CCM International Journal of

Cross Cultural
Article Management
International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management
Motivating toward organizational 1–17
ª The Author(s) 2020
commitment: A cross-comparative Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions

perspective DOI: 10.1177/1470595820914643

journals.sagepub.com/home/ccm

Leila Afshari
La Trobe University, Australia

Abstract
This article investigates how factors that contribute to the development of organizational commit-
ment can be adjusted to take account of cultural diversity among employees, by taking the mediating
effects of motivational processes and leadership into account. Survey data were obtained from two
similar organizations in two different cultural contexts—Australia and Iran. The findings showed that
both intrinsic and identified motivations and leadership are critical to the development of desirable
organizational commitment. The introjected form of motivation was found to be the factor that
mediates variances in employee commitment between the two cultural contexts. The current study
explains this mediation role by referring to the different degrees to which conformity is salient across
the two contexts, thereby providing managers, who are working in culturally diverse contexts, a
means of understanding how and why different motivational techniques are more or less likely to
contribute to the development of organizational commitment. Furthermore, the present study
contributes to the existing literature on organizational commitment by comparing and contrasting
the nature and prominence of employee commitment profiles in two different cultural contexts.

Keywords
Culture, leadership, motivation, organizational commitment

Introduction
Interest in understanding how cultural differences can influence employee commitment has recently
heightened, due to the increasing number of multinational organizations that are operating in dif-
ferent cultural contexts. This increased focus on cross-cultural research has sought to provide
leaders of culturally diverse employees with strategies that resonate with different cultural back-
grounds and contribute to the development of greater employee organizational commitment (Wasti

Corresponding author:
Leila Afshari, Department of Management, Sport, and Tourism La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University, VIC 3086,
Melbourne, Australia.
Email: l.afshari@latrobe.edu.au
2 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management XX(X)

et al., 2016; Zaidman and Elisha, 2016). Identifying such strategies has proved difficult, however,
for three reasons. Firstly, many earlier studies were limited to nation-wide cultural frameworks such
as Hofstede’s (1980) and thereby neglected within-nation differences and individual-level differ-
ences. In particular, previous studies have failed to account for the manner in which psychological
mechanisms such as motivational processes can mediate the influence of culture on individuals’
behaviors associated with employee organizational commitment (Brislin et al., 2005).
Secondly, although most studies have confirmed a significant link between leadership style and
organizational commitment, there is nevertheless disagreement about the nature of that link across
cultures. Some studies, for instance, contend that the impact of leadership on organizational com-
mitment varies across cultures (Afshari and Gibson, 2016; Hui et al., 2004). Bass (1997), on the
other hand, argues that there are more similarities than differences in leadership across cultures in
general, and Dorfman et al. (2012) have shown that value-based leadership behaviors are uni-
versally effective. Studies attempting to examine the impact of leadership in various cultural con-
texts have widely employed a limited approach by examining a single form of leadership style and
mainly transformational leadership (Afshari and Gibson, 2016; Hui et al., 2004). This is despite
strong evidence that both transformational and transactional leadership styles are the key parts of
effective leadership (Mekpor and Dartey-Baah, 2017). Dartey-Baah (2015) refers to effective
leadership as “Transfor-sactional” leadership, possessing the qualities of both transformational and
transactional leadership styles. Therefore, to fully understand the role of effective leadership in
various cultural contexts, a shift in the conceptualization of effective leadership seems to be
required.
Thirdly, although some commitment studies have made use of the Three-component Commit-
ment Model (TCM), they nevertheless often failed to extend their cross-cultural comparisons to
commitment profiles and were limited to comparing and contrasting the individual components of
the commitment model, mainly affective, across nations (Wasti, 2016). The TCM (Meyer and Allen,
1991; Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001) assumes that individuals can simultaneously experience and
enact three forms of commitment: affective, normative, and continuance. Importantly, each form of
commitment is a reflection of its underlying mindset. Each of the three mindsets participates in and
is altered in its nature by the other two. It is the combination and interaction of the mindsets that
determine the nature of each employee’s commitment profile; some of these are more desirable than
others. Specific combinations and interactions lead to specific types of profiles that are more or less
likely to lead to organizationally desirable outcomes and high employee performance (Payne, 2006).
Studies focusing on a single form of commitment, therefore, ignore the interaction effects of these
three forms of commitment.
This research builds on the TCM (Meyer and Allen, 1991; Meyer and Heriscovitch, 2001),
undertaking a person-centered approach to investigate how employees attach to their organizations.
Studies with a person-centered approach identify naturally occurring commitment profiles by
focusing on the alternative configurations of the variables and how those sets of variables can be
constellated differently within different groups (Payne, 2006). By focusing on commitment pro-
files—rather than on a variable-centered approach—this study adopts the two-step clustering
approach (Chiu et al., 2001) to identify organizationally desirable commitment profiles and thereby
explains why one workforce may outperform another. This approach may “uncover relationships
that would have otherwise remained dormant but also clarify some of the inconsistencies in extant
work” (Busenbark et al., 2016).
A meta-analysis study comparing the strengths of the three components of organizational
commitment across different cultural contexts has revealed that there is variability across countries
Afshari 3

