Rockstuhl Et Al. (2020)

Journal of International Business Studies (2020)
ª 2020 Academy of International Business All rights reserved 0047-2506/20

www.jibs.net
Perceived organizational support (POS)

across 54 nations: A cross-cultural meta-
analysis of POS effects
Thomas Rockstuhl1, Correspondence:

T Rockstuhl, Division of Leadership, Management and Organization, Nanyang Business
Robert Eisenberger2, School, Nanyang Technological University, Block S3, 01C-96, 50 Nanyang Avenue,
Lynn M. Shore3,4, Singapore 639798, Singapore
e-mail: TRockstuhl@ntu.edu.sg
James N. Kurtessis5,
Michael T. Ford6,
Louis C. Buffardi7 and Abstract
Salar Mesdaghinia8 The authors meta-analyze relationships of perceived organizational support
(POS) with attitudinal and behavioral outcomes in Western (i.e., horizontal-
1
Division of Leadership, Management and individualistic) and Eastern (i.e., vertical-collectivistic) cultures. The social-
Organization, Nanyang Business School, Nanyang exchange perspective suggests that POS effects are stronger in Western cultures
Technological University, Block S3, 01C-96, 50 because employees are more likely to see the self as independent and
Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Singapore; understand their relationship with the organization in terms of reciprocity.
2
Department of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts However, the social-identity perspective suggests that POS effects are stronger
and Social Sciences, 126 Heyne Building, University in Eastern cultures because employees are more likely to see the self as
of Houston, 3695 Cullen Boulevard, Houston,
interdependent and are more attuned to organizational support as an identity-
TX 77204, USA; 3 Management Department,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, related cue. Addressing these competing hypotheses, meta-analytic results
USA; 4 Department of Marketing, Innovation and from 827 independent samples (n = 332,277) across 54 countries show
Organisation, Faculty of Economics and Business support for both perspectives. In the West, POS was more strongly associated
Administration, Ghent University, with social-exchange processes than organizational-identification processes. In
Tweekerkenstraat 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; 5 U.S. contrast, In the East, POS was more strongly associated with organizational-
Department of Homeland Security, Nebraska identification processes than social-exchange processes. Overall, POS was more
Avenue Complex, 3801 Nebraska Ave NW, strongly related to job attitudes and performance in the East than in the West.
Washington, DC 20016, USA; 6 Department of
Cultural differences in POS effects on attitudinal outcomes were found to be
Psychology, Social Sciences 399, University at
Albany, SUNY, 1400, Washington Ave, Albany, increasing over time. We discuss the implications of these findings for
NY 12222, USA; 7 Psychology Department, David organizational-support theory and research.
King Hall 3072, George Mason University, 4400 Journal of International Business Studies (2020).
University Drive, MSN 3F5, Fairfax, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00311-3
VA 22030-4422, USA; 8 Department of
Management, College of Business, 466 Gary Owen
Building, Eastern Michigan University, 300 West Keywords: social-exchange theory; meta-analysis; national culture; organizational
Michigan Ave, Ypsilanti, MI 48197, USA support
Electronic supplementary mate-

rial The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00311-
3) contains supplementary material, which is
available to authorized users.
Received: 18 July 2018
Revised: 15 September 2019
Accepted: 30 September 2019
Perceived organizational support across 54 nations Thomas Rockstuhl et al
INTRODUCTION Second, Lam, Liu, & Loi (2016) drew on social-

Perceived organizational support (POS) refers to an identity theory to argue that (1) POS engenders
employee’s perception of the extent to which the employees’ identification with the organization,
organization values his or her contributions and leading individuals with high POS to exert more
cares about his or her well-being (Eisenberger, effort on behalf of the organization, and (2) collec-
Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). According tivistic orientation leads individuals with high
to organizational-support theory (OST), such per- levels to be more receptive to identity-related cues
ceptions have considerable impact on employees’ such as POS. In contrast to van Knippenberg et al.
work outcomes (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; (2015), Lam et al. (2016) found that POS was more
Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). To date, meta-ana- strongly associated with supervisor-rated citizen-
lytic evidence supports OST and shows that POS ship behaviors for employees with stronger collec-
exerts a powerful influence on a wide range of tivistic orientations. Such inconsistent findings
employees’ work attitudes and behaviors (Kurtessis highlight that, from an empirical standpoint, how
et al., 2017). culture influences relationships between POS and
At the same time, our understanding of boundary distal work outcomes remains surprisingly unclear.
conditions associated with POS effects remains Moreover, because culture itself is dynamic and
underdeveloped. For example, Kurtessis et al. characterized by a worldwide shift toward more
(2017) observed substantial variability in POS individualistic and horizontal orientations (Taras,
effects that could not be accounted for by sampling Steel, & Kirkman, 2012), national culture differ-
error, leading them to call for future research to ences may lose their relevance as boundary condi-
consider contextual variables as boundary conditions of POS. Thus, it is equally important to
tions. National culture may present one crucial yet ascertain not only that national culture affects
under-studied boundary condition of POS. OST has POS effects but also that such influences persist.
been developed and tested primarily in Western In this article, a meta-analysis addresses this
contexts of individualism and low power-distance largely unresolved question about cultural influ-
(i.e., horizontal-individualistic societies; Triandis, ences on POS effects and their temporal stability.
1995), but scholars increasingly question the uni- We first review research on two mostly separate
versality of theoretical explanations of employee bodies of literature with direct relevance for a cross-
attitudes and behaviors (Gelfand, Aycan, Erez, & cultural analysis of POS effects: (1) OST and (2)
Leung, 2017; Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007). cross-cultural national differences in horizontal-
Responding to the need to test the universality of individualism and vertical-collectivism that may
POS, scholars have begun to explore cultural influ- underlie any differences in POS effects. With this as
ences on POS effects (Barran, Shanock, & Miller, a basis, we then present evidence for three different
2012; Chiaburu, Chakrabarty, Wang, & Li, 2015). theories concerning cross-cultural POS effects: (1)
However, two competing theoretical arguments POS effects are stronger in horizontal-individualis-
suggest that predictions about cultural influences tic than in vertical-collectivistic societies (the social-
on POS effects are not intuitive. First, van Knip- exchange argument); (2) POS effects are stronger in
penberg, van Prooijen, & Sleebos (2015) drew on vertical-collectivistic than in horizontal-individual-
social-exchange theory to argue that (1) POS engen- istic societies (the social-identity argument); and (3)
ders employees’ feelings of obligation to the orga- cross-cultural differences in POS effects are waning
nization, leading them to reciprocate with greater over time (the cultural-convergence argument).
effort; and (2) collectivistic orientations would Exploring which of these three hypotheses holds
dampen POS effects because employees in vertical- the most weight, we then conduct a meta-analysis,
collectivist societies are less likely to understand comparing effect sizes of empirical studies that
their relationship with the organization in terms of quantitatively examine POS effects in horizontal-
reciprocity. Consistent with their arguments, they individualistic (Western) and vertical-collectivistic
found that POS was less strongly associated with (Eastern) societies. Finally, we discuss the implica-
supervisor-rated citizenship behaviors for employ- tions of our findings and suggest directions for
ees with stronger collectivistic orientations. future research.
Journal of International Business Studies

PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND The literature on organizational identification is

EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS: AN diverse and extensive (Ashforth, Harrison, & Cor-
OVERVIEW ley, 2008). Tajfel (1978, p. 63) originally defined
According to OST (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Kurtessis social identity as ‘‘that part of an individual’s self-
et al., 2017; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), devel- concept which derives from his knowledge of his
opment of POS is facilitated by employees’ propen- membership of a social group (or groups) together
sity to assign human-like characteristics to the with the value and emotional significance attached
organization (Levinson, 1965). As a consequence of to that membership.’’ One influential stream of
this anthropomorphism, employees attribute favor- social-identity research holds that, when people
able or unfavorable treatment by organizational receive favorable identity-relevant cues from mem-
agents not solely to personal motives of the agents bership in an organization, they will internalize
but partly to organizational intent—i.e., an expres- organizational values, act in ways which help the
sion of how much the organization values their organization, and show loyalty to the organization
contributions and welfare (Eisenberger et al., 1986; (Tyler, 1999). According to Tyler, employees eval-
Eisenberger et al., 2010). In turn, these perceptions uate two types identity-relevant cues: the external
of organizational support have a positive impact on prestige of the organization (i.e., pride) and how
a wide range of employee work attitudes and they are evaluated by others in the organization
behaviors. Consistent with this basic tenet of OST, (i.e., respect). Both identity-relevant evaluations
meta-analyses (Kurtessis et al., 2017) show that POS influence the extent to which employees respond
is positively associated with positive work attitudes with job-related efforts and positive work attitudes.
(e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, Because organizational support signals an organi-
job involvement, or lower turnover intentions) and zation’s approval of, care for, and respect to its
desired work behaviors (e.g., task performance and employees (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), POS
organizational citizenship behavior; OCB). provides a strong respect-related identity cue to
In explaining the positive effects of POS, OST employees. In other words, employees who per-
incorporates two different general processes: one ceive their organization as supportive are likely to
rooted in social exchange and one rooted in social incorporate organizational membership into their
identity (Kurtessis et al., 2017; Rhoades & Eisen- social identity. This relationship between POS and
berger, 2002). Social-exchange theory describes a identification should be particularly pronounced
series of interactions that are interdependent, con- among those for whom social identities are more
tingent on the actions of the social-exchange part- salient because salience of organizational identity
ner, and which generate obligations and mutual shapes the importance employees place upon the
trust between the partners (Cropanzano & Mitchell, quality of treatment as a respect-related identity
2005). The norm of reciprocity, requiring the return cue (Tyler, 1999).
of favorable treatment, is an underlying mechanism However, are POS effects driven more by social-
for strengthening social-exchange relationships exchange or by identification processes? And, more
(Gouldner, 1960). Thus, employees who perceive importantly, does the strength of these processes
the organization as supportive are motivated to differ between Western and Eastern cultures, lead-
return such supportive treatment through increased ing to differing overall strengths of POS with
effort on behalf of the organization. That is, central various outcomes and work attitudes? The next
to the social-exchange explanation of POS effects is section discusses these issues.
the assumption that the employee–organization
relationship is built on the trade of effort and loyalty
by the employee for tangible benefits and social CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN POS
resources from the organization (Rhoades & Eisen- EFFECTS? THE ROLE OF SOCIETAL
berger, 2002). Moreover, repeated exchanges create CONFIGURATIONS OF HORIZONTAL-
trust that increased effort on behalf of the organi- INDIVIDUALISM AND VERTICAL-
zation will be rewarded. As a consequence, POS leads COLLECTIVISM
to greater job-related efforts and more positive work According to Hofstede (2001, p. 9), culture is ‘‘the
attitudes (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), especially collective programming of the mind that distin-
among those who more strongly endorse the norm guishes the members of one group or category of
of reciprocity (Eisenberger et al., 1986). people from another.’’ Theorizing about culture
involves the use of either cultural-value dimensions

or configurations of cultural values (Triandis, 1995; vertical-collectivistic cultures are more likely to
Tsui et al., 2007); and both approaches have their perceive collective interests as self-interests and to
merits (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, base their social behaviors on duty and obligations
2004). Here, we follow suggestions by Tsui et al. to the in-group (Singelis et al., 1995).
(2007), who advocated greater use of configura- This distinction between independence versus
tional approaches which maintain that cultures interdependence has proven to be a powerful
present profiles of differing attributes (Lytle, Brett, theoretical lens to explain differences in psycho-
Barsness, Tinsley, & Janssens, 1995, p. 170). In logical functioning across cultural contexts (for
doing so, our approach responds to recent calls for reviews, see Kitayama, Duffy, & Uchida, 2007;
greater research into supra-national cultural clus- Markus & Kitayama, 2010). Relevant relationships
ters (Beugelsdijk, Kostova, & Roth, 2017; Taras, for the interdependent self encompass both partic-
Steel, & Kirkman, 2016). ular individuals (e.g., friends, parents, supervisors)
Using a configurational approach, we focus on and larger collectives (e.g., clans, work teams,
the strengths of two societal patterns of culture: organizations) (Brewer & Chen, 2007; Brewer &
horizontal individualism and vertical collectivism Gardner, 1996; Cooper & Thatcher, 2010). For
(Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995; simplicity and brevity, we sometimes write of
Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Although Triandis and vertical-collectivistic nations collectively as
colleagues (Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, the East (e.g., China, India) and of horizontal-
1998) also describe horizontal collectivism and individualistic nations collectively as the West
vertical individualism, we omit these patterns (e.g., US, UK), although readers should bear in
because, based on our gathering of research studies, mind that these designations omit such notable ex-
only four percent of all correlations regarding POS ceptions as the vertical-collectivistic nations of the
and its antecedents and consequences have been West of Catholic cultural origin (e.g., Portugal,
studied in the relatively few horizontal-collectivis- Mexico).
tic and vertical-individualistic societies. However, are these cross-cultural differences in
According to Triandis and colleagues, horizontal- independence versus interdependence enough to
individualistic cultures emphasize the self as inde- suggest differences in relationships of POS with
pendent from and equal to others (Singelis et al., attitudinal and behavioral outcomes? With these
1995). People in such cultures tend to view them- bodies of literature as a basis, we highlight theo-
selves as fundamentally autonomous, separate from retical rationales supporting three different argu-
others and equal to them. Thus, in horizontal- ments: (1) POS effects are stronger in horizontal-
individualistic cultures, ‘‘people want to be unique individualistic than in vertical-collectivistic cul-
and distinct from groups, more so than in collec- tures, due to stronger endorsement of the norm of
tivistic cultures, are likely to say ‘I want to do my reciprocity and less reliance of role-based obliga-
own thing,’ and are highly self-reliant’’ (Triandis & tions; (2) POS effects are stronger in vertical-collec-
Gelfand, 1998, p. 119). Based on their independent tivistic than in horizontal-individualistic cultures,
self, people in horizontal-individualistic cultures due to greater salience of collective identities; and
are likely to perceive personal interests and collec- (3) cultural differences in POS effects are decreasing
tive interests as distinct and to base their social over time, due to convergence of economic devel-
behaviors more on personal attitudes and on how opment across cultural clusters.
others treat them (Singelis et al., 1995).
By contrast, people in vertical-collectivistic cul-
tures emphasize interdependence and relationships ARGUMENT #1: POS EFFECTS ARE STRONGER
with others (Triandis, 1995). In vertical-collectivis- IN HORIZONTAL-INDIVIDUALISTIC THAN IN
tic cultures, ‘‘people emphasize the integrity of the VERTICAL-COLLECTIVISTIC CULTURES
in-group, are willing to sacrifice their personal goals Social-exchange theory describes a series of inter-
for the sake of in-group goals, and support compe- actions that are interdependent, contingent on the
titions of their in-groups with out-groups. If in- actions of the social-exchange partner, and which
group authorities ask them to act in ways that generate obligations and mutual trust between the
benefit the in-group but are extremely distasteful to partners (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). As noted
them, they readily submit to the will of these above, the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) is
authorities’’ (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998, p. 119). central to social-exchange theory explanations of
Based on their interdependent self, people in POS effects, which posit that POS engenders felt

