o n sex , age, f u n c t i o n a l area, a n d r a n k b y r o f i l e s in t h e t w o c o m p a r i s o n s a r e different .
randomly
TABLE 1. Profile of British reslxmdents and matched U,5. sample
Total Sex* Age* Area* Rank*
Group number M F < 30 ~30 n o n M A S MAS Staff Senior Manager
(1) British in
British firms 23 95.7 4.3 39.1 60.9 95.7 4.3 0 52.2 47.8
(2) British m
u.s. firms 139 94.2 5.8 41.8 58.2 98.6 1.4 0 49.6 50.4
(3) Americans in
U.S. firms 66 90.9 9.1 42.4 57.6 92.4 7.6 0 53.0 47.0
• Stated in percentage terms.

TABLE 2. Profile of Australian respondents and matched U.S. sample

Total Sex* Age" Area" Rank*
Group number M F < 30 ~ 30 n o n M A S MAS Staff Senior Manas~
(1) Ausu-aiam in
Australian firms 27 74.1 25.9 25.9 74.1 96.3 3.7 26.0 37.0 37.0
(2) Australians in
U.S. firms 59 74.6 25.4 23.7 76.3 93.2 6.8 27.1 39.0 33.9
(3) Americans in
U~. firms 189 73.0 27.0 27.0 73.0 92.1 7.9 27.5 39.7 32.8
* Stated in percentage terms.

2 Demographic profiles of the respondents can be found in Moizer & Pratt (1988) for the British participants,
Peirscm e t aL ( 1 9 8 9 ) for the Australian participants, and Pratt & Beaulieu (1992) for the United States participants.

3 Twenty four matches were required (4 demographic variables × 2 countries × 3 groups), ranging in accuracy from
0.5% to within 6.2%, the average being 2.1%.
 NATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 625

TABLE 3. D i m e n s i o n i n d e x e s
Panel A. Brit/sh/U.S. d i m e n s i o n s
Group
(t) (2) (3)
British in British in A m e r i c a n s in
British firms U.S. firms US. firms
P o w e r Distanc e 53 . 48 59.28" 64 .54
Uncertaint y Avoidanc e 6 . 52 3.24* -0.60
Individualism 78 . 80 84 . 06" 89 . 9 0
Masculln/ty 68 . 3 0 82 . 47" 87 . 69
Panel B: Australian/U.S. d i m e n s i o n s
Group
(1) (2) (3)
Ausggalial~ in An&T.raliat~ in A m e r i c a n s in
Australian firms U.S. firms U.S. firms
P o w e r Distanc e 73 . 89 76.52" 78 . 29
Uncertaint y Avoidanc e -- 7.04" -- 20 . 17 6. I O
Individualism 32 . 90 48 . 14 • 72 . 62
Masculinity 64.41 92 . 05 87.39*
• I n d e x s c o r e falls in t h e m i d d l e o f t h e t h r e e groups .

T h e four cultural I n d e x e s ( P o w e r Distance,
Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism, and
Masculinity) w e r e c o m p u t e d for the t h r e e
groups described in Table 1 (British c o m p a r i s o n
) and th e t h r e e g r o u p s d e s c r i b e d in Table 2
(Australian c o m p a r i s o n ). T h e s c o r e s w e r
e the n c o m p a r e d across the t h r e e g r o u p s
for eac h country . As n o t e d earlier, w e h y p o t h
e s i z e in eac h case that th e score s for G r o u p 2
will fall b e t w e e n t h o s e o f G r o u p s 1 and 3.
RESULTS
Panels A and B o f Table 3 contain the r e s p e c t i
v e s c o r e s for th e British and Australian
comparisons . I n th e British case th e score s o f G r
o u p 2 are b e t w e e n t h o s e o f G r o u p s 1 and 3
for all four cultural dimensions . In the Australian
case the score s o f G r o u p 2 are b e t w e e n thos e
o f G r o u p s 1 and 3 for t w o ( P o w e r Distance
and Individualism) o f th e four dimensions .
Standard significance tests c o u l d not b e c o n d u c
t e d o n th e differences b e t w e e n g r o u p s o n the
score s for e a c h dimensio n b e c a u s e eac h s c o r e
is a c o m p o s i t e for th e entire g r o u p o v e r w h i c
h it wa s c o m p u t e d . T h e score s d o no t describ e
a characteristic o f a distribution. Consequently, n o n p a
r a m e t r i c binomial prob - ability tests w e r e use d t
o d e t e r m i n e if these results are statistically
significant. 4 W e analyzed the results for th e t w o c o u
n t r i e s separately. N o t e that for eac h o f th e four c o
m p a r i s o n s t h e r e is a one - third c h a n c e o f o b
s e r v i n g the h y p o t h e s i z e d relationship, and that
in the British sampl e it is o b s e r v e d for all four
dimensions, while in the