on all three components of commitment (Meyer, Stanley, Jackson, et al., 2012). Commitment
profiles are based on the premise that specific commitment forms bundle up in a configuration based
on survival in a specific environment (Payne, 2006). Given that social environments differ across
cultures, different commitment configurations can be expected in different cultural contexts. Other
studies (Deci and Ryan, 2000) also acknowledge that the avenues to positive organizational out-
comes, including organizational commitment, differ extensively across cultures. These differences
were found to be partly associated with different levels of social evaluative pressures in various
cultural contexts. To fully understand the role of culture, the present study chose the manufacturing
sector in Australian and Iranian contexts. This choice was firstly informed in response to a call to
promote, or at least, to maintain employees’ commitment in the Australian manufacturing sector that
has gone into precipitous decline in recent years. In a review of Australian manufacturing, Green
and Roos (2012) argue that employee engagement and commitment in productivity-enhancing
initiatives is the key to enhancing manufacturing outcomes. Secondly, Iran was chosen as a
source of comparison because of significant differences between the levels of social evaluative
pressures in these two countries (Dastmalchian et al., 2001). On the other hand, to the best of the
author’s knowledge, this study is the first to identify organizational commitment profiles in an
Iranian context.
To identify and explore factors that contribute to the development of desirable organizational
commitment in culturally diverse workplaces, this research has taken the approach suggested by
Wasti (2016) and shifted its focus from national-level cultural frameworks to cultural psychology
which focuses on individual-level attitudes as drivers of behavior (Gardner et al., 2018; Gelfand
et al., 2008). The conceptualization of culture at the individual level or, more specifically, cultural
psychology is suggested as the most effective way to identify drivers of employee behavior (Wasti,
2016). This approach focuses on individuals’ personal values, attitudes, and beliefs (Gelfand et al.,
2008) and also the ways in which psychological mechanisms mediate the influence of culture on
individuals’ behavior. Undertaking this approach with its central focus on individuals’ cultural
values can more profoundly explain individuals’ commitment to organizations than a nation-wide
approach that ignores differences across a cultural context.
There are, therefore, two primary objectives for this study. The first is to identify, compare, and
contrast, and better understand the nature and prominence of employee commitment profiles in two
different cultural contexts, taking the dynamics of cultural psychology into account. The second is to
provide managers who are working in culturally diverse contexts, a means of understanding how
and why different motivational techniques are more or less likely to contribute to the development of
desirable organizational commitment profiles. Articulating a clear explanation of how motivational
processes can mediate the effect of culture on employee commitment, this research can assist
managers, particularly in multicultural workplaces, to develop individual-based motivational pro-
cesses by understanding individuals’ culturally driven values and establishing alignment between
their values and those of the organization.
This article is structured as follows. The next section details the hypothesized linkages between
organizational commitment and the two primary constructs of motivation and leadership. This
reveals the different roles these two constructs play the development of desirable organizational
commitment profiles between two contexts. Then, the methodology section describes the charac-
teristics of the participants, the measures, and methods used for data analysis. This section is then
followed by the presentation of the results. Finally, we discuss the significance of our findings along
with future research opportunities in the remaining sections.
4 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management XX(X)

Background and hypotheses development

Culture and cross-cultural studies
Wasti (2016) critically evaluates cross-cultural studies that have sought to explain variances in
different national or cultural contexts through the lens of Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions. She
outlines two different approaches in the application of Hofstede’s framework based on their different
levels of analysis. The first approach assumes the generalizability of Hofstede’s framework across
contexts and employs Hofstede’s nation-wide scores to explain the individual commitment to
organizations. This approach relies extensively on a nation-level aggregation of individual-level
values and fails to take within-nation and individual-level variation into account. Attempting to get
around this shortcoming, some researchers have instead measured Hofstede’s cultural dimensions at
the individual level. This second approach has been challenged on the validity of measuring cultural
orientations, which are nation-level by nature, at the individual level (Cohen, 2007). Consequently,
Wasti (2016) suggests exploring the effect of culture on organizational commitment through the
conceptualization of culture at the individual level. In response to Wasti’s suggestion, this study
shifted its focus from a nation-level cultural framework to that of cultural psychology which focuses
on an individuals’ personal values, attitudes, or beliefs as drivers of their behaviors (Gelfand et al.,
2008) and the ways in which psychological mechanisms mediate the influence of culture on indi-
vidual behavior.

Organizational commitment profiles

Organizational commitment of employees is an important factor in the competitive performance of
organizations and employees. After reviewing the various definitions of commitment, Meyer and
Herscovitch (2001: 301) arrived at the following definition for the core essence of commitment in
the workplace; “All of the definitions of commitment in general make reference to the fact that
commitment (a) is a stabilizing or obliging force, that (b) gives direction to behavior (e.g., restricts
freedom, binds the person to a course of action).” Based on this notion of commitment, organi-
zational commitment is defined as a binding force that attaches employees to organizations in a way
in which they perform beyond their job description and exert their maximum effort in achieving
organizational goals.
Over the last few decades, organizational commitment theory has evolved from its focus on a
single form of commitment toward multidimensional forms of commitment. According to Meyer
and Allen (1991), organizational commitment can take three distinct forms, each associated with a
different mindset. Affective commitment (AC) is associated with an emotional bond to the orga-
nization—it reflects a desire to remain a member of the organization. Normative commitment (NC)
reflects a felt sense of obligation to remain with the organization. Continuance commitment (CC)
reflects a perception that the employee lacks an alternative or sees considerable costs involved in
leaving the organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991). Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) proposed that
every individual can simultaneously experience these three forms of commitment: AC, NC, and CC.
Differing combinations of those forms lead to differing commitment profiles, each of which rep-
resents different combinations of high and low scores on the three forms of commitment. This
proposition has received mixed support from some studies (Meyer, Stanley, and Parfyonova, 2012),
which have taken the variable-centered approach at the early stage of its development. These early
studies assigned individuals to commitment profiles based on whether their scores on AC, NC, and
CC were below or above the sample mean (Meyer and Morin, 2016).
Afshari 5