obligation and organizational trust in employees particularistic and focus on interpersonal relation-
that result in greater effort on behalf of the ships. In addition, whereas horizontal-individualis-
organization. However, differences in acceptance tic employees may be more likely to perceive
of the norm of reciprocity have been found within obligations to the organization as contingent on
cultures and may also vary across cultures (Rhoades organizational treatment, such perceptions may be
and Eisenberger, 2002) more likely to depend on both organizational
As van Knippenberg et al. (2015) argued, the treatment and role-based obligations in vertical-
norm of reciprocity may be more relevant to collectivistic societies (Shore, Tetrick, Lynch, &
horizontal-individualistic than to vertical-collec- Barksdale, 2006). In fact, the meta-analysis by
tivistic cultures. The norm of reciprocity assumes Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier (2002) revealed
an exchange between two parties who are separate that the most common item on scale measures of
entities psychologically (Levinson, 1965; Rousseau collectivism taps felt obligation to the in-group.
& McLean Parks, 1993). Since people in horizontal- This implies that felt obligations are more a defin-
individualistic cultures are more likely than people ing feature of collective relationships in vertical-
in vertical-collectivistic cultures to view the self as collectivistic cultures but are more discretionary in
independent from the organization and therefore horizontal-individualistic cultures.
see the organization as a potential trading partner, Taken together, these arguments suggest that
social-exchange processes should be stronger in POS should motivate social-exchange processes
horizontal-individualistic cultures. In contrast, in more so in horizontal-individualistic compared to
vertical-collectivistic cultures, employees may be vertical-collectivistic societies. Consequently, the
more likely than in horizontal-individualistic cul- social-exchange perspective suggests stronger rela-
tures to merge the self with the organization tionship of POS with job attitudes and performance
(Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Triandis & Gelfand, in horizontal-individualistic than in vertical-collec-
1998), reducing the relevance of exchange pro- tivistic cultures. In sum, we hypothesize that:
cesses and increasing the importance of identifica-
Hypothesis 1: The positive associations of POS
tion processes.
with (1) task performance, (2) organizational cit-
Reaching a similar conclusion, Farh, Hackett, &
izenship behavior, (3) affective commitment, (4)
Liang (2007) noted that the greater deference to
normative commitment, (5) job involvement, (6)
authorities, typical for vertical-collectivistic cul-
job satisfaction, and (7) lower turnover intentions
tures, should weaken employees’ reliance on the
are stronger in horizontal-individualistic than in
norm of reciprocity in response to perceived orga-
vertical-collectivistic countries.
nizational treatment. Because of their generally
stronger respect for in-group authorities, members Hypothesis 1 is based on the argument that
in vertical-collectivistic societies may be less likely employees in horizontal-individualistic countries
to base their attitudes and behaviors solely on how view the self as a more independent and equal
powerful organizational agents, and by extension partner in relationships with others (Singelis et al.,
the organization, treats them (Lam, Schaubroeck, & 1995). Equality in relationships motivates employ-
Aryee, 2002; Lee, Pillutla, & Law, 2000). Instead, ees to maintain balance in their relationship with
these employees’ attitudes and behaviors are more organizations. Hence, employees in horizontal-in-
influenced by general duties and obligations to the dividualistic countries are more likely to emphasize
organizational in-group (Singelis et al., 1995). norms of reciprocity in social exchanges and per-
This is not to say that social-exchange processes ceive obligations to the organization as contingent
do not occur in vertical-collectivistic cultures. For on organizational treatment (Shore et al., 2006). By
example, several emic constructs that originated contrast, when relationships are interdependent
from vertical-collectivistic societies, such as guanxi and accepting of status differences, maintaining
(China: Bian, 2018), wasta (Middle East: Cunning- balance is of less concern (Singelis et al., 1995).
ham & Sarayrah, 1993), budi (Malaysia: Richard- How one behaves towards the organization is less
son, Yaapar, & Amir, 2016), or jugaad (India: contingent on the organizations’ treatment and
Cappelli, Singh, Singh, & Useem, 2010), connote more prescribed based on expectations associated
practices that are based on principles of social with one’s role as an employee of the organization.
exchange. Yet, whereas POS invokes social-ex- Employees in vertical-collectivistic countries are
change processes between an individual and a thus more likely to emphasize role-based
collective entity, these emic constructs are more

obligations in relationships with organizations p. 227). Thus, a collective or organizational identity

(Shore et al., 2006). is likely to be salient for members of vertical-
POS scholars have used both felt obligation collectivistic cultures.
(Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & By contrast, horizontal-individualists, based on
Rhoades, 2001) and organizational trust (DeCon- their greater emphasis on an independent self-
inck, 2010; Tekleab & Chiaburu, 2011) to indicate construal, are more likely to strive for personal
underlying social-exchange mechanisms that are uniqueness (Flynn, 2005). Employees in horizontal-
contingent responses to POS. Our arguments above individualistic cultures are thus more concerned
that social-exchange processes are more contingent with personal rather than collective identity and
on POS in horizontal-individualistic cultures there- are thus less likely to define themselves based on
fore yields the hypothesis that: social categories (Cooper & Thatcher, 2010).
Because of this, a collective or organizational
Hypothesis 2: The positive associations of POS
identity is likely to be less salient for members of
with (1) felt obligation and (2) organizational
horizontal-individualistic than for members of ver-
trust are stronger in horizontal-individualistic
tical-collectivistic cultures. Empirical studies have
countries than they are in vertical-collectivistic
shown that collective identities are more salient in
countries.
vertical-collectivistic cultures and that members of
vertical-collectivistic cultures are more likely to
refer to themselves using group memberships
ARGUMENT #2: POS EFFECTS ARE STRONGER (Triandis, Cusker, & Hui, 1990). Based on social-
IN VERTICAL-COLLECTIVISTIC THAN IN identity theory, this greater salience of organiza-
HORIZONTAL-INDIVIDUALISTIC CULTURES tional identity in vertical-collectivistic than in
However, an alternative argument might posit POS horizontal-individualistic cultures implies that
effects to be stronger in vertical-collectivistic cul- employees in the former are more attuned to
tures due to the greater relevance of organizational organizational treatment as a respect-related iden-
support as a respect-related identity cue. According tity cue.
to social-identity theory, employees evaluate Together then, these arguments suggest that POS
respect-related identity cues to judge the extent to should motivate social-identification processes
which they may integrate the organization into more so in vertical-collectivistic compared to hor-
their self-concept (Tyler, 1999). When the organi- izontal-individualistic societies. Consequently, the
zation is integrated with the self-concept, employ- social-identity perspective suggests stronger rela-
ees are inherently concerned with the tionships of POS with job attitudes and perfor-
organization’s welfare and are therefore likely to mance in vertical-collectivistic than in horizontal-
act on behalf of the organization’s interests (Ash- individualistic cultures. In sum, we hypothesize
forth & Mael, 1989). As noted above, central to that:
social-identity explanations of POS effects is the Hypothesis 3: The positive associations of POS
notion that POS offers respect-related identity cues with (1) task performance, (2) organizational cit-
because organizational support signals an organi- izenship behavior, (3) affective commitment, (4)
zation’s approval of, care for, and respect to its normative commitment, (5) job involvement, (6)
employees (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). How- job satisfaction, and (7) lower turnover intentions
ever, differences in the salience of organizational are stronger in vertical-collectivistic than in hor-
identity shapes the importance employees place izontal-individualistic countries.
upon the quality of organizational treatment as a
respect-related identity cue (Tyler, 1999). Hypothesis 3 is based on the differential salience
As Lam et al. (2016) argued, vertical-collectivists of personal versus collective identities across cul-
are more likely to rely on group characteristics to tures. In horizontal-individualistic cultures that
define themselves, and thus to view group mem- view the self as more independent and equal to
bership as central to their self-concept. Employees others, personal identities tend to be more salient
in vertical-collectivistic cultures, whose self-con- than collective identities (Flynn, 2005). By contrast,
strual is based more on interdependence, are espe- in vertical-collectivistic cultures that view the self
cially attuned to the ‘‘fundamental connectedness as more interdependent with others and accept
of human beings’’ (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, status differences, collective identities tend to be

more salient than personal identities (Triandis & Simmons, & Garrett, 2007), emulation (Fourcade-
Gelfand, 1998). According to Tyler’s (1999) social- Gourinchas & Babb, 2002), and mimicry (Weber,
identity theory, employees whose collective iden- Davis, & Lounsbury, 2009). Meta-analytic evidence
tities are more salient are more sensitive to respect- on cultural values in 49 countries and over a
related identity cues. When employees perceive 30-year period has also documented shifts world-
respect-related identity cues, they will internalize wide towards more individualistic and less vertical
organizational values and identify with their orga- orientations (Taras et al., 2012). These changes
nization (Tyler, 1999). have led scholars to increasingly question the
Because employees in vertical-collectivistic cul- temporal stability of cultural values (Beugelsdijk &
tures tend to have more salient collective identities, Welzel, 2018; Tung & Stahl, 2018; Tung & Verbeke,
they are likely to be more sensitive to respect- 2010).
related identity cues, such as POS. Thus, the social- It is possible that meta-analytic cultural differ-
identity perspective implies that POS is more likely ences in POS outcomes mainly reflect the results of
to induce organizational-identification processes previous studies rather than the current situation.
for employees in vertical-collectivistic than in Therefore, in considering the generality of our
horizontal-individualistic cultures. Thus, we also findings, it is useful to evaluate whether cross-
hypothesize that: cultural differences in POS effects have become
smaller, as might be supposed from previous argu-
Hypothesis 4: The positive association of POS
ments concerning modernization and popular
with organizational identification is stronger in
views regarding the increasing adoption of Western
vertical-collectivistic countries than in horizon-
cultural values in the East (Cai, Zou, Feng, Liu, &
tal-individualistic countries.
Jing, 2018; Taras et al., 2012). We therefore
propose:
Hypothesis 5: The moderating effect of cultural
ARGUMENT #3: CROSS-CULTURAL differences in horizontal-individualism versus
DIFFERENCES IN POS EFFECTS HAVE BEEN vertical collectivism on the positive associations
CONVERGING OVER TIME of POS with (1) task performance, (2) organiza-
Our arguments thus far posit that national-culture tional citizenship behavior, (3) affective com-
differences in horizontal individualism and vertical mitment, (4) normative commitment, (5) job
collectivism will present an important boundary involvement, (6) job satisfaction, and (7) lower
condition to POS effects. Yet, national cultures are turnover intentions has weakened over time.
dynamic and may be converging in the process of
globalization (Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2017).
Thus, beyond demonstrating the generalizability of
POS effects across geographical boundaries, it is METHODS
equally important to examine the temporal gener- We tested our hypotheses and research question by
alizability of culture as a boundary condition of meta-analyzing POS research across 54 countries,
POS effects. In fact, a third argument proposes that contrasting POS relationships in horizontal-indi-
any cultural differences in POS effects that existed vidualistic and vertical-collectivistic societies.
in the past are eroding with time. According to this Cross-cultural meta-analyses have shown that
perspective, cultural values converge globally as a national cultural differences affect the strength of
consequence of economic development. The intel- relationships in the nomological networks of a
lectual roots of the convergence hypothesis lie in variety of domains, such as organizational commit-
modernization theory (Inglehart & Baker, 2000; ment (Choi, Oh, & Colbert, 2015), person–envi-
Rostow, 1960). The central claim of modernization ronment fit (Oh, Guay, Kim, Harold, Lee, Heo, &
theory is that economic development is linked with Shin, 2014), organizational justice (Shao, Rupp,
coherent and somewhat predictable changes in Skarlicki, & Jones, 2013), leader–member exchange
culture. Previous research has advanced five central (LMX; Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang, & Shore, 2012),
mechanisms of modernization effects that drive or interfirm governance (Cao, Li, Jayaram, Liu, &
convergence across cultures. These include norma- Lumineau, 2018). We take a similar approach in the
tive pressures (Bandelj, 2009), coercion (Henisz, current study and examine national cultural differ-
Zelner, & Guillén, 2005), competition (Dobbin, ences in POS relationships using cross-cultural