4 T e s t s c o n d u c t e d b y S&S t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r D u t c h e m p l o y e e s w o r k i n g in U.S. firms w e r e different fro m D u t c h e m p l o y

e e s w o r k i n g in D u t c h firms w e r e n o t t h e s a m e as thoe e u s e d in this study . S&S first c o m p u t e d t h e m e d i a n cultural s c o r e s for e a c h o
f t h e a c c o u n t i n g firms in thei r s t u d y ( t h r e e U.S. B i 8 6 an d t h r e e N e t h e r l a n d s firms). T h e n , for e a c h cultural d i m e n s i o n t h e si x s
c o r e s w e r e d i c h o t o m i z e d int o h i g h a n d lo w s c o r e s u s i n g t h e m e d i a n as t h e cut - off point . In this way,
2 × 2 c o n t i n g e n c y tables w e r e f o r m e d for P o w e r Distance, indivitb,alttm, U n c e r t a i n t y Avoidance, a n d Masculinity.
Based o n Fisher's Exact Probability Test, S&S c o n c l u d e d tha t Uncertaint y Avoidanc e a n d Masculinity w e r e significantly
dlffe=~em b e t w e e n t h e D u t c h a n d U.S. firms w h i l e P o w e r Distanc e a n d Individualism w e r e not. T h e S&S analysis is n o t
appropriat e for o u r s t u d y s i n c e w e d o n o t e x a m i n e cultural s c o r e s b y individual firms b u t instead, w e c o m p a r e
multinationa l g r o u p s m a t c h e d o n gender , age, functiona l area, a n d rank.
 626 J. PRA'I'r e t a / .
Australian s a m p l e it is o b s e r v e d in onl y two .
Assuming that the dimension s are independent , a
binomia l probabilit y distribution can b e c o m p u t
e d t o d e t e r m i n e the likelihood o f observing
th e h y p o t h e s i z e d relationship in four o f four
cases, as in the British comparison , and t w o o f four
cases, as in th e Australian c o m p a r i s o n (Daniel,
1978). T h e likelihoods in the British and Australian
sample s are 0 . 012 and 0.296, respectively . Thus, s u p
p o r t for the hypothesi s is stron g for Britain and
inconclusive for Australia.
O u r h y p o t h e s e s are b a s e d o n th e p r e m
i s e that the p r o c e s s e s o f selection an d
socialization use d b y an organization hel p t o d e t
e r m i n e the cultural values o f th e m e m b e r s h i
p . Similar t o S&S, w e c o n d u c t e d an additional
test to distinguish the relative importance o f thes e t
w o p r o c e s s e s in explaining the fmdings. Since the
results clearly s u p p o r t o u r t h e o r y onl y for the
British sample, w e c o n d u c t e d the test, d e s c r i b
e d below, only o n the British data
T h e m e a s u r e s o f the four cultural dimension s
w e r e derive d f r o m response s t o 13 questions fro m
the VSM. I f socialization is th e d o m i n a n t process,
o n e w o u l d e x p e c t consensu s a m o n g the
response s to the 13 questions to increase as rank
increases. That is, manager s should s h o w g r e a t e r
consensu s than staff in their response s t o the
questionnair e items. If, o n the o t h e r hand, selection
is the m o r e d o m i n a n t process, o n e w o u l d no t
e x p e c t consensu s to increase as rank increases; that
is, m o s t o f the cultural d i f l ~ e n c e is d e t e r m i n
e d at entry. O u r findings indicate that consensu s o n
questionnair e items ( m e a s u r e d in t e r m s o f o n e
divided b y the standard deviation o f the r e s p o n s e
s ) did no t increase as rank increased . 5 In n o case did
th e standard deviation o f a questionnaire ite m decreas
e significantly as rank (staff, senior, and m a n a g e r )
increased . Th e test wa s unabl e to show, therefore, that
socializa.
' W e were only able to test II clthe 13 Item& be~_ n_~e two of the Reins were expressed as a
percentage o~the emlre group. That is, a score was not availab/e for each respondem-