Meyer, Stanley, and Parfyonova (2012) have tested the relationships between different com-
mitment profiles and employee outcomes. One of their findings was that the way each component of
the commitment is perceived depends on the context created by the two other components in the
individual’s commitment profile. For instance, CC may be perceived as a potential loss of valued
opportunities or resources when associated with strong AC and NC, or it may reflect a threat of
economic cost when it is combined with a low level of AC and NC (Meyer, Stanley, and Parfyo-
nova, 2012).
Given the importance of the context effect on the ways that each component of commitment is
perceived, it would be impossible to predict organizational outcomes and employee performance
with a focus on only one form of commitment. Furthermore, a variable-centered approach to
identifying commitment profiles was also found to be insufficient because it neglected the role of the
context effect. According to Meyer and Morin (2016), studies that have relied entirely upon purely
variable-centered strategies have results of limited value. Such studies ignore alternative config-
urations of variables and how those sets of variables can be constellated differently within different
groups (Payne, 2006). In addition, commitment profiles identified through a midpoint split approach
may not correspond to naturally existing profiles (Meyer and Morin, 2016). Naturally occurring
commitment profiles emerged in studies which have taken a person-centered approach (e.g. Afshari
et al., 2019; Meyer, Stanley, and Parfyonova, 2012; Wasti, 2005) to identify commitment profiles.
Investigating the consistent patterns in the studies employing a person-centered approach, Meyer
and Morin (2016) introduced a list of profiles that emerged most frequently in different contexts.
The list includes uncommitted (low scores on AC, NC, and CC), CC-dominant, AC/NC dominant,
and fully committed (high scores on AC, NC, and CC). This study, therefore, proposes the following
hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1a: Commitment profiles for both Australian and Iranian samples will include
uncommitted (low scores on AC, NC, and CC), CC-dominant, AC/NC dominant, and fully
committed (high scores on AC, NC, and CC).

Previous research exploring variation in the level of organizational commitment across cultures
suggested that not only the level of organizational commitment varies across cultures but also its
relationship with other organizational factors (Abrams et al., 1998; Chen and Francesco, 2000;
Randall, 1993). For instance, Chen and Francesco (2000) found that some relationships between
demographic factors and organizational commitment differ significantly between western and Chi-
nese samples. They emphasized the role of cultural factors in driving these differences.
The importance of cross-cultural commitment has also been significantly highlighted in research
reviewing the literature on organizational commitment. Referring to the profound influence of
culture on employee commitment, Randall (1993) has called for a shift toward the cross-cultural
investigation of organizational commitment. Although some studies (e.g. Abrams et al., 1998; Chen
and Francesco, 2000) responded to this call by extending their research contexts to non-western
countries, some countries, such as Iran, are still under-researched. Most of these studies are also
limited to a single form commitment perspective, neglecting the TCM. Meyer, Stanley, Jackson,
et al. (2012), in their meta-analysis, built upon the previous research and compared the strengths of
the three components of organizational commitment across different cultural or, more specifically,
geographical regions. Their research revealed that there is variability across countries on all three
components of commitment. Even though their meta-analysis was only focused on individual forms
of commitment, they were able to find that commitment profiles representing different combinations
6 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management XX(X)

of the three commitment components (Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001) are also likely to distribute
differently across nations. Therefore, the current study argues that the likelihood of employee’s
membership in each commitment profile differs across nations.
In understanding the relationships between commitment profiles and organizational outcomes,
Meyer, Stanley, and Parfyonova (2012) found that fully committed (high scores AC, NC, and CC)
and AC/NC dominant profiles (high scores on AC and NC) have consistently been associated with
positive organizational outcomes, such as discretionary behavior, effective performance, job
satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and retention (Meyer, Stanley, and Parfyonova,
2012; Wasti, 2005). The present study labels these two organizationally desirable profiles as “good
clusters” and proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1b: The likelihood of employee membership of the desirable organizational

commitment profiles (good clusters) differs across the Australian and Iranian samples.

Predictors of desirable organizational commitment profiles

Leadership. Leadership styles, and more specifically, transformational and transactional leadership,
have been identified as the most important contributing factor in the development of organizational
commitment across nations (Lofquist and Matthiesen, 2018; Mekpor and Dartey-Baah, 2017).
Transformational leaders appeal to the moral values of their people by inspiring them through
charismatic influence (Bass, 1999), whereas transactional leadership appeals to people’s personal
desires through instrumental economic transactions (Afshari and Gibson, 2016). Transactional
leadership is based on the notion of exchange (Popper and Zakkai, 1994), which involves providing
rewards contingent upon the fulfillment of tasks. Both transformational leadership and transactional
leadership have been recognized as key contributors to desirable organizational outcomes (Jackson
et al., 2013).
Despite these findings, though, scholars have not yet agreed on a unified theoretical view of
leadership. Those scholars with a more traditional view build on previous theories of leadership
(Bennis, 2007) and conceptualize leadership in a way that is intended to be comprehensive and
integrative. Some others with a more critical approach toward the traditional view have taken into
account newly emerging theories of shared/distributed leadership, complexity leadership, and
relational leadership in their theory development (Drath et al., 2008). Despite differences between
traditional and emerging views of leadership, focus on the interactions between leaders and fol-
lowers is central to most accounts of leadership. In the account provided by Bass (1997), leadership
influence results from the type of interaction that occurs between an effective leader and a follower
resulting in the attainment of shared organizational goals.
Among the various styles of leadership focusing on leader and employee relationship, the two
that have been mostly associated with employees’ willing to perform beyond their job description
are the transformational and transactional leadership styles (Mekpor and Dartey-Baah, 2017). In
fact, these two leadership styles were found to be most strongly associated with employees’ vol-
untary work behaviors (Kessler et al., 2013; Mekpor and Dartey-Baah, 2017). Dartey-Baah (2015)
refers to effective leadership as “Transfor-sactional” leadership, possessing the qualities of both
transformational and transactional leadership styles. Despite all evidence, though, most studies
neglected the impact of transactional leadership and focused primarily on transformational lead-
ership style. These studies failed to account for the augmentation effect of transformational and
transactional leadership. According to Mekpor and Dartey-Baah (2017), both transformational and
Afshari 7

transactional leadership styles are the key contributors to the desirable organizational outcomes.
Referring to empirical distinctiveness issue in the measurement of transformational leadership, Van
Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) highlighted the conceptual overlaps between transformational
leadership and transactional leadership. To address this measurement issue and to fill the research
gap in the leadership literature, the present study undertakes a more comprehensive approach and
builds upon Bass’s (1999) view on the importance of the augmentation effect of transformational
and transactional leadership, and Bass (1997) transformational–transactional leadership theory,
Judge and Piccolo (2004) argue that transformational leadership must be built on the foundation of
transactional leadership (p. 756). Consistent with the viewpoints of these studies, the present study
defines an effective leadership style as a combination of transformational and transactional lead-
ership. This contention is consistent with Bass’s (1999: 21) definition of best leaders; “the best
leaders are both transformational and transactional.”
Although there is widespread agreement that leadership styles make the most important con-
tribution to the development of organizational commitment (Nasab and Afshari, 2019), there is
nevertheless disagreement about whether that contribution might be different across cultures. Some
researchers have found that components of transformational leadership are perceived differently in
different cultural contexts (Afshari and Gibson, 2015b, 2016; Hui et al., 2004). Bass (1997),
however, maintains that there are more similarities than differences in leadership across cultures in
general, and Dorfman et al. (2012) have shown that value-based leadership behaviors are uni-
versally effective. The current study, therefore, argues that employees who perceive their managers
as effective leaders are more likely to develop desirable organizational commitment across both
samples.