meta-analyses. Following guidelines provided by database for duplicates and excluded dissertation
Kepes, McDaniel, Brannick, & Banks (2013), we studies that were published at a later date using the
detail our search criteria and inclusion criteria, same data. Our final database included a total of
describe our coding procedures, and elaborate on 748 studies conducted in 54 countries (see Table 1
our meta-analytic procedures, including a discus- for the list of countries). These studies reported a
sion of our moderator coding and statistical meth- total of 827 distinct samples and 1423 correlations
ods. We also assess the sensitivity of our findings to between POS and outcomes, with an overall sample
outlier studies and the potential presence of pub- size of 332,277 (see online supplementary file). Our
lication bias. final database substantially updates the recent
meta-analysis by Kurtessis et al. (2017), which
Literature Search and Inclusion Criteria included publications up to 2011, by including
We systematically searched the POS literature for 327 additional studies.
relevant articles to include in our meta-analysis
using several methods. First, we conducted a key- Coding Procedure and Accuracy
word search in ABI-Inform, APA Psycnet, PsycINFO, Three raters (the first author and two research
ProQuest Research Library, Digital Dissertations, assistants, both trained in I/O psychology but blind
Google Scholar, and the Defense Technical Information to the study’s hypotheses) coded all the relevant
Center. For these searches, we used broad keywords articles. We provided the research assistants with a
such as perceived organizational support, organiza- coding manual, and the first author and two
tional support, perceived support, and POS using both research assistants coded a random sample of 20
American and British English spelling. Second, we articles jointly to discuss the coding manual and
supplemented this search with a backward citation clarify the coding procedures. After that, the three
search for which we manually reviewed articles raters independently coded each study for sample
from previous meta-analyses by Kurtessis et al. size; effect size; construct mean, variance and
(2017), Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) and Riggle reliability; country of study; and type of POS
et al. (2009). Third, we conducted a forward correlate. To verify coding accuracy, we examined
citation search of major source articles of POS the agreement between the three raters. The aver-
(Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger, Cummings, age interrater percentage of agreement across the
Armeli, & Lynch, 1997; Eisenberger, Fasolo, & study variables was 94%. Raters resolved any
Davis-LaMastro, 1990; Rhoades & Eisenberger, disagreements (mostly typographical errors, choice
2002). We also searched for POS articles from the of sample size when only the range of sample size is
bibliographies of the articles identified in the first given, errors in standardizing the sign of correla-
three searches. Finally, we contacted authors who tion coefficients between turnover intention and
actively conduct research on POS for unpublished intent to stay) through consensus via discussion,
articles. following the approach advocated by Podsakoff,
This search resulted in an initial pool of 2275 POS Bommer, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie (2006). The main
studies from 1986 through 2018. Next, we excluded codes and input values for the primary studies
studies that (1) were written in a language other included in the meta-analysis are provided in the
than English, (2) did not report sample sizes along online supplementary file.
with adequate effect size measures, (3) used the
label POS to measure a construct different from the Meta-analytic Procedures
definition provided by Eisenberger et al. (1986), (4)
studied POS in horizontal-collectivistic (k = 9) or Classification of studies in cultural configurations
vertical-individualistic (k = 24) societies, or in sam- We classified studies into horizontal-individualistic
ples with mixed national backgrounds, and (5) did and vertical-collectivistic cultural configurations
not include correlates of POS relevant to our based on the country in which data were collected.
hypotheses. We then narrowed the database to Following prior cross-cultural meta-analyses (Choi
studies containing variables with data from at least et al., 2015; Rockstuhl et al., 2012), we used
four samples in vertical-collectivistic societies based Hofstede’s (2001) country-level scores and their
on prior research, suggesting a minimum require- recommended cut-off scores for collectivism and
ment of four studies for reliable subgroup analysis power-distance to determine the appropriate cul-
(Astill, Van der Heijden, Van Ijzendoorn, & Van tural configuration for each society. Using country-
Someren, 2012). We also carefully screened our level scores presents a conservative test of the

Table 1 List of horizontal-individualistic (HI) and vertical-col- which lowers the predictive power of country-level
lectivistic (VC) countries in analysis cultural value scores and consequently makes tests
HI countries k VC countries k of cultural value effects more conservative.
Germany 4 China 61 Psychometric meta-analyses

Norway 4 South Korea 44 Next, we used Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) psy-
South Africa 4 India 38 chometric meta-analysis method to estimate pop-
Netherlands 3 Taiwan 23
ulation correlations between POS and its correlates
United States 386 Malaysia 15
Canada 56 Turkey 14
separately in both cultural configurations. Psycho-
Australia 29 Pakistan 13 metric meta-analyses correct for attenuation in
United Kingdom 15 Iran 7 observed correlations due to statistical artifacts,
New Zealand 12 Nigeria 6 such as sampling error, unreliability, or range
Italy 10 Philippines 6 restrictions (Viswesvaran, Ones, Schmidt, Le, &
Spain 10 Hong Kong 5 Oh, 2014). By correcting observed correlations for
Israel 6 Sri Lanka 5 known statistical artifacts, psychometric meta-anal-
Finland 2 Thailand 5
yses estimate relationships between theoretical
Ghana 4
constructs rather than manifest indicators. Failing
Greece 4
Portugal 4 to correct for statistical artifacts, as Viswesvaran
Bangladesh 2 et al. (2014: 507) note cogently, ‘‘obfuscates scien-
Brazil 2 tific knowledge.’’ Beyond sampling error, we cor-
Cameroon 2 rected observed correlations for two statistical
Egypt 2 artifacts known to attenuate correlations across
Indonesia 2 cultures.
Macau 2 First, we corrected each primary correlation for
Romania 2
attenuation due to unreliability in both POS and its
Singapore 2
correlate. When primary studies did not report
Uganda 2
Chile 1 reliabilities for a variable, we used the mean of the
Cyprus 1 reliability estimates from the other primary studies
Ecuador 1 of the same cultural configuration for that variable
El Salvador 1 to correct for unreliability.
Jamaica 1 Second, we corrected correlations for attenuation
Jordan 1 due to range restriction resulting from cultural
Lithuania 1 differences in extreme response style. Extreme
Nepal 1
response style—the tendency to use the extreme
New Guinea 1
Palestine 1
categories of rating scales (Cheung & Rensvold,
Poland 1 2000)—is a statistical artifact uniquely relevant to
Saudi Arabia 1 cross-cultural comparisons (Van de Vijver & Leung,
Serbia (Yugoslavia) 1 1997). Empirical research shows that Western cul-
South Africa (Black) 1 tures are more likely to exhibit extreme responding
Vietnam 1 than Asian cultures (Harzing, 2006; Johnson,
Zimbabwe 1 Kulesa, Cho, & Shavitt, 2005), leading to artificially
Total 541 Total: 288 attenuated correlations in Asian compared to
k = number of independent samples. Western cultures (Little, 2000). We followed the
procedures introduced by Rockstuhl et al. (2012) to
potential effects of culture, because such scores correct for response-style differences across hori-
have lower predictive power than cultural values zontal-individualistic and vertical-collectivistic
assessed in specific studies (Taras, Kirkman, & Steel, samples. That is, we first tested for the presence of
2010). In essence, the well-documented variation extreme-response-style differences by comparing
in cultural values within countries (Hofstede, 2001; construct-variances across both cultural configura-
Taras et al., 2012) introduces an additional source tions and then applied the indirect range restric-
of random error into cross-cultural meta-analyses, tion corrections suggested by Hunter, Schmidt, &
Le (2006) to correct individual relationships
accordingly.

Hypotheses tests Sensitivity Analysis, Publication Bias Check,

Kepes et al. (2013) recommend the use of meta- and Ruling Out Alternative Explanations
regression to test for hypothesized moderators and Consistent with the meta-analysis reporting stan-
to follow these analyses with subgroup analyses to dards of APA (2010) and also in line with Kepes
inspect the means of subgroups. Accordingly, we et al. (2013), we assessed the validity of our results
tested our hypotheses using a three-level variance with sensitivity analyses. The aim of these analyses
known meta-analysis (Konstantopoulos, 2011; Fis- is to assess to what extent decisions and assump-
cher & Mansell, 2009). The three-level variance tions made during the review process impact the
known meta-analysis treats the study effect sizes observed results. As part of our sensitivity analyses,
(relationships between POS and correlates) as ran- we examined the potential causes of non-robust-
dom effects at level 1 (level of effect sizes), includes ness in terms of outliers, publication bias, and
study characteristics as random effects at level 2 alternative explanations related to institutional
(the study level), and includes country characteris- differences across countries, temporal changes in
tics as random effects at level 3 (the country level). cultural values, and differences in rating sources.
We treat the country level as a level 3 in these
analyses because multiple studies may come from Sensitivity to outliers
the same country, implying a nesting of studies Kepes et al. (2013) caution that the results of meta-
within countries. We estimated separate models for analyses may be heavily influenced by a single,
attitudinal (affective commitment, normative com- large sample or by one or more extreme effect sizes.
mitment, job involvement, job satisfaction, and They advocate the use of contour-enhanced funnel
lower turnover intentions) and behavioral out- plots to identify potential problematic samples and
comes (task performance and organizational citi- sensitivity analyses comparing results with and
zenship behavior). without potential outliers. Hence, we visually
At level 1, we included a dummy-coded fixed examined contour-enhanced funnel plots of (1)
effect representing each distal outcome of POS. attitudinal and (2) behavioral outcomes to identify
Controlling for the type of outcome variable, potential outlier samples. We then compared our
country-level predictors represent conditional meta-analytic regression results with all the sam-
effects that indicate the overall effect of country- ples and results from analyses, excluding these
level factors on POS outcome relationships. At the potential outlier samples as a sensitivity analysis.
study level, we included year of publication as a
control variable. At the country level, we first Publication bias check
included a dummy variable reflecting national Although we did our best to include all available
culture (0 = horizontal individualism, 1 = vertical studies, potential publication bias may affect our
collectivism). This first model tests our competing results. Publication bias exists when ‘‘the research
hypotheses about the effects of national culture on that appears in the published literature is system-
relationships between POS and distal outcomes. atically unrepresentative of the population of
Next, we added the cross-level interaction term completed studies’’ (Rothstein, Sutton, & Boren-
between year of publication and national culture to stein, 2005, p. 1). Of particular concern to testing
test our hypotheses regarding temporal changes in our hypotheses is differential publication bias, for
cultural effects on POS relationships. example, if studies from vertical-collectivistic cul-
Finally, we conducted subgroup analyses in hor- tures exhibit greater publication bias than studies
izontal-individualistic and vertical-collectivistic from horizontal-individualistic cultures.
cultures using the independent z test to test the Kepes, Banks, McDaniel, & Whetzel (2012) rec-
moderating effects of national culture on construct- ommend that the trim-and-fill method (Duval &
level (i.e., disattenuated) POS relationships. Chi- Tweedie, 2000) is more informative than other
aburu, Lorinkova & Van Dyne (2013; eq. 3) recom- methods for assessing publication bias. Following
mended the independent z test to compare meta- their recommendation, we assessed differential
analytically-derived correlations across moderator publication bias by means of trim-and-fill methods
categories (see also Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Choi using the metafor-package in R (Viechtbauer,
et al. (2015) used the same approach to compare 2010). Specifically, we estimated the number of
relationships of Big-Five personality with organiza- potentially missing studies separately for horizon-
tional commitment across individualistic and col- tal-individualistic and vertical-collectivistic coun-
lectivistic cultures. tries using random-effects trim-and-fill methods.

Following Kepes et al. (2012), we examined Holmes et al. (2013) derived four factors that
forests plots for evidence of ‘‘drift’’ in the cumula- describe regulatory, political, and economic insti-
tive point estimate as an additional measure of tutional contexts across societies, based on a factor
publication bias. To this end, we conducted a analysis of 35 indicators: regulatory control, polit-
cumulative meta-analysis in which we added effect ical democracy, capital availability, and market
sizes one at a time and recalculated mean effect liquidity. Regulatory control reflects regulatory
sizes until all effect sizes have been added. Entering institutions that establish and enforce laws and
effect sizes in order of precision (starting with the policies that govern business activities. Political
most precise effect size, i.e., the effects size from the democracy reflects the means through which gov-
largest sample), evidence of positive drift would ernments and citizens enact changes in formal
suggest the presence of publication bias. We imple- institutions. Capital availability shapes the invest-
mented these analyses using the metafor-package ment decisions of organizations by influencing
in R (Viechtbauer, 2010). both their access to capital and its value. Finally,
market liquidity reflects a country’s liabilities and
Institutional differences as an alternative explanation liquidity.
Cross-cultural scholars have long called for We measured regulatory control with four indi-
researchers to consider national differences in cators (a = .84): legal and property rights, mone-
institutional contexts alongside cultural value dif- tary policy, trade policy, and regulatory burden. We
ferences (Jackson & Deeg, 2019; Tsui et al., 2007). collected these data from the Index of Economic
Such a joint consideration of multiple contextual Freedom (Gwartney, Lawson, & Block, 1996). We
variables (e.g., regulatory, political, economic, cul- measured political democracy with four indicators
tural) offers a more holistic and valid understand- (a = .71): civil liberties, political rights, political
ing of the effects of national culture. As Tsui (2012, constraints and executive political restrictions.
p. 32) has noted, there is a ‘‘need to consider these Data on civil liberties and political rights came
multiple contexts in concert to provide better from Freedom House’s annual survey of political
theorization and stronger and more accurate infer- rights and civil liberties. Data on political con-
ences of context effects.’’ straints and executive political restrictions came
Because formal institutions define and enforce from the Political Constraint Index dataset (Henisz,
the ‘rules’ for economic exchanges, such as 2000). We measured capital availability with three
between organizations and their employees, they indicators (a = .80): capital investments, nominal
allow both parties to form expectations about the GDP, and money supply (all in billions of US
actions of exchange partners (Holmes, Miller, Hitt, dollars) using data from the Political Risk Services
& Salmador, 2013) and support the conduct of (PRS). Finally, we measured market liquidity with
exchanges (Redding, 2005). Hence, institutional three indicators (a = .65): foreign liabilities (in
differences provide an alternative explanation to percent of GDP), international liquidity (in months
our cultural explanation of differences in POS of import cover), and country liquidity (in billions
relationships across national contexts. of US dollars). Data on foreign liabilities and
The theory of institutional polycentrism (Batjar- international liquidity came from the PRS, while
gal et al., 2013; Holmes et al., 2013) identifies data on country liquidity came from the Interna-
regulatory, political, and economic institutions as tional Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook.
particularly relevant in an organizational context. We followed the procedures outlined by Holmes
As noted by Holmes et al. (2013: 535): ‘‘these three et al. (2013) to estimate country scores on all four
types of formal institutions constitute and define factors. First, we used maximum likelihood esti-
an established order within which businesses oper- mates to iteratively impute missing values. Second,
ate.’’ Hence, regulatory, political, and economic we conducted a principal components analysis
institution may affect POS relationships across with oblique rotation across all institutional vari-
societies. Accordingly, we tested whether national ables. The principal components analysis resulted
differences in economic institutional contexts in the expected four-factor solution, which
account for our hypothesized differences in POS explained 77.2% of the variance across institutional
relationships across horizontal-individualistic and variables. We also estimated factor scores from the
vertical-collectivistic cultures. principal component analysis, which we used for