6 S~5 ~ that if soc~o n ~ thc c~li/Ig~t pl~c~fl, ~ COITC~tiOflS amon g selected items used in
would increase as rank increased. ~ne r~ults of their test showed that+ in general, the
correlatlom did not Incrcme as rank ~creased.
tion is the d o m i n a n t process, implying that
selection is relatively m o r e important . T h e s e
results are consisten t w i t h S&S, w h o c o n d u c t
e d a slightly different, b u t conceptuall y equivalent,
test On their d a t a . 6
W e also c o n d u c t e d an additional test to furthe r
e x p l o r e w h y th e results for the British sampl e w e
r e strong, w h i l e the results for Australian a c c o u n t
a n t s w e r e inconclusive . Since Australia is a m u c h
y o u n g e r c o u n t r y than Britain and is c o m p r i s
e d o f a w i d e r variet y o f diverse cultural groups, w e
r e a s o n e d that Australian a c c o u n t a n t s m a y b
e less h o m o g e n e o u s than British accountants .
Such diversity, in turn, w o u l d suggest that th e cultur
e o f G r o u p 1 in the Australian c o m p a r i s o n
(Australian accountant s w o r k i n g in Australian
firms) wa s less distinctive than the cultur e o f G r o u p
1 in the British comparisorL Consequently, w e com - p
a r e d th e standard deviations o f the responses to the
11 questionnaire items use d to m e a s u r e th e cultural
dimension s b e t w e e n th e Australian and the British
samples, e x p e c t i n g th e devia-tions in th e
Australian sampl e to b e greater . T h e results failed t o
s u p p o r t o u r e x p e c t a t i o n since only t w o o f t
h e 11 comparisons w e r e sisntficantly different, o n e o
f w h i c h wa s in the u n e x p e c t e d direction . T h e
British and Australian samples, therefore, a p p e a r to b
e o f equal h o m o g e n e i t y .
IMPLICATIONS
In this stud y w e foun d that th e cultural values o
f British a c c o u n t a n t s w o r k i n g in U.S. firms
operatin g in Britain reflect the cultural values o f
U.S. accountants . Additional analyses suggest that
selection, as o p p o s e d t o socialization, is th e d o
m i n a t e process, and British accountant s a p p e a r
to b e n o m o r e o r less h o m o g e n e o u s than
their Australian counterparts .
the VS M
 NATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CUL1IIRE
T h e mai n findings and the:~results o f th e
additional analyses all suggest that th e cultural values o
f public a c c o u n t a n t s w o r k i n g in Bi'itain m a y
no t b e c o m p l e t e l y h o m o g e n e o u s . U.S. a c c
o u n t i n g firms a p p e a r to b e recruitin g and hiring
a subse t o f local a c c o u n t a n t s w h o s e cultural
values are relatively similar t o t h o s e o f the U.S.
accountants . T h e national cultur e o f a c c o u n t a n t
s in Britain, therefore, m a y actually b e a collectio n o f
subcultures, o n e o r m o r e o f w h i c h a p p e a r to b
e similar to the cultur e o f U.S. accountants . T h e
cultur e o f U.S. accountants, h o w e v e r , m a y also b
e s o m e w h a t a m o r p h o u s . Pratt & Beaulieu ( 1 9
9 2 ) s u p p o r t th e existenc e o f s u b c u l t u r e s in a
sampl e o f U.S. a c c o u n t a n t s b y d e m o n s t r a t i
n g that cultural values vary across U.S. publi c a c c o u
n t a n t s o f different rank and functional area, and U.S.
publi c a c c o u n t i n g firms o f different s t r u c t u r e
and size.
It appears, therefore, that t h e r e are no t onl y
cultural differences across a c c o u n t a n t s o f
differ-ent nationalities, b u t t h e r e are also cultural
differences across a c c o u n t a n t s o f th e sam e
nationality. T w o path s for future researc h in the
area w o u l d t h e n be: ( 1 ) studies focusing o n