Hypothesis 2: Employee membership of the desirable organizational commitment profiles

(good cluster) is positively impacted by effective leadership style across the Australian and
Iranian samples.

Motivation. As indicated earlier, Wasti (2016) suggests that exploring the effect of culture on
organizational commitment through the conceptualization of culture at the individual level provides
a clearer understanding of behavioral derivers in different cultural contexts. In response to Wasti’s
suggestion, this study shifted its focus from a nation-level cultural framework to that of cultural
psychology which focuses on individuals’ personal values, attitudes, or beliefs as drivers of their
behaviors (Gelfand et al., 2008) and the ways in which psychological mechanisms mediate the
influence of culture on individual behavior. The focus on values and needs as drivers of individual
behavior is central to self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000), which seeks to explain how
human behavior is driven by different types of motivations through the processes of value inter-
nalization. This study contends not only that self-determined motivations contribute to levels of
organizational commitment, but also that self-determination processes constitute a psychological
mechanism which mediates the influence of culture on individual behaviors and types of employee
commitment to organizations.
Motivation theories seek to explain how human behavior is driven and whereas early motivation
theories contended that human behavior is energized by innate biological drives (Lamont and
Kennelly, 2012), self-determination theory proposes that human behavior is motivated by the extent
to which innate psychological needs are satisfied (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Deci and Ryan (2000)
explain that another way in which self-determination theory constitutes a significant advance on
8 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management XX(X)

earlier theories of motivation is its treatment of the differences between intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation.
Intrinsic motivation derives from the enjoyment or meaning found in performing the task at hand.
Intrinsically motivated activities are, therefore, those that individuals find interesting and would do
in the absence of operationally separable consequences (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Thus, human
behavior driven by intrinsic motivation does not depend on reinforcement and is driven by indi-
vidual values.
Extrinsic motivation, in contrast to intrinsic motivation, was previously conceptualized as
being driven by factors and contingencies external to the task to be performed, such as monetary
rewards for compliance and threats of punishment for noncompliance (Lamont and Kennelly,
2012: 239). Extrinsic motivation had, therefore, been viewed as invariantly controlling and
antagonistic to intrinsic motivation in earlier motivation theories. Self-determination theory,
however, provides a fuller and more dynamic consideration of the concept of extrinsic motivation
(Deci and Ryan, 2000: 235)
Deci and Ryan (2000) structured their definition of external motivation around the concept of
internalization by explaining that internalization is “an active, natural process in which individuals
attempt to transform socially sanctioned mores or requests into personally endorsed values and self-
regulations” (pp. 235, 236). Internalization is the process through which individuals come to
identify with values attached to the activities and the tasks at hand, assimilating them into their
personal values, and thus fully or partially accepting them as their own values. Depending on the
extent to which those values are integrated with personal values, they may either remain external or
be only partially internalized to form introjects or unintegrated identification (Deci and Ryan, 2000:
236). Self-determination theory thereby introduces a continuum of motivational regulations starting
from fully self-determined intrinsic motivation and continuing with identified, introjected, and
external motivation. To differing degrees, those three extrinsic motivations in the continuum rep-
resent less self-determined behavior compared to intrinsic motivation.
The current research chose to explore the role of partially to fully integrated motivations, namely,
introjected motivation, identified motivation, and intrinsic motivation in explaining variances in the
development of desirable organizational commitments in different contexts. This choice was
informed by the highlighted importance of values, beliefs, and norms in cultural psychology (Leung
and Morris, 2015). The influence of norms on individuals’ behavior heavily relies on their group
membership and the type of situation. According to Leung and Morris (2015), in situations in which
individuals are more dependent on others in their cultural group, cultural norms are more salient,
and they profoundly influence individuals’ behavior. For instance, in a cultural context with high
social evaluative pressure, individuals’ behavior is more likely to be driven by cultural norms (Van
Knippenberg and Sleebos, 2006). The current study, therefore, argues that different types of
motivation act differently in two cultural contexts based on the level of internalization of norms. The
more salient, the internalization of the norms is, the less dependency is on the cultural context. This
research, therefore, argues that intrinsic and identified motivation types that are driven by inter-
nalized values act independently of the cultural context. Introjected motivation, on the other hand,
acts differently in the two cultural contexts of this research due to its dependency on social eva-
luative pressure.
This research argues that intrinsically motivated employees, who willingly engage with orga-
nizational activities that are aligned with their individual values, are members of desirable orga-
nizational commitment profiles in both samples.
Afshari 9

Hypothesis 3a: Employee membership of the desirable organizational commitment profiles

(good cluster) is positively impacted by intrinsic motivation across the Australian and Iranian
samples.

Identified motives are values and beliefs that were originally external but have become inter-
nalized through identification with an underlying value of the behavior. Identified motivation occurs
when individuals recognize and accept the value of an action or goal by identifying with the
importance, underlying that action or goal (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Identified motivation is fully
internalized and results from self-valuing the action or goal even if the action itself is not enjoyable
(Gagné and Deci, 2005). This research, therefore, proposes that employees who are driven by
identified motivation belong to desirable organizational commitment profiles across the two
samples:

Hypothesis 3b: Employee membership of the desirable organizational commitment profiles

(good cluster) is positively impacted by identified motivation across the Australian and
Iranian samples.