further analysis. Finally, we averaged factor scores subgroup moderator analyses for POS correlates
across years for each country, because factor scores affected when dropping studies conducted in those
were highly correlated—i.e., the average inter-year three countries.
correlations were .93 for regulatory control, .87 for
political democracy, .96 for capital availability, and Differences in rating source as an alternative
.90 for market liquidity. explanation
To test whether these alternative predictors Prior meta-analyses have shown that same-source
account for differences in POS relationships with research designs inflate relationships of POS with
distal outcomes across horizontal-individualistic task performance and OCB (Kurtessis et al., 2017).
and vertical-collectivistic cultures, we added the Hence, we also tested whether cultural differences
four institutional factor scores (i.e., regulatory in the relationships of POS with task performance
control, political democracy, capital availability, and OCB depended on the source of performance
and market liquidity) as control variables at the rating. To this end, we also conducted separate
country level in the three-level variance known subgroup moderator analyses for performance rat-
meta-analysis described above. If national culture ings based on either same-source or different-source
predicts the strength of POS relationships after research designs.
controlling for these alternative predictors, then
this would increase the confidence in our advanced
cultural explanation. Controlling for institutional RESULTS
factors did not substantively alter findings related Sensitivity to Outliers and Publication Bias
to national culture and we report results including To detect outliers, we generated contour-enhanced
the institutional factors below. funnel plots. Figure 1 depicts both attitudinal out-
comes (left-hand panel) and behavioral outcomes
Temporal changes in cultural values as an alternative
(right-hand panel) effect sizes by their inverse
explanation
standard errors. In these plots, effect sizes with
Although we test for a change in cultural influence
lower sampling errors (i.e., greater precision) gen-
on POS relationships over time, one may also
erally cluster at the top, with effect sizes from less
question the appropriateness of using Hofstede’s
precise samples dispersed along the funnel base. A
country score to measure national culture given
roughly symmetrical shape of the plot indicates
their datedness (Taras et al., 2012). To address this
that the variance in distribution of effect sizes is
concern, we also tested our hypotheses using Taras
due to sampling error alone. Cases on the extreme
et al.’s (2012) meta-analytically-derived cultural
left or right of the funnel plot indicate potential
value scores from the 1990s and 2000s. As for our
outlier studies. On the basis of these analyses, we
main hypotheses test, we classified countries as
identified eight potential outliers for attitudinal
either belonging to the horizontal-individualistic
outcomes [horizontal-individualistic cultures: Sus-
or vertical-collectivistic cultural configuration dur-
skind et al., 2000 (job satisfaction and turnover
ing the 1990s and 2000s. In cases where no meta-
intentions); Al-Hussami, 2009 (affective commit-
analytic estimates were available, we followed Taras
ment and job satisfaction); and Barnett, 1996
et al. (2012) and used regional scores instead.
(affective commitment)/vertical-collectivistic cul-
We note that despite changes in the absolute
tures: Wang, 2009 (affective commitment); Raha-
scores of cultural values, countries’ classification as
man, 2012 (affective commitment); and Gyeke &
horizontal-individualistic or vertical collectivistic
Haybatollahi, 2015(job satisfaction)]. For behav-
remain relatively stable. In fact, across the 54
ioral outcomes, we identified one potential outlier
countries in our analyses, only Italy (7 studies;
[vertical-collectivistic cultures: Wang, 2009 (orga-
Hofstede: horizontal individualism; Taras et al.:
nizational citizenship behavior)]. We then con-
2000s = horizontal collectivism), Romania (2 stud-
ducted further sensitivity analysis to assess the
ies; Hofstede: vertical collectivism; Taras et al.:
robustness of findings when including versus
2000s = horizontal collectivism) and Serbia (1
excluding these outliers. The results did not differ
study; Hofstede: vertical collectivism; Taras et al.:
substantively when these outliers were excluded,
1990s = vertical individualism) reflected a change
and we report analyses based on the full sample
in their cultural configuration within the time-
below.
frame of our study. Hence, we re-analyzed our

Figure 1 Contour-enhanced funnel plots for distributions of POS relationships with attitudinal (left) and behavioral (right) outcomes.
The funnel plots present the inverse standard error on the y-axis and the reliability-corrected correlation coefficients in the Fisher z
metric on the x-axis. Black circles present observed data points, white circles present trim-and-fill imputed data points.
The contour-enhanced funnel-plots are also publication bias. In vertical-collectivistic cultures,

informative regarding the possibility of publication we estimated that there are 45 missing studies.
bias. The plot for attitudinal outcomes (left-hand However, similar to the funnel-plot for behavioral
panel in Figure 1) had a symmetrical ‘‘funnel’’ outcomes, these studies are all missing on the right
shape, suggesting no publication bias in our meta- portion of the funnel plot. Such a pattern is not
analysis. By contrast, the plot for behavioral out- consistent with publication bias and instead sug-
comes (right-hand panel in Figure 1) was not gests that estimation of population effect sizes in
symmetric. Interestingly, however, the pattern is vertical-collectivistic cultures could be conserva-
not consistent with asymmetry due to publication tive. For behavioral outcomes, separate analyses for
bias (missing studies in the lower left portion of the each cultural cluster mirror the findings from the
plot; Kepes et al., 2012). Instead, the distribution of funnel plots. That is, we estimated that there are 40
missing studies, as indicated by the white circles in and 33 studies missing on the right portion of the
Figure 1, is concentrated on the right portion of the funnel plot, respectively, in horizontal-individual-
plot. We discovered that behavioral outcomes were istic and vertical-collectivistic cultures.
more often rated using different-source designs Finally, the cumulative meta-analyses based on
(k = 180) than same-source designs (k = 163). Since study-precision (available from the first author)
same-source designs may inflate relationships, it is indicated a slight negative drift for both attitudinal
possible that methodological features of these and behavioral outcomes. Such a pattern is counter
studies, and not publication bias, contributed to to the common pattern of publication bias (Kepes
the unusual pattern of asymmetry in the behavioral et al., 2012), further suggesting that publication
outcomes funnel plot. bias is unlikely to exert a major impact on findings.
To assess differential publication bias across the
two cultural clusters, we applied Duval and Twee- Comparison of POS Effects on Outcomes Across
die’s (2000) trim-and-fill technique separately for Cultures
horizontal-individualistic and vertical-collectivistic Based on the social-exchange perspective, we pro-
cultures. For attitudinal outcomes, we estimated posed in Hypothesis 1 that POS effects on attitudi-
that there are no missing studies in horizontal- nal and behavioral outcomes should be stronger in
individualistic cultures, indicating no evidence of horizontal-individualistic cultures. By contrast, the
social-identity perspective suggests that POS effects

Table 2 Results of mixed-effects three-level meta-analysis predicting relationships between pos and distal outcomes
Attitudinal outcomes Behavioral outcomes
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
B SE p B SE p B SE p B SE p
Intercept 1.17 (.03) .000 .99 (.08) .000 .45 (.04) .000 .23 (.09) .007
Level 1 control variables
Normative commitment - .55 (.01) .000 - .55 (.01) .000
Job involvement - .66 (.01) .000 - .66 (.01) .000
Job satisfaction - .22 (.01) .000 - .22 (.01) .000
Turnover intentions (reverse-scored) - .63 (.01) .000 - .63 (.01) .000
Perceived organizational support across 54 nations
Organizational citizenship behavior .08 (.01) .000 .08 (.01) .000

Level 2 Study-level predictors
Year of publication .00 (.00) .380 .00 (.00) .424 .00 (.00) .741 .00 (.00) .918
Level 3 Country-level predictors
Regulatory control - .06 (.04) .112 .01 (.05) .827 - .04 (.06) .450 .06 (.05) .272
Political democracy - .06 (.05) .261 - .02 (.05) .655 - .06 (.07) .379 - .04 (.05) .478
Capital availability .01 (.01) .263 .03 (.01) .036 - .04 (.03) .106 - .02 (.01) .272
Market liquidity .01 (.02) .812 - .01 (.02) .817 .02 (.03) .498 - .01 (.02) .759
Vertical collectivism (VC) .24 (.10) .013 .33 (.11) .002
Thomas Rockstuhl et al
kr/ks/kc 986/609/53 986/609/53 343/281/33 343/281/33

n 238,336 238,336 92,992 92,992
D v2 15,629.07 (p = .000) 6.17 (p = .013) 64.05 (p = .000) 6.59 (p = .010)
Pseudo-R2 (country-level) .09 .55 .23 .51
kr = number of correlations; ks = number of studies; kc = number of countries; n = combined sample size; Pseudo-R2 = amount of heterogeneity accounted for by country-level moderators.
on attitudinal and behavioral outcomes should be democracy, capital availability, and market liquid-
stronger in vertical-collectivistic cultures (Hypoth- ity. These findings rule out national differences in
esis 3). Table 2 shows the results of the meta- institutional contexts as an alternative explanation
regression analyses to test these two competing for the observed stronger relationships between
expectations. We report results controlling for POS and attitudinal outcomes in vertical-collec-
institutional differences in regulatory control, tivistic compared to horizontal-individualistic
political democracy, capital availability, and mar- cultures.
ket liquidity as alternative explanations to cultural For behavioral outcomes, Model 1 shows that
value differences. institutional factors did not explain significant
For attitudinal outcomes, Model 1 shows that variance in POS–outcome relationships. Regulatory
institutional factors did not explain significant control (B = - .04, ns), political democracy
variance in POS–outcome relationships. Regulatory (B = - .06, ns), capital availability (B = - .04, ns),
control (B = - .06, ns), political democracy and market liquidity (B = .02, ns) did not relate
(B = - .06, ns), capital availability (B = .01, ns), significantly to the relationship strength between
and market liquidity (B = .01, ns) did not relate POS and behavioral outcomes.
significantly to the relationship strength between More importantly, Model 2 indicates that rela-
POS and attitudinal outcomes. tionships between POS and behavioral outcomes
More importantly, Model 2 indicates that rela- are stronger in vertical-collectivistic than in hori-
tionships between POS and attitudinal outcomes zontal-individualistic cultures (B = .33, p \ .01). In
are stronger in vertical-collectivistic than in hori- addition, the horizontal-individualism/vertical-col-
zontal-individualistic cultures (B = .24, p \ .05). In lectivism distinction explained 28% of the variance
addition, the horizontal-individualism/vertical-col- in POS effects at the country-level over and above
lectivism distinction explained 46% of the variance national differences in regulatory control, political
in POS effects at the country-level over and above democracy, capital availability, and market liquid-
national differences in regulatory control, political ity. These findings rule out national differences in
Table 3 Results of moderator analysis of national culture on relationships between perceived organizational support (POS) and distal
outcomes
POS correlate n k r q SDq 80% CV 95% CI Z p
Lower Upper Lower Upper
Task performance
Horizontal individualism 26,228 93 .17 .17 .12 .02 .32 .13 .20
Vertical collectivism 20,541 65 .28 .34 .23 .05 .63 .28 .40 6.14 .000
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
Affective commitment
Vertical collectivism 43,116 117 .53 .62 .30 .23 1.00 .57 .67 3.61 .000
Normative commitment
Vertical collectivism 4470 17 .38 .58 .26 .24 .91 .41 .75 2.83 .005
Job involvement
Horizontal individualism 8138 33 .35 .39 .13 .23 .55 .33 .45
Job satisfaction
Turnover intentions
Horizontal individualism 52,587 145 - .41 - .37 .24 - .68 - .06 - .42 - .33
Vertical collectivism 31,838 82 - .35 - .44 .27 - .79 - .10 - .53 - .36 2.54 .011
n = combined sample size; k =number of correlations; r = mean uncorrected correlation; q = estimated true score correlation corrected for mea-
surement error and range restriction; CV = credibility interval; CI = confidence interval; Z = Z test statistic for differences in true score correlations
corrected for measurement error and range restriction between countries with horizontal-individualism and vertical-collectivism configurations.