cultural differences o f a c c o u n t a n t s across
differ-en t countries, and ( 2 ) studies focusing o n
cultural differences across a c c o u n t i n g firms
withi n a single country . T h e first c a t e g o r y w o
u l d e x a m i n e national cultur e and, accordingly,
coul d e m p l o y the m e a s u r e o f cultur e d e v e l
o p e d in Hofsted e ( 1 9 8 0 ) and used in the r e p o r
t e d study; the s e c o n d c a t e g o r y w o u l d
involve th e c o n c e p t o f organizational cultur e
and c o u l d benefit fro m using the m e a s u r e o f
organizational cultur e r e c e n t l y d e v e l o p e d b
y Hofsted e et aL ( 1 9 9 0 ) .
This study's results suggest that the cultural values
o f U.S. a c c o u n t i n g firms are relatively strong,
at least stron g e n o u g h t o attract local a c c o u n t
a n t s wit h values similar to thos e o f U.S.
accountants . This d e v e l o p m e n t is consistent
wit h m u c h o f th e c u r r e n t professional press,
especially as it r e p o r t s the r e c e n t m e r g e r
activity a m o n g the m a j o r a c c o u n t i n g firms,
depicting these firms as having stron g and distinctive
cultures . For example , a r e c e n t article in The
Wall Street Journal (19 May 1 9 8 9 ) noted:
~ K n o w l e t ~ h l e ~ in the accounting profession say that
merging of a [large U.S.] firm is dtfftctflt Ix-~nse each firm has
such varying management styles. . . .
cultures, client peettions and growth patterns.
With the increase d activity o f m e g a - m e r g e r
s a m o n g CPA firms o f different national origins,
the p r o b l e m o f "cultur e clash" generally has b e
e n overlooked , ye t can b e c o m e apparen t when,
say, the traditional, gentlemanly d e m e a n o r o f a
local firm clashes w i t h the m o r e aggressive,
focuse d a p p r o a c h o f an international firm. In T
h e Netherlands, for example , suc h m e r g e r s s e e
m t o have led t o an e x o d u s o f th e local m e m b
e r s , m a n y o f w h o m established n e w firms
taking wit h t h e m i m p o r t a n t clients.
Furthermore , w h e n c o m m e n t i n g o n th e p r o
p o s e d m e r g e r o f T o u c h e Ross w i t h Spicer
& O p p e n h e i m , p a r t n e r s in o t h e r British
firms felt that th e m e r g e r d e m o n - strated the
"polarisation b e t w e e n the big firms and th e nich e
players" in Britain and that the c o m b i n e d firm w
o u l d have to ' ~ o r k har d to establish a c o m m o
n v i e w " (Th e Accountant, July 1990, p. 3).
A final implication o f this stud y is that the results
d o no t a p p e a r t o b e r o b u s t across different
countries . Perhaps th e strength and i m p o r t a n c e
o f the selection and socialization practice s u s e d b y
U.S. firms are influenced b y certai n national
characteristics. It is possible, for example , that the
subset o f local accountants, w h o s e values are
similar t o thos e o f U.S. accountants, is g r e a t e r in
Britain than it is in Australia which, in turn, w o u l d
m a k e it m o r e difficult for U.S. firms in Australia
to lind a c c o u n t a n t s wit h similar value systems.
It is also possible that the socialization practice s o f
U.S. firms in Australia d o not reflect U.S. cultural
values as strongly as d o those o f the U.S. firms in
Britain.
N o t e also that in this study w e c h o s e a c c o u
n t a n t s f r o m t w o w e s t e r n culture, English-
speaking countries, w h e r e the U.S. p r e s e n c e is
stron g and large U.S. firms are well e n t r e n c h e d
, t o c o m p a r e to U.S. accountants . As a result, the
U.S. cultur e has had t i m e to influence the activities
and m e m b e r s h i p o f the U.S. firms operatin g in
Britain and Australia. Such influence
628 J. FRAIW e t al.