Introjected motivation reflects social expectations and is concerned with gaining or maintaining
the approval of others or of oneself. Nevertheless, if individuals happen to value social expectations
and identify with those expectations, then such expectations can come to be integrated with the self
as a result of the internalization process. The extent to which social expectations move from being
introjected to becoming internalized depends upon an alignment between the individual and their
social context and, more specifically, the strength of social norms (Miller et al., 2011). Wasti (2016)
notes that cultural differences are more driven by perceived norms than individual values, as people
within a culture tend to agree in their perception of societal norms, irrespective of their personal
preferences (p. 368). In societies in which the salience of norms is higher, individuals are more
likely to engage in self-regulated behavior (Gelfand et al., 2008). In other words, individuals are
more likely to identify with a socially accepted value.
This study, therefore, expects that introjected motivation will impact the likelihood of employee’s
membership in the desirable organizational commitment profiles differently across the two contexts.

Hypothesis 3c: The relationship between employee membership of the desirable organiza-
tional commitment profiles (good cluster) and national context is mediated by introjected
motivation.

Methodology
Sample and participants’ characteristics
Two similar manufacturing organizations were selected from the industrial machinery and equip-
ment manufacturing sector—one in Australia and one in Iran. The Iranian organization was
established in 1966, and the Australian manufacturing organization was established in 1974. Both
organizations have since expanded their operations, they are the leading exporters of their products
from their countries. The products of both organizations comply with international quality and
system standards (e.g. ISO, 9001). Both organizations have focus areas in design, research and
development, and manufacturing. This research chose these two organizations based on their
similarity to decrease the impact of factors other than culture and social context, impacting the levels
of employee commitment.
10 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management XX(X)

Questionnaires were distributed to all levels of those two organizations, including management
and nonmanagement staff members in all divisions. Three hundred thirty-three questionnaires were
distributed, and a total of 189 (73 percent male) individual respondents agreed to participate and
completed the questionnaires in 2014. Across the two countries, the response rate was 56.7 percent.
Forty percent of the respondents have been with their current employer for more than 10 years.
Nonresponse bias was assessed by comparing early and late responses. No major differences were
found. The largest group in the sample is in the age bracket 30–49 (79.5 percent).

Measures
Commitment to organization was measured by adapting the instrument originally developed by
Meyer et al. (1993). This instrument includes three scales: (1) AC to organization (a ¼ 0.759), for
example, “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization”; (2) NC to
organization (a ¼ 0.800), for example, “I would feel guilty if I left my organization now”; and (3)
CC to organization (a ¼ 0.593), for example, “One of the few negative consequences of leaving this
organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives.”
Three types of motivation were quantified using the instrument introduced by Gagne et al.
(2008): intrinsic motivation (a ¼ 0.850), for example, “I do this job because I enjoy this work very
much”; identified motivation (a ¼ 0.825), for example, “I do this job because this job fits my
personal values”; and introjected motivation (a ¼ 0.676), for example, “I do this job, because my
reputation depends on it.”
Leadership components were assessed using The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire devel-
oped by Bass and Avolio (1995). Transformational leadership was assessed as a composite of five
components: charisma attributed, charisma behavior, intellectual stimulation, inspirational moti-
vation, and individual consideration (a ¼ 0.950). Transactional leadership was measured using a
four-item scale (a ¼ 0.783); for example, “My manager or supervisor makes clear what one can
expect to receive when performance goals are achieved.”
For all three instruments, responses were selected from a five-point scale: 1 ¼ strongly disagree,
2 ¼ disagree, 3 ¼ neither agree nor disagree, 4 ¼ agree, and 5 ¼ strongly agree. Demographic
information, including the control variables of age, experience, and gender, was also measured in
the first part of the questionnaire.

Data analysis and results

Two-step clustering, developed by Chiu et al. (2001), was used to extract profiles of participants
from the two organizations, based on respondent commitment levels across the three components.
The two-step cluster analysis identifies each variable’s importance for building a specific cluster.
This clustering approach can work with both categorical and continuance variables (Sarstedt and
Mooi, 2019). These analyses were conducted using log-likelihood estimation, in conjunction with
Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) (Burnham and Anderson, 2004; Yang, 2005).
The AIC analysis generally yielded five interpretable commitment profiles in the Iranian sample,
and five in the Australian sample (see Table 1). In the Australian sample, the lowest AIC value
(130.197), the AIC value change, the ratio change of the AIC value, and the ratio of distance
measures per optimal solution were for five commitment profiles. In the Iranian sample, the lowest
AIC value (141.516), the AIC value change, and the ratio change of the AIC value per the optimal
solution were for five clusters; however, the ratio of distance measures is the largest (1.614) for four
groups. The larger the ratio of distance measures number, the greater the distance between clusters.
Afshari 11

Table 1. Two-step cluster analysis results.

Number of clusters AIC AIC change Ratio of AIC changes Ratio of distance measures

Australian Sample
1 195.566
2 151.28 44.286 1 2.372
3 139.553 11.727 0.265 1.333
4 133.753 5.8 0.131 1.144
5 130.197 3.556 0.08 1.697
6 133.031 2.834 0.064 1.369
7 138.335 5.304 0.12 1.206
8 144.786 6.45 0.146 1.271
9 152.419 7.634 0.172 1.139
10 160.585 8.165 0.184 1.169
11 169.305 8.721 0.197 1.064
12 178.223 8.918 0.201 1.086
13 187.385 9.162 0.207 1.07
14 196.733 9.348 0.211 1.224
15 206.565 9.832 0.222 1.069
Iranian Sample
1 218.44
2 162.465 55.975 1 2.935
3 151.304 11.161 0.199 1.11
4 142.442 8.862 0.158 1.614
5 141.516 0.926 0.017 1.294
6 143.527 2.011 0.036 1.306
7 147.88 4.353 0.078 1.56
8 154.979 7.099 0.127 1.026
9 162.2 7.221 0.129 1.088
10 169.81 7.609 0.136 1.01
11 177.461 7.651 0.137 1.466
12 186.494 9.033 0.161 1.022
13 195.591 9.097 0.163 1.095
14 204.941 9.35 0.167 1.031
15 214.37 9.429 0.168 1.298

Note: AIC: Akaike’s information criterion.