institutional contexts as an alternative explanation mechanisms apply across cultures. We therefore

for the observed stronger relationships between also tested the hypotheses that POS should show
POS and behavioral outcomes in vertical-collec- stronger associations with felt obligation and orga-
tivistic compared to horizontal-individualistic nizational trust in horizontal-individualistic than
cultures. in vertical-collectivistic countries (Hypothesis 2),
In light of the overall support for stronger but stronger associations with organizational iden-
relationships of POS with attitudinal and behav- tification in vertical-collectivistic compared to hor-
ioral outcomes in vertical-collectivistic versus horizontal-individualistic cultures (Hypothesis 4).
izontal-individualistic cultures, we proceeded with Table 4 shows the results that compare relation-
subgroup analyses to inspect the means of POS ships of POS with social-exchange and organiza-
relationships with different outcomes in horizon- tional-identification processes in horizontal-
tal-individualistic and vertical-collectivistic cul- individualistic and vertical-collectivistic cultures.
tures. The results in Table 3 show that POS relates Interestingly, the results support both theoretical
more strongly to all seven distal outcome variables perspectives. Consistent with the social-exchange
in vertical-collectivistic than in horizontal-individ- arguments, POS relates more strongly to felt obli-
ualistic cultures. In particular, the relationships of gation (qHI = .52 vs. qVC = .40, Z = - 2.20, p \ .05)
POS with task performance (qHI = .17 vs. qVC = .34, and organizational trust (qHI = .76 vs. qVC = .66,
Z = 6.14, p \ .01), OCB (qHI = .21 vs. qVC = .53, Z = - 2.21, p \ .05) in horizontal-individualistic
Z = 8.48, p \ .01), affective commitment (qHI = .56 than in vertical-collectivistic cultures. In addition,
vs. qVC = .62, Z = 3.61, p \ .01), normative com- and consistent with social-identity arguments, POS
mitment (qHI = .35 vs. qVC = .58, Z = 2.83, p \ .01), relates more strongly to organizational identifica-
job involvement (qHI = .39 vs. qVC = .47, Z = 1.97, tion (qHI = .55 vs. qVC = .63, Z = 1.99, p \ .05) in
p \ .05), job satisfaction (qHI = .60 vs. qVC = .69, vertical-collectivistic than in horizontal-individual-
Z = 3.23, p \ .01), and turnover intentions (qHI- istic cultures. These results support both Hypothe-
= - .37 vs. qVC = - .44, Z = 2.54, p \ .05) are sis 2 and Hypothesis 4.
stronger in vertical-collectivistic than in horizon- We recognize that, although these results suggest
tal-individualistic cultures. Taken together, these that both social-exchange and organizational-iden-
results support Hypothesis 3 but not Hypothesis 1. tification mechanisms may explain POS effects,
they do not assess the mediating role of social-
Social-Exchange and Organizational- exchange and organizational-identification pro-
Identification Mechanisms Across Cultures cesses. Given that cultural influences on social-
Even though the above analyses appear to support exchange and organizational-identification mecha-
the social-identity perspective more than the social- nisms appear to be opposite in direction in hori-
exchange perspective, it is also possible that both zontal-individualistic versus vertical-collectivistic
Table 4 Results of moderator analysis of national culture on social-exchange and organizational-identification processes
Social-exchange process
Felt obligation
Vertical collectivism 885 4 .39 .40 .15 .20 .60 .22 .58 - 2.20 .028
Organizational trust
Organizational-identification process
Organization identification
n = combined sample size; k = number of correlations; r = mean uncorrected correlation; q = estimated true score correlation corrected for
measurement error and range restriction; CV = credibility interval; CI = confidence interval; Z = Z test statistic for differences in true score correlations

cultures, a full understanding of the role of culture identification processes) and one outcome (other-
in POS effects requires the joint examination of rated OCB) due to the difficulties in constructing
both mechanisms. Consideration of a single mech- complete meta-analytic correlation matrices
anism only is likely to result in an underspecified involving more outcomes in both horizontal-indi-
model, rendering the attribution of observed POS vidualistic and vertical-collectivistic cultures. Con-
effects to social-exchange versus organizational- sistent with our arguments, the indirect effect of
identification mechanisms ambiguous. Given that POS on other-rated OCB via organizational trust
organizational support scholars have invoked both was stronger in horizontal-individualistic [indirect
social-exchange and social-identity arguments to effect = .11, 95%CI (.07, .14)] compared to vertical-
explain POS effects, it is somewhat surprising that collectivistic [indirect effect = - .01, 95%CI (- .03,
none of the 827 samples in our database considered .01)] cultures [Dv2(2df) = 72.76, p \ .01]. By con-
both mediators jointly. We can only speculate that trast, the indirect effect of POS on other-rated OCB
primary studies have not done so because they via organizational identification was stronger in
adopt either a social-exchange or a social-identity vertical-collectivistic [indirect effect = .20, 95%CI
perspective. (.18, .22)] compared to horizontal-individualistic
To address this concern, we explored the possi- [indirect effect = .09, 95%CI (.07, .11)] cultures
bility that POS affects outcomes via differential [Dv2(2df) = 58.00, p \ .01)] Thus, while POS affects
processes (social exchange in horizontal-individu- OCB via both social-exchange and organizational-
alistic versus organizational identification in verti- identification processes in horizontal-individualis-
cal-collectivistic cultures) using meta-analytic tic cultures, only organizational-identification pro-
structural equation modeling (Bergh et al., 2016). cesses appear to mediate POS effects on OCB in
We limited this analysis to two mediators (organi- vertical-collectivistic cultures.
zational trust to reflect social-exchange processes
and organizational identification to reflect
Table 5 Results of mixed-effects three-level meta-analysis testing convergence of cultural differences in POS effects
Attitudinal outcomes Behavioral outcomes
B SE p B SE p
Intercept 1.00 (.08) .000 .22 (.09) .009

Level 1 control variables
Normative commitment - .55 (.01) .000
Job involvement - .66 (.01) .000
Job satisfaction - .22 (.01) .000
Turnover intentions (reverse-scored) - .63 (.01) .000
Organizational citizenship behavior .08 (.01) .000
Level 2 Study-level predictors
Year of publication - .00 (.00) .781 .00 (.00) .762
Level 3 Country-level predictors
Regulatory control .02 (.05) .392 .06 (.05) .266
Political democracy - .04 (.05) .452 - .04 (.05) .515
Capital availability .02 (.01) .096 - .02 (.02) .312
Market liquidity - .01 (.02) .782 - .01 (.02) .724
Vertical collectivism (VC) .19 (.12) .054 .35 (.12) .003
Cross-level interaction
VC 9 year of publication .02 (.01) .017 - .01 (.01) .641
kr/ks/kc 986/609/53 343/281/33
n 238,336 92,992
Dv2 (compared to Model 2, Table 2) 5.74 (p = .017) .22 (p = .641)
Pseudo-R2 (country-level) .55 .51
kr = number of correlations; ks = number of studies; kc = number of countries; N = combined sample size; Pseudo-R2 = amount of heterogeneity
accounted for by country-level moderators.

Cross-Cultural Convergence POS Effects vertical-collectivistic cultures, this relationship has

We proposed in Hypothesis 5 that cultural differ- increased from .67 [95% CI (.48, .80)] in the earlier
ences in POS effects would converge over time. time period to .75 [95% CI (.71, .78)] in the later
Given the stronger effects of POS on outcomes in time period. These results suggest that the cultural
vertical-collectivistic cultures in the overall sample, differences in the effects of POS on attitudinal
the convergence argument implies a negative outcomes have strengthened over time.
interaction effect between vertical collectivism For behavioral outcomes the interaction effect
and year of publication. between vertical-collectivism and year of publica-
Results, based on meta-regression analyses shown tion is non-significant (B = - .01, ns). This result
in Table 5, do not support this hypothesis. For indicates that, in contrast to attitudinal outcomes,
attitudinal outcomes, the interaction effect the cultural differences in the effects of POS on
between vertical collectivism and year of publica- behavioral outcomes have not significantly chan-
tion is positive and significant (B = .02, p \ .05). To ged over time.
illustrate the nature of this interaction effect, we
estimated the overall relationship of POS with Robustness Tests
attitudinal outcomes in the two time periods of
up to 2005 and since 2005 in both cultural config-
Temporal changes in cultural values as an alternative
explanation
urations. In horizontal-individualistic cultures, this
Although the above analyses test for a change in
relationship remained relatively unchanged from
cultural influence on POS relationships over time,
.64 [95% CI (.49, .75)] in the earlier time period to
recall that temporal changes in cultural values
.65 [95% CI (.61, .69)] in the later time period. In
Table 6 Results of moderator analysis of national culture on relationships between perceived organizational support (POS) and
correlates when national culture changes across time
Task performance
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
Affective commitment
Vertical collectivism 43,006 116 .52 .62 .30 .23 1.01 .57 .66 3.56 .000
Normative commitment
Job involvement
Job satisfaction
Turnover intentions
Horizontal individualism 51,572 142 - .42 - .38 .24 - .69 - .06 - .42 - .33
Vertical collectivism 31,838 82 - .35 - .44 .27 - .79 - .10 - .53 - .36 2.36 .018
Organizational trust

might outdate Hofstede’s country-level scores. Hence, we also tested whether cultural differences
Therefore, we estimated the cultural configurations in the relationships of POS with task performance
for each country using meta-analytic data provided and OCB depended on the source of performance
by Taras et al. (2012). As noted above, Italy, rating. Table 7 presents results that report cross-
Romania, and Serbia were three countries for which cultural comparisons of task performance and OCB
the cultural configurations had changed within the separately for same-source and different-source
timeframe of our study. Hence, we re-analyzed our designs. Results indicate that differences in rating
hypotheses tests for those variables that were source do not affect our substantive conclusions. In
affected by the changes in cultural configuration particular, the relationships of POS with task per-
for Italy, Romania, and Serbia. Table 6 shows that formance (same source: qHI = .19 vs. qVC = .39,
POS remains more strongly related to organiza- Z = 4.01, p \ .01; different source: qHI = .14 vs.
tional trust (qrrHI = .78 vs. qrrVC = .66, Z = - 2.69, qVC = .30, Z = 6.01, p \ .01) and OCB (same source:
p \ .01) in horizontal-individualistic than in verti- qHI = .24 vs. qVC = .60, Z = 7.85, p \ .01; different
cal-collectivistic cultures. Also, the relationships of source: qHI = .15 vs. qVC = .38, Z = 5.34, p \ .01) are
POS with task performance (qHI = .17 vs. qVC = .34, stronger in vertical-collectivistic than in horizon-
Z = 6.06, p \ .01), OCB (qHI = .21 vs. qVC = .53, tal-individualistic cultures for both same-source
Z = 8.33, p \ .01), affective commitment (qHI- and different-source research-designs.
= .56 vs. qVC = .62, Z = 3.56, p \ .01), normative
commitment (qHI = .35 vs. qVC = .58, Z = 2.84,
p \ .01), job involvement (qHI = .39 vs. qVC = .47, DISCUSSION
Z = 1.96, p \ .05), job satisfaction (qHI = .60 vs. Prior research on cultural influences on POS effects
qVC = .69, Z = 3.27, p \ .01), and turnover inten- has produced conflicting arguments and empirical
tions (qHI = - .38 vs. qVC = - .44, Z = 2.36, findings about the impact of culture on POS
p \ .05) remain stronger in vertical-collectivistic relationships. Our cross-cultural meta-analysis of
than in horizontal-individualistic cultures. the POS literature resolves these conflicting find-
Together, these tests suggest that our findings are ings and offers timely insights into the boundary
robust against changes in cultural values over time. conditions of OST. Results, based on 827 samples
across 54 countries (n = 332,277) indicate that
Differences in rating source as an alternative while POS affects employee attitudes and behaviors
explanation worldwide, employees’ reactions to organizational
Prior meta-analyses have shown that same-source support differ reliably as a function of horizontal-
research designs inflate relationships of POS with individualistic versus vertical-collectivistic cultures.
task performance and OCB (Kurtessis et al., 2017). Specifically, relationships of POS with attitudinal
Table 7 Results of moderator analysis of national culture and rating source on relationships of perceived organizational support (POS)
with task performance and organizational citizenship behavior
Task performance (same source)

Task performance (different source)
Organizational citizenship behavior (same source)
Organizational citizenship behavior (different source)

and behavioral outcomes were significantly stron- theories developed in the West may be less appli-
ger in vertical-collectivistic than in horizontal- cable elsewhere, we actually observed the reverse.
individualistic cultures. Thus, even though OST was developed in a hori-
Beyond this overall cultural effect, we also found zontal-individualistic culture, POS seems to be even
support for both social-exchange and social-iden- more central to employee reactions in vertical-
tity perspectives on mediators of POS effects. collectivistic cultures. At the same time, our study
Consistent with the social-exchange perspective, shifts away from asking merely whether or not OST
the data show that relationships of POS with felt applies across cultures. Instead, our theorizing and
obligation and organizational trust are stronger in empirical findings bring to the fore more nuanced
horizontal-individualistic than in vertical-collec- questions about which relationships in OST might
tivistic cultures. Consistent with the social-identity be accentuated or muted in different cultural
perspective, POS is more strongly associated with settings. We discuss these more specific theoretical
organizational identification in vertical-collectivis- implications below.
tic than in horizontal-individualistic cultures.
These results are compelling and consistent with Universality of social-exchange theory? Limitations
an integrative perspective: culture selectively based on role-based obligations
accentuates or mutes social-exchange and organi- How employees relate to their organization and the
zational-identification mechanisms in response to effects of this relationship are foundational ques-
POS. tions for organizational scholarship (Mowday &
Finally, we showed that cultural differences in Sutton, 1993). Scholars frequently explain the
POS effects on attitudinal outcomes have increased effects of this relationship using social-exchange
over time, while POS effects on behavioral out- theory and the associated norm of reciprocity
comes have not changed significantly. These find- (Gouldner, 1960). According to OST, employees
ings speak to the persistent influence of culture on reciprocate favorable treatment from their organi-
employees’ reactions to POS. We also demonstrated zation by exerting greater effort in their work. A
that institutional factors of regulatory control, major theoretical contribution of our study is the
political democracy, capital availability, and mar- suggestion that role-based obligations requiring
ket liquidity do not account for the observed high effort on behalf of the organization may limit
cultural differences in POS effects; and that cultural the influence of the norm of reciprocity embedded
differences in POS effects are robust to outliers, in social-exchange theory. Thus, to the extent that
publication bias, temporal changes in cultural role-based obligations are more central in employ-
values, and differences in rating sources for out- ment relationships, the effects of POS on employee
comes. Together, these robustness tests strengthen outcomes should be weaker. We argue that social
the confidence in our cultural explanation that relationships in national cultures that promote
differences in horizontal individualism versus ver- vertical-collectivism, as opposed to horizontal-in-
tical collectivism affect POS relationships. Below, dividualism, are more governed by role-based obli-
we discuss theoretical implications and future gations and less subject to social-exchange
directions of organizational support research. processes. Consistent with our theorizing, we
found that relationships of POS with indicators of
Theoretical Implications social exchange, such as felt obligation and orga-
Our findings contribute to the organizational sup- nizational trust, were stronger in horizontal-indi-
port and cross-cultural organizational-behavior lit- vidualistic than in vertical-collectivistic cultures.
eratures in several ways. At the broadest level, our Despite this advantage for social exchange in
study enhances our understanding of national horizontal-individualistic cultures, the distal out-
culture as a boundary condition of OST. Scholars comes of POS, involving job attitudes and perfor-
have increasingly questioned the cultural univer- mance, were stronger in vertical-collectivistic
sality of theories developed in one particular cultures than in horizontal-individualistic cultures.
cultural context (Gelfand et al., 2017; Tsui et al., This suggests that the stronger role-based obliga-
2007); and OST is not immune to cultural influ- tions favor a strong countervailing mechanism that
ences. Although such critiques typically imply that advantages POS effects in vertical-collectivistic