m a y a c c o u n t for t h e signflicant differences w e did oriental c o u n t r y for o u r comparison . Such e x t r e

observe . O n t h e o t h e r hand, t h e c h o i c e o f w e s
t e r n countries , like Britain and Australia, fails t o
take advantage o f e x t r e m e cultural differences that
w o u l d hav e existe d had w e c h o s e n , say, a c c o u
n t a n t s fro m Japan o r a n o t h e r
m e difference s m a y m a k e an y cultural shifts m o r
e t r a t ~ a r e n t and t h e r e b y m u c h easier t o
identify. Thus, a stud y following o u r
c o n d u c t e d o n Japanese a c c o u n t a n t s m
a y also b e appropriate.

BIBHOGRAPHY

Chatman, J., Matching People and Orgaulzatiomg Selection and ~ in Public Accounting Firms,
,~q~trat/m ~ Ouartm~ (September ~991)pp. 4~ - 484 .
lYan~ W., a p p U ~ Non/mr, m~tr/c Stamuc~ ( ~ s t c ~ t~out0um Mmin Company, 1978~
E ~ o ~ A., A C o , ~ o ~ m A , ~ of Comp~x Or~n~z.,U~a (New Y o ~ Free Press, 1961~
Hzrrlson, J. & ~ G., K e e p ~ lhe F~th: a Model of Cultural T r
m~m~m in F o r m a / O r g ~ M z ~
A,tmintmutWeScOnce ~ (December 1991) pp. 552-582.
Hofi~de, G., Cuitutv'$ C ~ International Differences in Work Related Values ( londo~ Sage,
198o ~
Hofstede, G., Values S u n ~ Module and Scoring Guide ( Arnhem, The Netlgflan ~ lmtitute for Research
on Intercultural Coopefatitm, 1982~
Hofstede, G., Neuljen, B., Ohayv, D. & Sanders, G., Measuring Organizational Cultures: a Qualitative
and Quantitative Study Across Twenty Cases, Administrative Science Quarterly (June 1990) pp. 286-316.
Moizer, P. & Pratt, J , The Evab,~o n o f ~ in Firms of Chartered Accountam& A m m n t i n 8 a n d
BuMneu Resear¢~ (Sttmmer 1988) pp. 227-238.
O'Reilly, C., (~mman, J. & Caldwell, D., People and Otganization~ Culture: a Profile Compagtscm Approach
to Assessing Persow-Ogsanizati~ Fit, ~ y of M ~ t Journal (September 1991)
pp. 487-516.
Ouchi, W. & Wil~ms, It., Organizational Culture, Annual Review o f Sociology (1985) pp. 457-
483. Petrson, G., Sinmett, P,. & Pratt, J., Rehtiomhtps between Work Values and SeM-percetved
of Chartered Accountants in Australia, AusgralianJournal o f M ~ t (June 1989) pp. 61-74.
Prat~ J. & Beaulieu, P., Ogganizational Culture in Public Accotmtins: Size, Technology, ~ and Functional
Area, Accounttn~ Organizations and Society (October 1992) pp. 667-684.
Rokeach, M., Belief& Attitudes and Value~. a Theory o f Organization and Change (San Francisco:
Josey-Bass, 1972).
Soeters, J. & Schreuder, H., The Interaction Between National and Organizational Cultures in Accounting
Firms, Ac~ountin~ Organizations and Society (1988) pp. 75-85.
Wiener, Y., Forms of Value Systems: a Focus on Ogsanizational Effectiveness and Cultural Change and
Maintenance, Academy o f Manastnn~t Rtwiew (October 1988) pp. 534-545.