Based on this analysis, four commitment profiles in the Iranian sample were finalized as the optimal
solution (Chiu et al., 2001).
The results from the retained profiles are set out in Table 2. The AC/NC dominant profile is
characterized by strong AC and NC, with CC below average (24.7 percent Australia; 13.0 percent
Iran). In the fully committed profile, all three mindsets are above average (16.9 percent Australia;
40.0 percent Iran). In the uncommitted profile, all three mindsets are below average (15.7 percent
Australia; 25.0 percent Iran). The CC dominant profile is characterized by strong CC and below
average AC and NC (15.7 percent Australia; 22.0 percent Iran), and, finally, the moderate AC-high
CC profile is characterized by strong CC, AC moderately above average, and NC below average
(27.0 percent Australia). A moderate AC-high CC profile did not emerge in the Iranian sample.
12 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management XX(X)

Table 2. Commitment means associated with commitment profiles.

AC NC CC

Profile Australia Iran Australia Iran Australia Iran

AC/NC dominant 3.7 4.08 3.39 4.13 2.61 2.75

Fully committed 3.95 3.61 4.02 3.32 3.72 3.57
Uncommitted 2.39 2.36 1.75 2.15 2.29 2.91
CC-dominant 1.79 2.51 1.88 1.99 4.04 4.03
Moderate AC-high CC 3.1 NA 2.93 NA 3.64 NA

Note: AC: affective commitment; NC: normative commitment; CC: continuance commitment.

Table 3. Commitment profile percentage.

AC/NC dominant Fully committed Moderate

(good cluster) (good cluster) Uncommitted CC-dominant AC-high CC

Australia (percent) 24.7 16.9 15.7 15.7 27.0

Iran (percent) 13.0 40.0 25.0 22.0 NA

Note: AC: affective commitment; NC: normative commitment; CC: continuance commitment. Total of good cluster:
Australia (41.6 percent) and Iran (53.0 percent).

AC/NC dominant and fully dominant profiles are categorized as good clusters, based on their
levels of desirability in organizations (Meyer, Stanely, and Parfyonova, 2012). These profiles are
qualitatively different from each other; the commitment profiles found in the data align with those
found in previous research (Meyer et al., 2015) they support hypothesis 1a.
This observation shows that the proportion of desirable commitment profiles, good clusters (AC/
NC dominant and fully dominant profiles) is 53 percent in Iran, which is higher than the Australian
sample of 41.6 percent of desirable profiles (good clusters) (Table 3). This observation supports
hypothesis 1b.
Logistic regression was conducted to determine the relationship between the dependent binary
variables of good cluster and covariates of country, leadership, and motivational processes (intrinsic
motivation, identified motivation, and introjected motivation), and control variables (age, experi-
ence, and gender). The model includes a dummy variable for country, Australia, contrasted with
Iran. The results are presented in Table 4.
Both country and leadership had significant associations with good cluster profiles in model 1:
country (p < 0.05) and leadership (p < 0.001). An indication of the size of the effects can be gained
by examining Expe (B), which shows the change in the likelihood of belonging to a good cluster
with a 1 SD change in factor score. The largest impact is for leadership, where employees with 1 SD
above the mean are 4.6 times more likely to belong to a good cluster.
Three types of motivation were added to model 1 in three steps. All three models (models 2 to 4)
increased the explanatory power of model 1. Model 2 (the addition of identified motivation)
increased the Nagelkerke R2 by 65 percent, and model 3 (the addition of intrinsic motivation) by 49
percent, and model 4 (the addition of introjected motivation) by 25 percent. Three types of moti-
vation had a significant association with good cluster profiles (all p < 0.001): intrinsic motivation,
Afshari 13

Table 4. Results of logistic regression.

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Country 0.753* 1.621** 1.614** 0.901

Leadership 1.534*** 1.167*** 1.425*** 1.485***
Identified motivation 1.873***
Intrinsic motivation 1.291***
Introjected motivation 0.935***
Age 0.177 0.009 0.076
Gender 0.727 0.533 0.357
Experience 0.111 0.126 0.154
Model w2 54.52 100.577 88.183 70.845
Nagelerke R2 square 0.334 0.551 0.498 0.417

***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

identified motivation, and introjected motivation. An indication of the size of effects can be seen in
Expe (B). Thus, identified motivation has the greatest effect size (Expe (B) ¼ 6.5), which is 1.81
times the effect size of intrinsic motivation (Expe (B) ¼ 3.6) and 2.60 times the effect size of
introjected motivation (Expe (B) ¼ 2.5). These results support both hypotheses 3a and 3b. The
effect of leadership on good cluster profiles has been consistently significant across all four models
(p < 0.001), thus supporting hypothesis 2.
The effect size of country was substantially reduced once the factor score for introjected moti-
vation was included. The coefficient for country was no longer significant. This result suggests that
the strong relationship between the Iranian sample and the good cluster commitment profile is
mediated by introjected motivation. The differentiating effect of introjected motivation across the
two samples is revealed by this result, and the result provides strong support for hypothesis 3c.
Control variables of age, gender, and experience were added to models 2 to 4; none of these control
variables have a significant effect on the presence of good cluster commitment profiles.