cultures. A central construct in OST, collective perspective may wish to include measures of
identity and its contribution to organizational collectivistic orientations as potential moderators
identification, may supply the missing element. of POS effects.
Universality of social-identity theory? The potency Organizational support: social-exchange or social-

of collective identity identity mechanism? From competing explanations
Tyler’s (1999) theory of organizational identity to an integrative framework
postulates that when employees receive favorable OST incorporates both social-exchange and social-
identity-relevant cues from their organization, they identity explanations of POS effects (Kurtessis et al.,
internalize organizational values and exert greater 2017). However, most research on POS has been
effort in their work. Yet, the extent to which dominated by a social-exchange perspective lead-
employees internalize organizational values in ing to lack of sufficient attention of identities and a
response to favorable identity-related cues may virtual absence of studies examining the influence
depend on how salient the collective identity is to of POS on both social exchange and identification.
employees. National cultures that emphasize role- Focusing on either social exchange or organiza-
based obligations in employee–organization relational identification may increase a study’s concep-
tionships more than social exchanges (i.e., vertical- tual focus, but it also comes at a cost. In particular,
collectivistic compared to horizontal-individualis- our meta-analytic findings suggest that the attribu-
tic cultures) may make collective identities more tion of observed POS effects to social-exchange
salient as they emphasize the employee in his or versus organizational-identification mechanisms is
her role as part of a larger collective (Cooper & ambiguous when studies do not measure both
Thatcher, 2010). We found support for our theo- mechanisms. Not including measures of both
rizing that national cultural differences in horizon- mechanisms is an important omission in the
tal individualism versus vertical collectivism influ- existing primary research that may prevent the
ence the importance of organizational support as a field from developing a more nuanced understand-
social-identity cue. Consistent with our theorizing, ing of POS effects, including their cultural bound-
POS was more strongly associated with organiza- ary conditions.
tional identification and related distal work out- For example, we found broad evidence that POS
comes in cultures with more salient collective is more strongly associated with attitudinal and
(vertical collectivism) versus personal (horizontal behavioral outcomes in vertical-collectivistic com-
individualism) identities. In addition, results from pared to horizontal-individualistic cultures. While
our meta-analytic structural equation modeling these findings appear to support Lam et al.’s (2016)
results showed that POS had a greater impact on social-identity arguments, our subsequent explo-
employees’ OCB in vertical-collectivistic than in ration of the social-exchange and organizational-
horizontal-individualistic cultures via organiza- identification mechanisms reveal a more nuanced
tional identification. Thus, the influence of POS picture. In fact, results showed that (1) POS is
on social-identification processes in vertical-collec- significantly and positively associated with social-
tivistic cultures appears to be strong enough to exchange indicators of felt obligation and organi-
overcome the lower contribution of social-ex- zational trust and organizational identity in both
change processes in vertical-collectivistic cultures. cultures, but (2) social-exchange processes are more
Identifying horizontal-individualistic orienta- pronounced in horizontal-individualistic cultures
tions as a boundary condition to organizational- whereas organizational identification is more pro-
identification processes enhances the theoretical nounced in vertical-collectivistic cultures.
precision of social-identity theory. In particular, Results of the exploratory meta-analytic path
vertical-collectivism offers a cultural explanation analysis further support an integrative model that
for when identification processes, in response to considers both mechanisms jointly. In horizontal-
favorable treatment, are likely to be more pro- individualistic cultures, organizational trust and
nounced. Of course, dispositional differences in organizational identification were equally impor-
individualism-collectivism occur within cultures as tant mechanisms through which POS affected
well as between cultures. Thus, future research other-rated organizational citizenship behaviors.
examining POS effects from a social-identity By contrast, in vertical-collectivistic cultures,

organizational identification was the only signifi- over time, we encourage future research that
cant mechanism of POS effects. Thus, we strongly examines convergence and drift simultaneously at
encourage future POS research to examine both different levels of analysis, such as state, country,
processes. The current analysis represents a signif- and geographic regions. The multidimensional
icant step forward in that direction and a frame- spatial approach advanced by Berry et al. (2014)
work for future cross-cultural studies on POS may be fruitfully employed to that end.
effects.
Cultural values versus institutional differences?
Convergence of cultural differences? The world may Exploring contextual influences on the organization
not be flattening (yet) Finally, in light of calls for poly-contextual
Despite strong empirical evidence that cultures approaches to capture better the complex influ-
evolve due to rapid economic changes and large- ences of national culture on organizational phe-
scale migration patterns (Kirkman et al., 2017; nomena (Peterson & Barreto, 2018; Tsui et al.,
Taras et al., 2012), we did not observe any conver- 2007), we were surprised to find that national
gence in POS effects over time. If anything, we differences in regulatory, political, and economic
observed that cultural differences in the relation- environments did not significantly affect POS rela-
ship of POS with attitudinal outcomes increased tionships. Although consistent with other research
over time. This increase in cultural differences for that has found that cultural values can be more
attitudinal outcomes in the context of generally important than institutional differences in explain-
stronger, but unchanged, cultural differences for ing cross-national variability in organizational phe-
behavioral outcomes is an interesting finding. nomena (Griffin, Guedhami, Kwok, Li, & Shao,
Future research is needed to ascertain whether this 2017), it may be premature to discount institu-
reduction in attitudinal-behavioral inconsistency tional influences on POS. One intriguing possibility
in vertical-collectivistic cultures reflects a tighter that future research could explore might be that
coupling of attitudes and behaviors over time cultural values of horizontal individualism/vertical
versus methodological artifacts, such as an increase collectivism moderate POS relationships with out-
in common-method bias that affects attitudinal comes whereas the regulatory, political or eco-
outcomes (based on same-source designs) to a nomic environment influences the level of
greater extent than behavioral outcomes (based organizational support in different national con-
on same-source and different-source designs). texts. Because cultural values reveal themselves in
Overall, however, the lack of cultural conver- behavioral responses to specific situations (Caprar,
gence in POS effects does not support moderniza- Devinney, Kirkman, & Caligiuri, 2015), they may
tion theory and is more aligned with scholars who be more proximal to, and hence more influential
have argued that globalization is a much more on, employees’ reactions to perceived organizational
fragmented, incomplete, and discontinuous pro- support. On the other hand, because institutional
cess (Berry, Guillén, & Hendi, 2014; Inglehart & factors such as the regulatory, political, or eco-
Baker, 2000; Wilson, 2011). For example, Berry nomic environment constrain the context within
et al. (2014) examined the convergence of countries which organizations operate (Luo, Zhang & Bu,
on economic, demographic, knowledge, financial, 2019), these institutional factors may be more
and political dimensions during the 1960–2009 proximal to what kinds of organizational support
period. They observed evidence of convergence organizations can and cannot offer their employees
within regional clusters but evidence of drift in a particular national context.
between regional clusters. This suggests that pro-
cesses of convergence may differ between the Future Research Directions
national and supra-national level of analysis. It is Ultimately, we hope that the cross-cultural organi-
intriguing to speculate that, because cultural con- zational support findings we have advanced in this
figurations of horizontal-individualism and verti- research will stimulate research that moves beyond
cal-collectivism tap into supra-national cultural an etic focus on POS toward broader consideration
differences, our findings indicate cultural drift at of how cultural factors influence processes and
the supra-national level of analysis. Integrating outcomes associated with POS. Findings of this
Kirkman et al.’s (2017) recommendations to (1) study offer several additional avenues for future
explore alternative ‘‘containers’’ of culture other research on POS in a global work context.
than country and (2) examine cultural changes

Explore potential negative effects of POS in vertical- Expand cross-cultural POS research across different
collectivistic cultures levels of analysis
Our empirical findings show broad support for Consistent with calls in the cross-cultural literature
stronger effects of POS on attitudinal and behav- (Beugelsdijk et al., 2017; Kirkman et al., 2017), we
ioral outcomes in vertical-collectivistic than in theorized and tested cultural influences on POS–
horizontal-individualistic cultures. Although our outcome relationships at the level of supra-national
analyses are bound by the available outcomes from cultural clusters of horizontal-individualistic and
prior research, one may wonder whether there are vertical-collectivistic cultures. Future research
some outcomes for which POS effects would be less should expand on these findings and examine the
positive in vertical-collectivistic cultures. The influence of vertical-collectivism and horizontal-
insight that POS reinforces the interdependent individualism at the individual level of analysis to
relationship between the self and the organization see if the effects are similar to what we found at the
more strongly in vertical-collectivistic cultures may supra-national level. Perhaps, country-level values
provide avenues to explore potential negative out- operate differently from individual-level values
comes of POS. Because POS reinforces interdepen- because the former exert a more normative influ-
dence with the organization in vertical- ence on employees’ responses whereas the latter
collectivistic cultures and thereby reduces the will- reveal more personal preferences (Leung & Morris,
ingness to disrupt the harmony within the organi- 2015). Leung and Morris’ (2015) ‘‘situated dynam-
zation, POS may be associated with change- ics framework’’ may offer fruitful avenues to
oriented behaviors more strongly in horizontal- expand cultural theorizing. Going beyond cultural
individualistic compared to vertical-collectivistic values, these authors highlight culturally-derived
cultures. More generally, social-identity theory schemas and norms as alternatives to values in
highlights self-stereotyping, the psychological pro- capturing the role of culture at the individual level.
cess through which the self comes to be perceived As Kirkman et al. (2017) note, what is compelling
as categorically interchangeable with other ingroup about the situated dynamics framework is that it
members (Turner, 1982), as one outcome of greater also delineates specific situational factors that may
social identification. Whereas an independent self strengthen the importance of values vis-à-vis
is linked to a willingness to confront others, an schemas or norms. Future research could test the
interdependent self is linked to a preference to joint effects of cultural values, schemas, and norms
maintain harmony and avoid confrontation with in cross-cultural, multilevel research designs.
interdependent others (Cross, Hardin, Gericke-
Swing, 2011). Change-oriented behaviors, such as Disentangle normative commitment as felt obligation
employee voice, often require employees to con- versus turnover intentions
front others in the organization (Van Dyne, Cum- The finding that POS is more strongly related to
mings, & McLean Parks, 1995) and may operate normative commitment in vertical-collectivist
differently across cultures than affiliative behaviors nations than in horizontal-individualistic nations
such as helping (Fischer et al., 2019). Thus, POS may also be surprising because scholars have the-
may foster organizational identification but, in the orized that recent conceptualizations of normative
process, suppress the expression of individual commitment are similar to social-exchange theo-
characteristics and thus paradoxically lead to rizing by stressing the obligation to help the
greater group-think (Haslam & Ellemers, 2005). organization achieve its objectives (Wayne et al.,
This could pose a problem for organizations in 2009). Although normative commitment and felt
vertical-collectivistic nations wishing to avail obligation are conceptually similar, a number of
themselves of the positive outcomes of POS on items typically used to assess normative commit-
employees’ favorable orientation toward the orga- ment involve turnover intentions, which may be
nization, yet at the same time promote creativity influenced by organizational identification. We
and innovation. We therefore encourage future therefore encourage cross-cultural examinations of
research to examine the relationships between POS the relationship between POS and normative
and change-oriented behaviors cross-culturally.

commitment using normative commitment items affective commitment, task performance, and OCB,
focused on perceived obligations to help the orga- and lower turnover intentions.
nization achieve its objectives. Therefore, our findings underscore the impor-
tance for global managers to adapt their approaches
Integrate cultural models of social exchange toward strengthening employees’ psychological
with different exchange partners attachment to the organization. Managers operat-
Finally, it is interesting to note that our findings ing in vertical-collectivistic cultures need to be
were quite different from those found by Rockstuhl aware that their actions take on a more magnified
et al. (2012) in their cross-cultural meta-analysis of role in determining psychological attachment of
LMX. LMX theory also relies on social-exchange employees to their organizations. Managers oper-
arguments (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden, Spar- ating in horizontal-individualistic cultures, on the
rowe, & Wayne, 1997) but they found that rela- other hand, may need to adjust their expectations
tionships of LMX with OCB, justice, job about the extent to which fairness of organiza-
satisfaction, turnover intentions, and leader trust tional practices, developmental opportunities,
are stronger in horizontal-individualistic than in and reduced role overload can strengthen the
vertical-collectivistic national cultures. The pre- psychological attachment of employees to the
dominance of stronger effects for LMX in horizon- organization. Although our findings suggest a
tal-individualistic countries and stronger effects for substantial positive impact of POS on many work
POS in vertical-collectivistic countries suggests the attitudes, the relationship of POS with standard
need for more nuanced models of the effect of work performance and OCB was much stronger in
various employee–organization relationships in vertical-collectivistic than horizontal-individual-
different cultural settings. Collectivism with istic nations.
assumptions of interdependence may encourage The finding that POS affects outcomes differen-
stronger relational ties with the organization as a tially in vertical-collectivistic and horizontal-indi-
whole, whereas individualism with development of vidualistic cultures also has implications for
particularistic relationships may encourage stron- managers operating in intercultural work contexts.
ger ties with the supervisor. Perhaps, the difference The increasing prevalence of diverse global work
in relationships suggests that, whereas both LMX experiences, such as global domestics, multicultural
and POS share a social-exchange element (which work teams, global virtual projects, or short-term
was also stronger for POS in horizontal-individual- international assignees and business travelers in
istic cultures), POS is also unique in that it incor- addition to more traditional expatriate assignments
porates an identification element that does not (Shaffer, Kraimer, Chen, & Bolino, 2012), means
factor into LMX. Future research needs to explore that managers increasingly have to deal with
further these cultural differences to understand employees who hold different cultural orientations.
more fully what underlies these varied results, For example, employees with vertical-collectivistic
including a determination of whether there are orientations may respond to organizational-sup-
unique antecedents and outcomes of POS and LMX port initiatives better when such initiatives signal
in these cultural contexts. in-group membership to employees. By contrast,
employees with horizontal-individualistic orienta-
Practical Implications tions may respond to organizational-support ini-
For managers operating in a global context, our tiatives better when such initiatives incorporate
findings have valuable implications when fostering discretionary benefits to employees that affirm
organizational support is of particular importance social exchanges between employees and the
to achieve positive organizational outcomes. Con- organization.
sistent with previous POS research, our results Understanding culturally-conditioned responses
suggest that perceptions of organizational support of employees to organizational support and adapt-
lead to many positive outcomes in horizontal- ing organizational-support initiatives to match the
individualistic cultures (Rhoades & Eisenberger, cultural preferences of diverse employees will
2002; Kurtessis et al., 2017). Perceptions of organi- require interculturally competent managers. Con-
zational support matter even more in vertical- sequently, the careful selection and nurturing of
collectivistic cultures for employees’ favorable ori- managers who can thrive in intercultural work
entation toward the organization, including greater environments is a pressing need for global organi-
zations (Caligiuri, 2013). Earley and Ang (2003)

suggested that effective global managers require democracy, capital availability, and market liquid-
cultural intelligence (CQ)—the capability to func- ity do not account for the observed cultural differ-
tion and manage effectively in culturally diverse ences in POS effects. Methodologically, we ruled
contexts. Using a theoretical deductive approach out differential publication bias as an alternative
based on the multiple-loci theory of intelligence explanation to our findings. Our application of
(Sternberg, 1986), the authors developed and val- trim-and-fill methods across cultural configurations
idated the four-factor model comprising metacog- offers a unique extension of publication bias
nitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral CQ. assessments to cross-cultural meta-analyses.
Recent meta-analytic evidence based on 199 sam- One limitation of our study is that we included a
ples (n = 44,155) demonstrates the predictive valid- smaller set of POS outcomes than prior meta-
ity of the four-factor model of CQ in explaining analyses (e.g., Kurtessis et al., 2017). This was due
psychological, cognitive, and performance out- to the relatively small number of cross-cultural,
comes in intercultural contexts (Rockstuhl & Van non-US, studies available for some outcomes. A
Dyne, 2018). Interestingly, their findings show that related limitation concerns our ability to estimate
cultural knowledge can have negative effects on POS effects in vertical-individualistic and horizon-
outcomes unless it is accompanied by metacogni- tal-collectivistic cultures. Thus, future research
tive and behavioral CQ. This suggests that merely should continue to examine other POS outcomes
informing managers about cultural differences in cross-culturally and broaden the cultures under
POS effects could be insufficient and should be consideration. Another limitation to our meta-
complemented by CQ training that also emphasizes analysis is an inability to examine construct equiv-
motivational, metacognitive, and behavioral capa- alence for POS and its attitudinal and behavioral
bilities (Raver & Van Dyne, 2017). Thus, for man- outcomes across the two cultural configurations.
agers operating in culturally diverse settings, Although inferences from cross-cultural compar-
organizations should emphasize the holistic devel- isons are stronger when construct equivalence can
opment of cultural intelligence. be demonstrated (van de Vijver & Leung, 1997), the
lack of information about item covariances in
Strengths and Limitations empirical studies renders common approaches to
A methodological strength of our study is our estimating construct equivalence in a meta-analysis
examination of the convergence of cultural differ- inapplicable (e.g., Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). As a
ences over time. Because cross-cultural meta-anal- consequence, change in construct meaning across
yses typically have to rely on secondary data to cultures is an alternative explanation for our find-
examine cultural influences on substantive rela- ings. Future research should ascertain whether our
tionships, the temporal stability of substantive findings can be replicated in carefully controlled
cultural differences is an important question to designs that ensure construct equivalence.
address (Kirkman et al., 2017; Taras et al., 2012). We also recognize that, because most empirical
We suggested procedures that allow meta-analysts studies rely on same-source research designs, we
to detect temporal changes across cultures. By cannot fully ascertain whether the stronger rela-
integrating cross-cultural and temporal meta-ana- tionships between POS and outcomes in vertical-
lytic procedures, our study offers a unique oppor- collectivistic cultures reflect the hypothesized sub-
tunity to examine the degree to which cultural stantive effects or perhaps a greater prevalence of
differences in POS effects have remained stable over common-method bias in these cultures compared
time. Hence, this meta-analysis provides a method- to horizontal-individualistic cultures. The fact that
ological improvement over previous meta-analyses we observed the same directionality of effects when
that have not considered temporal changes as an comparing same-source and different-source rat-
alternative explanation when comparing relation- ings of behavioral outcomes strengthens our con-
ships across cultures. fidence that the observed cultural differences do
A second strength of our meta-analysis is that we reflect substantive rather than merely methodolog-
assessed the robustness of our findings to alterna- ical effects. Nevertheless, we encourage future
tive theoretical and methodological explanations. research to examine cross-cultural differences in
Theoretically, we heeded calls to use a poly-con- POS effects using time-lagged or different-source
textual approach to study culture (Jackson & Deeg, research designs to minimize common-method bias
2019; Tsui et al., 2007) and showed that institu- (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012).
tional factors of regulatory control, political

Finally, although we provided some evidence CONCLUSION

that social-exchange processes and organizational We meta-analyzed relationships of POS with atti-
identification mediate POS effects on distal work tudinal and behavioral outcomes to resolve com-
outcomes, we are unable to test some of our more peting arguments and empirical findings on the
specific arguments due to the unavailability of role of culture in organizational support research.
relevant data in existing primary studies. For Results based on 827 independent samples
example, we are unable to examine empirically (n = 332,277) from 54 countries provide not only
whether, in vertical-collectivistic cultures, POS is the most comprehensive benchmark of cultural
less strongly associated with felt obligations effects on POS relationships to date, but also lay the
because of greater perceived role-based obligations conceptual foundations for a culturally-sensitive
or more strongly associated with organizational OST. Specifically, we show that (1) POS is positively
identification because of greater attentiveness to associated with attitudinal and behavioral out-
organizational support as a respect-related identity comes world-wide, (2) Western cultures of horizon-
cue. We believe that this presents an excellent tal-individualism accentuate social-exchange
opportunity for future research and encourage processes in response to POS, whereas Eastern
experimental research that would test these cultures of vertical-collectivism accentuate organi-
micro-mechanisms. Furthermore, even though the zational-identification processes, (3) that the over-
social-exchange and organizational-identification all effect of POS on attitudinal and behavioral
processes may also vary depending on firm charac- outcomes is stronger in Eastern than in Western
teristics unrelated to the broader cultural context, cultures, and (4) that cultural differences in POS
such as industry, size, or organizational culture, effects on attitudinal outcomes increase over time.
primary studies did not report consistent informa- Taken together, these findings highlight how
tion on these firm-level characteristics to allow the social-exchange and organizational-identification
direct examination of their influence on POS processes in response to POS might be accentuated
effects. Thus, future research should compare the or muted in different cultural settings. We hope our
relative strength of firm-level and cultural-level theoretical clarification of culture as a boundary
influences on the social-exchange and organiza- condition to POS effects and our results will provide
tional-identification mechanisms in response to a springboard for future cross-cultural organiza-
POS. tional-support research.
REFERENCES
Al-Hussami, M. 2009. Predictors of nurses’ commitment to social networks, and new venture growth. Academy of Man-
health care organisations. Australian Journal of Advanced agement Journal, 56(4): 1024–1049.
Nursing, 26(4): 36–48. Bergh, D. D., Aguinis, H., Heavey, C., Ketchen, D. J., Boyd, B. K.,
American Psychological Association. 2010. Publication manual of Su, P., Lau, C. L., & Joo, H. 2016. Using meta-analytic
the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, structural equation modeling to advance strategic manage-
DC: American Psychological Association. ment research: Guidelines and an empirical illustration via the
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. 2008. Identifi- strategic leadership-performance relationship. Strategic Man-
cation in organizations: An examination of four fundamental agement Journal, 37(3): 477–497.
questions. Journal of Management, 34(3): 325–374. Berry, H., Guillén, M. F., & Hendi, A. S. 2014. Is there
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social-identity theory and the convergence across countries? A spatial approach. Journal of
organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 20–39. International Business Studies, 45(4): 387–404.
Astill, R. G., Van der Heijden, K. B., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Van Beugelsdijk, S., Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2017. An overview of
Someren, E. J. W. 2012. Sleep, cognition, and behavioral Hofstede-inspired country-level culture research in interna-
problems in school-age children: A century of research meta- tional business since 2006. Journal of International Business
analyzed. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6): 1109–1138. Studies, 48(1): 30–47.
Bandelj, N. 2009. The global economy as instituted process: The Beugelsdijk, S., & Welzel, C. 2018. Dimensions and dynamics of
case of central and Eastern Europe. American Sociological national culture: Synthesizing Hofstede with Inglehart. Journal
Review, 74(1): 128–149. of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(10), 1469–1505.
Baran, B, Shanock, L.R., & Miller, L. 2012. Advancing organi- Bian, Y. 2018. The prevalence and the increasing significance of
zational-support theory into the twenty-first century world of guanxi. The China Quarterly, 235: 597–621.
work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(2): 123–147. Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y. 2007. Where (who) are collectives in
Barnett, C. 1996. The effects of creativity and perceived support on collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism
organizational commitment. Unpublished master’s thesis, Cal- and collectivism. Psychological Review, 114(1): 133–151.
ifornia State University. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. 1996. Who is this ‘‘we’’? Levels of
Batjargal, B., Hitt, M. A., Tsui, A. S., Arregle, J. L., Webb, J. W., & collective identity and self presentations. Journal of Personality
Miller, T. L. 2013. Institutional polycentrism, entrepreneurs’ and Social Psychology, 71(1): 83–93.