Discussion and conclusion

This study was designed to investigate how factors that contribute to the development of desirable
organizational commitment can be adjusted to take account of cultural diversity among employees,
with a particular focus on motivational processes. This research identified employees who belong to
desirable organizational commitment profiles and then measured the role played by leadership and
by forms of motivation associated with self-determination as contributors to desirable commitment
profiles. This study confirmed the importance of psychological processes, which lead to the
introjected form of motivation in explaining variation across cultural contexts.
Using the label of “good cluster,” this research looked for the presence of the commitment
configurations of fully committed (high scores AC, NC, and CC) and AC/NC dominant (high scores
on AC and NC). These commitment configurations have previously been found to be positively
associated with organizational outcomes such as discretionary behavior, effective performance, job
satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and retention (Meyer, Stanley, and Parfyonova,
2012; Wasti, 2005). The findings show that the propensity of the good clusters is significantly
different across the two samples with a higher propensity in the Iranian sample.
14 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management XX(X)

This study has shown that in both countries, the effective leadership style, which is a combination
of transformational and transactional leadership styles, has a positive influence on the development
of employee organizational commitment. This finding was consistent with the augmentation effect
introduced by Bass (1997), confirming that both transformational and transactional leadership styles
are the key contributors to desirable organizational outcomes across the two samples.
To account for other culturally related differences, this research applied the approach suggested
by Wasti (2016) and focused on individual-level values and psychological mechanisms by testing
for the presence of effective motivational processes across the two cultural contexts. Motivational
processes defined on the continuum of internalization differ in the degree to which individuals
integrate the values associated with organizational activities with their personal values (Afshari and
Gibson, 2015a). The findings showed that both intrinsic and identified motivations are critical to the
development of desirable organizational commitment. Furthermore, this study highlighted the
mediating role that introjected motivation plays in the relationship between cultural context and
organizational commitment. In other words, this study showed that introjected motivation was both
more present and more effective in the Iranian context.
Variation in the role introjected motivation plays in different cultural contexts or for individuals
with different cultural backgrounds depends upon variation in the factors that contribute to inter-
nalization. External cultural norms and values, such as pride, reputation, and conformity, are
reflections of social expectations that vary across social and cultural contexts (Miller et al., 2011),
and the salience of social norms differs across cultural contexts (Gelfand et al., 2008). This study,
therefore, contends that the greater strength of social norms in some cultural contexts can result in
introjected motivation being as effective as identified motivation in shifting individuals toward
organizational commitment and subsequently higher performance.
Building on the work of scholars in the two fields of motivational theory and organizational
commitment theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Meyer and Allen, 1991), this research has taken an
empirical and analytical approach to explore how motivational processes work differently in dif-
ferent cultural contexts and for individuals with different culturally informed values. In summary,
the theoretical implications of this research are threefold. First, the current study is one of the few
studies identifying organizational commitment profiles rather than comparing and contrasting a
single form of commitment. More importantly, to the best of the author’s knowledge, this research is
the first to identify organizational commitment profiles in an Iranian context. Second, the current
study provided a more practical account of effective leadership and its impact on organizational
commitment in different cultural contexts by considering the augmentation effect of transforma-
tional and transactional leadership styles. Finally, the variances in the role of motivational processes
in two different cultural contexts were most clearly articulated in this research project by shifting the
focus to the cultural psychology to explore drivers of employees’ behavior.
This study has been able to explain the nature and prominence of employee commitment profiles
across two different cultural contexts, taking the dynamics of cultural psychology into account. The
findings and explanations should provide managers who are working in culturally diverse contexts,
a means of understanding how and why different motivational techniques are more or less likely to
contribute to the development of desirable organizational commitment profiles. This research
demonstrates the importance of understanding cultural psychology in designing effective motiva-
tional processes in organizations. Organizations can develop desirable organizational commitment
by creating an environment in which motivations are based on individuals’ personal and cultural
values. Managers, particularly in multicultural workplaces, are encouraged to understand
Afshari 15

individuals’ culturally driven values and to establish alignment between their values and those of the
organization.

Future research and limitations

Two propositions for further research have emerged from this study. First, introjected motivation is
likely to be as effective as identified motivation in a cultural context in which social norms are
strongly salient and/or for employees for whom, pride and reputation are integrated values. Second,
a deficit in introjected motivation among employees in a culturally diverse organization may result
in a deficit in desirable organizational commitment profiles.
Further research is needed to test these propositions using large-scale quantitative and qualitative
methods to expand the study to other cultural contexts. Additional research exploring the value
internalization process in relation to cultural differences with a particular focus on diverse work-
places would deepen the findings. Moreover, only two countries, Australia and Iran, were studied in
the investigation, so although this comparative study is illustrative, future research across multiple
countries and firms could apply a multilevel model including company and country level and,
potentially, also organizational level.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Leila Afshari https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9758-8493

References
Abrams D, Ando K, and Hinkle S (1998) Psychological attachment to the group: cross-cultural differences in
organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of workers’ turnover intentions. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin 24(10): 1027–39.
Afshari L and Gibson P (2015a) Development of organizational commitment and value internalization. World
Journal of Management 6(2): 187–98.
Afshari L and Gibson P (2015b) Why culture matters to leadership, motivation, and willing organizational
commitment? In: Proceedings of the 3rd ICMLG2015 international conference on management, Leader-
ship and Governance (eds C Ingley and J Lockhart), Auckland, NZ, 12–13 February 2015, pp. 17–26.
ACPIL.
Afshari L and Gibson P (2016) How to increase organizational commitment through transactional leadership.
Leadership and Organization Development Journal 37(4): 507–19.
Afshari L, Young S, Gibson P, et al. (2019) Organizational commitment: exploring the role of identity. Per-
sonnel Review. Article in press. DOI: 10.1108/PR-04-2019-0148.
Bass BM (1997) Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and
national boundaries. American Psychologist 52(2): 130–9.
Bass BM (1999) Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology 8(1): 9–32.
Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1995) Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. Mind Garden: Palo Alto.
16 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management XX(X)

Bennis W (2007) The challenge of leadership in the modern world. American Psychologist 62(1): 2–5.
Brislin RW, MacNab B, Worthley R, et al. (2005) Evolving perceptions of Japanese workplace motivation: an
employee-manager comparison. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 5(1): 87–104.
Burnham KP and Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection.
Sociological Methods and Research 33(2): 261–304.
Busenbark JR, Krause R, Boivie S, et al. (2016) Toward a configurational perspective on the CEO: a review
and synthesis of the management literature. Journal of Management 42(1): 234–68.
Chen ZX and Francesco AM (2000) Employee demography, organizational commitment, and turnover
intentions in China: do cultural differences matter? Human Relations 53(6): 869–87.
Chiu T, Fang D, Chen J, et al. (2001) A robust and scalable clustering algorithm for mixed type attributes in
large database environment. In: Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on
knowledge discovery and data mining (eds F Provost and R Srikant), San Francisco, CA, 26–29 August
2001, pp. 263–8. USA: Association for Computing Machinery.
Cohen D (2007) Methods in cultural psychology. In: Kitayama S and Cohen D (eds), Handbook of Cultural
Psychology. New York: Guilgord Press, pp. 196–236.
Dartey-Baah K (2015) Resilient leadership: a transformational-transactional leadership mix. Journal of Global
Responsibility 6(1): 99–112.
Dastmalchian A, Javidan M, and Alam K (2001) Effective leadership and culture in Iran: an empirical study.
Applied Psychology: An International Review 50(4): 532–58.
Deci EL and Ryan RM (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination
of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry 11: 227–68.
Dorfman P, Javidan M, Hanges P, et al. (2012) GLOBE: a twenty year journey into the intriguing world of
culture and leadership. Journal of World Business 47(4): 504–18.
Drath WH, McCauley CD, Palus CJ, et al. (2008) Direction, alignment, commitment: toward a more integrative
ontology of leadership. Leadership Quarterly 19(6): 635–53.
Gagné M and Deci EL (2005) Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational
Behavior 26(4): 331–62.
Gagne M, Chemolli E, Forest J, et al. (2008) A temporal analysis of the relation between organisational
commitment and work motivation. Psychologica Belgica 48(2–3): 219–41.
Gardner DG, Wickramasinghe V, and Pierce JL (2018) Values congruence, organization-based self-esteem, and
employee responses: evidence from Sri Lanka. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 18(3):
349–72.
Gelfand MJ, Leslie LM, and Fehr R (2008) To prosper, organizational psychology should . . . adopt a global
perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior 29(4): 493–517.
Green R and Roos G (2012) Australia’s manufacturing future. Discussion paper prepared for the Prime
Minister’s Manufacturing Taskforce. Australia: University of Technology Sydney.
Hofstede G (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. Beverly Hills:
SAGE.
Hui MK, Au K, and Fock H (2004) Empowerment effects across cultures. Journal of International Business
Studies 35(1): 46–60.
Jackson TA, Meyer JP, and Wang XH (2013) Leadership, commitment, and culture: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies 20(1): 84–106.
Judge TA and Piccolo RF (2004) Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their
relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology 89(5): 755–68.
Kessler RS, Bruursema K, Rodopman B, et al. (2013) Leadership, interpersonal conflict, and counter-
productive work behavior: an examination of the stressor-strain process. International Association for
Conflict Management and Wiley Periodicals 6(3): 180–90.
Lamont M and Kennelly M (2012) A qualitative exploration of participant motives among committed amateur
triathletes. Leisure Sciences 34(3): 236–55.
Afshari 17

Leung K and Morris MW (2015) Values, schemas, and norms in the culture–behavior nexus: a situated
dynamics network. Journal of International Business Studies 46(1): 1028–50.
Lofquist EA and Matthiesen SB (2018) Viking leadership: How Norwegian transformational leadership style
effects creativity and change through organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management 18(3): 309–25.
Mekpor B and Dartey-Baah K (2017) Leadership styles and employees’ voluntary work behaviors in the
Ghanaian banking sector. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 38(1): 74–88.
Meyer JP and Allen N (1991) A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human
Resource Management Review 1(1): 64–98.
Meyer JP and Herscovitch L (2001) Commitment in the workplace: toward the general model. Human
Resource Management Review 11(3): 299–326.
Meyer JP and Morin AJS (2016) A person-centered approach to commitment research: theory, research, and
methodology. Journal of Organizational Behavior 37(4): 584–612.
Meyer JP, Allen NJ, and Smith CA (1993) Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of
a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(4): 538–51.
Meyer JP, Stanley DJ, Jackson T, et al. (2012) Affective, normative, and continuance commitment levels across
cultures: a meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 80(2): 225–45.
Meyer JP, Stanley LJ, and Parfyonova NM (2012) Employee commitment in context: the nature and impli-
cation of commitment profiles. Journal of Vocational Behavior 80(1): 1–16.
Miller JG, Das R, and Chakravarthy S (2011) Culture and the role of choice in agency. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 101(1): 46–61.
Nasab AH and Afshari L (2019) Authentic leadership and employee performance: mediating role of organi-
zational commitment. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 40(5): 548–60.
Payne G (2006) Examining configurations and firm performance in a suboptimal equifinality context. Orga-
nization Science 17(6): 756–70.
Popper M and Zakkai E (1994) Transactional, charismatic and transformational leadership: conditions con-
ducive to their predominance. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 15(6): 3–7.
Randall DM (1993) Cross-cultural research on organizational commitment: a review and application of
Hofstede’s Value Survey Module. Journal of Business Research 26(1): 91–110.
Sarstedt M and Mooi E (2019) Cluster analysis. In: Sarstedt M and Mooi E (eds) A Concise Guide to Market
Research. Springer Texts in Business and Economics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 237–84.
Van Knippenberg D and Sitkin SB (2013) A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership
research: back to the drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals 7(1): 1–60.
Van Knippenberg D and Sleebos E (2006) Organizational identification versus organizational commitment:
self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27(5): 571–84.
Wasti SA (2005) Commitment profiles: combinations of organizational commitment forms and job outcomes.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 67(2): 290–308.
Wasti SA (2016) Understanding commitment across cultures: an overview. In: Meyer JP (ed.), Handbook of
Employee Commitment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 363–75.
Wasti SA, Peterson MF, Breitsohl H, et al. (2016) Location, location, location: contextualizing workplace
commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior 37(4): 613–32.
Yang Y (2005) Can the strengths of AIC and BIC be shared? Biometrika 92(4): 937–50.
Zaidman N and Elisha D (2016) What generates the violation of psychological contracts at multinational
corporations? A contextual exploratory study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 16(1):
99–119.