Cai, H., Zou, X., Feng, Y., Liu, Y., & Jing, Y. 2018. Increasing Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P.,
need for uniqueness in contemporary China: Empirical evi- Becker, T. E., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., & Steiger-Mueller, M.
dence. Frontiers in Psychology, 9: 554. 2010. Leader–member exchange and affective organizational
Caligiuri, P. 2013. Developing culturally agile global business commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational
leaders. Organizational Dynamics, 42(3): 175–182. embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6):
Cao, Z., Li, Y., Jayaram, J., Liu, Y., & Lumineau, F. 2018. A meta- 1085–1103.
analysis of the exchange hazards–interfirm governance rela- Eisenberger R., & Stinglhamber, F. 2011. Perceived organiza-
tionship: An informal institutions perspective. Journal of tional support: Fostering enthusiastic and productive employees.
International Business Studies, 49(3): 303–323. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cappelli, P., Singh, H., Singh, J., & Useem, M. 2010. The India Farh, J. L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. 2007. Individual-level
Way: Lessons for the U.S. Academy of Management Perspec- cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational
tives, 24(2): 6–24. support–employee outcome relationships in China: Compar-
Caprar, D. V., Devinney, T. M., Kirkman, B. L., & Caligiuri, ing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of
P. 2015. Conceptualizing and measuring culture in interna- Management Journal, 50(3): 715–729.
tional business and management: From challenges to poten- Fischer, R., Ferreira, M. C., Van Meurs, N., Gok, K., Jiang, D. Y.,
tial solutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(9): Fontaine, J. R., et al.. (2019). Does organizational formaliza-
1011–1027. tion facilitate voice and helping organizational citizenship
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. 2000. Assessing extreme and behaviors? It depends on (national) uncertainty norms. Journal
acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using of International Business Studies, 50(1): 125–134.
structural equations modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy- Fischer, R., & Mansell, A. 2009. Commitment across cultures: A
chology, 31(2): 187–212. meta-analytical approach. Journal of International Business
Chiaburu, D. S., Chakrabarty, S., Wang, J., & Li, N. 2015. Studies, 40(8): 1339–1358.
Organizational support and citizenship behaviors: A compar- Flynn, F. J. 2005. Identity orientations and forms of social
ative cross-cultural meta-analysis. Management International exchange in organizations. Academy of Management Review,
Review, 55(5): 707–736. 30(4): 737–750.
Chiaburu, D. S., Lorinkova, N. M., & Van Dyne, L. 2013. Fourcade-Gourinchas, M., & Babb, S. L. 2002. The rebirth of the
Employees’ social context and change-oriented citizenship: A liberal creed: Paths to neoliberalism in four countries. American
meta-analysis of leader, coworker, and organizational influ- Journal of Sociology, 108(3): 533–579.
ences. Group & Organization Management, 38(3): 291–333. Gelfand, M. J., Aycan, Z., Erez, M., & Leung, K. 2017. Cross-
Choi, D., Oh, I. S., & Colbert, A. E. 2015. Understanding cultural industrial organizational psychology and organiza-
organizational commitment: A meta-analytic examination of tional behavior: A hundred-year journey. Journal of Applied
the roles of the five-factor model of personality and culture. Psychology, 102(3), 514–529.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5): 1542–1567. Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary
Cooper, D., & Thatcher, S. M. 2010. Identification in organiza- statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2): 161–178.
tions: The role of self-concept orientations and identification Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based approach
motives. Academy of Management Review, 35(4): 516–538. to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social-exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-
theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2):
31(6): 874–900. 219–247.
Cross, S. E., Hardin, E. E., & Gercek-Swing, B. 2011. The what, Griffin, D., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C., Li, K., & Shao, L. 2017.
how, why, and where of self-construal. Personality and Social National culture: The missing country-level determinant of
Psychology Review, 15(2): 142–179. corporate governance. Journal of International Business Studies,
Cunningham, R. B., & Sarayrah, Y. K. 1993. Wasta: the hidden 48(6): 740–762.
force in Middle Eastern society. Westport, CN: Greenwood. Gwartney, J., Lawson, R., & Block, W. 1996. Economic freedom of
DeConinck, J. B. 2010. The effect of organizational justice, the world: 1975–1995. Vancouver: Fraser Institute.
perceived organizational support, and perceived supervisor Gyekye, S. A., & Haybatollahi, M. 2015. Perceived Organisa-
support on marketing employees’ level of trust. Journal of tional Support: A cross-national comparative study between
Business Research, 63(12): 1349–1355. Ghanaian and Finnish industrial workers. The Australasian
Dobbin, F., Simmons, B., & Garrett, G. 2007. The global Journal of Organisational Psychology, 8: e5.
diffusion of public policies: Social construction, coercion, Harzing, A.-W. 2006. Response styles in cross-national survey
competition, or learning? Annual Review of Sociology, 33: research: A 26-country study. International Journal of Cross-
449–472. Cultural Management, 6(2): 243–266.
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. 2000. A nonparametric ‘‘trim and fill’’ Haslam, S. A., & Ellemers, N. 2005. Social identity in industrial
method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. and organizational psychology: Concepts, controversies and
Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(449): 89-98. contributions. International Review of Industrial and Organiza-
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. 2003. Cultural intelligence: Individual tional Psychology, 20(1): 39–118.
interactions across cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Henisz, W. J. 2000. The institutional environment for economic
Press. growth. Economics and Politics, 12(1): 1–31.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Henisz, W. J., Zelner, B. A., & Guillén, M. F. 2005. The
Rhoades, L. 2001. Reciprocation of perceived organizational worldwide diffusion of market-oriented infrastructure reform,
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1): 42–51. 1977–1999. American Sociological Review, 70(6): 871–897.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. 1997. Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values,
Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd
and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5): ed.). London: Sage.
812–820. Holmes, R. M., Miller, T., Hitt, M. A., & Salmador, M. P. 2013.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. 1990. Perceived The interrelationships among informal institutions, formal
organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, institutions, and inward foreign direct investment. Journal of
and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1): 51-59. Management, 39(2): 531–566.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. 1986. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta,
Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychol- V. 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE
ogy, 71(3): 500–507. study of 62 societies. Palo Alto, CA: Sage.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. 2004. Methods of meta-analysis: Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. 2010. Cultures and selves: A cycle
Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 5(4): 420–430.
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. 2006. Implications of direct Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. 1993. Organizational behavior:
and indirect range restriction for meta-analysis methods and Linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts.
findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3): 594–612. Annual Review of Psychology, 44: 195–229.
Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. 2000. Modernization, cultural Oh, I. S., Guay, R. P., Kim, K., Harold, C. M., Lee, J. H., Heo, C.
change, and the persistence of traditional values. American G., & Shin, K. H. 2014. Fit happens globally: A meta-analytic
Sociological Review, 65(1): 19–51. comparison of the relationships of person-environment fit
Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. 2019. Comparing capitalisms and taking dimensions with work attitudes and performance across East
institutional context seriously. Journal of International Business Asia, Europe, and North America. Personnel Psychology, 67(1):
Studies, 50(1): 4–19. 99–152.
Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y. I., & Shavitt, S. 2005. The Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. 2002.
relation between culture and response styles: Evidence from Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of the-
19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(2): oretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin,
264–277. 128(1): 3–72.
Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., McDaniel, M., & Whetzel, D. L. 2012. Peterson, M. F., & Barreto, T. S. (2018). Interpreting societal
Publication bias in the organizational sciences. Organizational culture value dimensions. Journal of International Business
Research Methods, 15(4): 624–662. Studies, 49(9): 1190–1207.
Kepes, S., McDaniel, M. A., Brannick, M. T., & Banks, G. C. Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKen-
2013. Meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences: zie, S. B. 2006. Relationships between leader reward and
Two meta-analytic schools on the way to MARS (the meta- punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions
analytic reporting standards). Journal of Business and Psychol- and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new
ogy, 28(2): 123–143. research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. 2017. A retrospec- cesses, 99(2): 113–114.
tive on culture’s consequences: The 35-year journey. Journal of Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2012.
International Business Studies, 48(1): 12–29. Sources of method bias in social science research and
Kitayama, S., Duffy, S., & Uchida, Y. 2007. Self as cultural mode recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of
of being. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology, 63: 539–569.
cultural psychology: 136–173. New York: Guilford. Rahaman, H. M. S. 2012. Organizational commitment, per-
Konstantopoulos, S. 2011. Fixed effects and variance compo- ceived organizational support, and job satisfaction among
nents estimation in three-level meta-analysis. Research Synthe- school teachers: Comparing public and private sectors in
sis Methods, 2(1): 61–76. Bangladesh. South Asian Journal of Management, 19(1): 7–17.
Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Raver, J. L., & Van Dyne, L. 2017. Developing cultural intelli-
Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. 2017. Perceived organizational gence. In K. G. Brown (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational-support workplace training and employee development: 407–440. New
theory. Journal of Management, 43(6): 1854–1884. York: Cambridge University Press.
Lam, L. W., Liu, Y., & Loi, R. 2016. Looking intra-organizationally Redding, G. 2005. The thick description and comparison of
for identity cues: Whether perceived organizational support societal systems of capitalism. Journal of International Business
shapes employees’ organizational identification. Human Rela- Studies, 36(2): 123–155.
tions, 69(2): 345–367. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. 2002. Perceived organizational
Lam, S. S., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S., 2002. Relationship support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychol-
between organizational justice and employee work outcomes: ogy, 87(4): 698–714.
A cross-national study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Richardson, C., Yaapar, M. S., & Amir, S. 2016. Budi and Malay
23(1): 1–18. workplace ethics. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 10(1): 78–92.
Lee, C., Pillutla, M., & Law, K. S. 2000. Power-distance, gender Riggle, R. J., Edmondson, D. R., & Hanson, J. D. 2009. A meta-
and organizational justice. Journal of Management, 26(4): analysis of the relationship between perceived organizational
685–704. support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of
Leung, K., & Morris, M. W. 2015. Values, schemas, and norms in Business Research, 62(10): 1027–1030.
the culture-behavior nexus: A situated dynamics framework. Rockstuhl, T., Duhlebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. 2012.
Journal of International Business Studies, 46(9): 1028–1050. Leader-member exchange (LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis
Levinson, H. 1965. Reciprocation: The relationship between of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of Applied
man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9(4): Psychology, 97(6): 1097–1130.
370–390. Rockstuhl, T., & Van Dyne, L. 2018. A bi-factor theory of the
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. 1997. Leader– four-factor model of cultural intelligence: Meta-analysis and
member exchange theory: The past and potential for future. theoretical extensions. Organizational Behavior and Human
In G. R. Ferris. Ed. Research in personnel and human resources Decision Processes, 148(September): 124–144.
management: Vol. 15, 47–119. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Rostow, W. W. 1960. The stages of economic growth: A non-
Little, T. 2000. On the comparability of constructs in cross- communist manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
cultural research: A critique of Cheung and Rensvold. Journal Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. 2005. Publica-
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(2): 213–219. tion bias in meta-analysis. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M.
Luo, Y., Zhang, H., & Bu, J. (2019). Developed country MNEs Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention,
investing in developing economies: Progress and prospect. assessment, and adjustments: 1–7. Chichester: Wiley.
Journal of International Business Studies, 50(4): 633–667. Rousseau, D. M., & McLean Parks, J. 1993. The contracts of
Lytle, A. L., Brett, J. M., Barsness, Z. J., Tinsley, C. H., & Janssens, individuals and organizations. Research in Organizational
M. 1995. A paradigm for confirmatory cross-cultural research Behavior, 15: 1–43.
in organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behav- Shaffer, M. A., Kraimer, M. L., Chen, Y. P., & Bolino, M. C. 2012.
ior, 17: 167–214. Choices, challenges, and career consequences of global work
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. 1991. Culture and the self: experiences: A review and future agenda. Journal of Manage-
Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psycho- ment, 38(4): 1282–1327.
logical Review, 98(2): 224–253.

Shao, R., Rupp, D. E., Skarlicki, D. P., & Jones, K. S. 2013. Van Knippenberg, D., van Prooijen, J. W., & Sleebos, E. 2015.
Employee justice across cultures: A meta-analytic review. Beyond social exchange: Collectivism’s moderating role in the
Journal of Management, 39(1): 263–301. relationship between perceived organizational support and
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K. 2006. organizational citizenship behaviour. European Journal of Work
Social and economic exchange: Construct development and and Organizational Psychology, 24(1): 152–160.
validation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4): Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. 2000. A review and synthesis of
837–867. the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices,
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. and recommendations for organizational research. Organiza-
1995. Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and tional Research Methods, 3(1): 4–70.
collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Viechtbauer, W. 2010. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the
Cross-Cultural Research, 29(3): 240–275. metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48.
Sternberg, R. J. 1986. A framework for understanding concep- Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., Schmidt, F. L., Le, H., & Oh, I. S.,
tions of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & D. K. Detterman 2014. Measurement error obfuscates scientific knowledge:
(Eds.), What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on its Path to cumulative knowledge requires corrections for unre-
nature and definition: 3–15. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. liability and psychometric meta-analyses. Industrial and Orga-
Susskind, A. M., Borchgrevink, C. P., Kacmar, K. M., & Brymer, nizational Psychology, 7(4): 507–518.
R. A. 2000. Customer service employees’ behavioral intentions Wang, M-L. 2009. What makes a good citizen in service
and attitudes: An examination of construct validity and a path settings? The Service Industries Journal, 29(5): 621–634.
model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 19(1): Wayne, S. J., Jacqueline Coyle-Shapiro, A-M., Eisenberger, R.,
53–77. Liden, R.C., Rousseau, D.M., & Shore, L. M. (2009). Social
Tajfel, H. 1978. Differentiation between social groups. London: Influences. In H. J. Klein, T. E. Becker, & J. P. Meyer (Eds.).
Academic. Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. 2010. Examining the impact directions: 253–284. New York: Routledge.
of culture’s consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta- Weber, K., Davis, G. F., & Lounsbury, M. 2009. Policy as myth
analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal and ceremony? The global spread of stock exchanges,
of Applied Psychology, 95(3): 405–439. 1980–2005. Academy of Management Journal, 52(6):
Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. 2012. Improving national 1319–1347.
cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofst- Wilson, C. 2011. Understanding global demographic conver-
ede’s dimensions. Journal of World Business, 47(3): 329–341. gence since 1950. Population and Development Review, 37(2):
Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. 2016. Does country equate 375–388.
with culture? Beyond geography in the search for cultural
boundaries. Management International Review, 56(4):
455–487.
Tekleab, A. G., & Chiaburu, D. S. 2011. Social exchange:
Empirical examination of form and focus. Journal of Business ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Research, 64(5): 460–466. Thomas Rockstuhl is Associate Professor in man-
Triandis, H. C. 1995. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: agement at the Nanyang Business School. His
Westview.
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. 1998. Converging measure- research focuses on generalizability of theories
ment of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. across cultural contexts, and on the conceptual-
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1): 118–128. ization and nomological network of intercultural
Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. 1990. Multimethod
probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality capabilities. His research has appeared in such
and Social Psychology, 59(5): 1006–1020. journals as the Journal of Applied Psychology, Orga-
Tsui, A. S. 2012. Contextualizing research in a modernizing nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
China. In X. Huang & M. H. Bond (Eds.), Handbook of Chinese
organizational behavior: Integrating theory, research and prac- and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
tice: 29–47. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. 2007. Cross-national, Robert Eisenberger is a Professor in the Psychology
cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances,
gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33(3): Department at the University of Houston. His
426–478. major research interests involve perceived organi-
Tung, R. L., & Stahl, G. K. 2018. The tortuous evolution of the zational support, moral emotions, unethical
role of culture in IB research: What we know, what we don’t
know, and where we are headed. Journal of International behavior in organizations, and creativity. His
Business Studies, 49(9): 1167–1189. research has appeared in such journals as the Jour-
Tung, R. L., & Verbeke, A. 2010. Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: nal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Personality and
Improving the quality of cross-cultural research. Journal of
International Business Studies, 41(8): 1259–1274. Social Psychology, Psychological Bulletin, and Psycho-
Turner, J. C. 1982. Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social logical Review.
group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations:
15–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, T. R. 1999. Why people cooperate with organizations: An Lynn M. Shore researches employment relation-
identity-based perspective. Research in Organizational Behav- ship and work force diversity and inclusion. In the
ior, 21: 201–246. area of employment relationships, she has resear-
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. 1997. Methods and data
analysis for cross-cultural research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. ched such topics as perceived organizational sup-
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. 1995. Extra- port, psychological contracts, leader–member
role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a exchange, and international aspects of employ-
bridge over muddled waters). Research in Organizational
Behavior, 17: 215–285. ment relationships. Her work on diversity has

examined the impact that composition of the work relationship from the perspective of the employee
group and employee/supervisor dyads has on the and the interface between work, family, and well-
attitudes and performance of groups and individu- being.
als. Her research on inclusion focuses on making
work places more inclusive by creating inclusive Louis Buffardi is Associate Professor Emeritus at
climates, and helping leaders become more GMU where he developed both MA and PhD pro-
inclusive. grams in IO Psychology. He currently serves as the
IO MA program coordinator. He has long-standing
James N. Kurtessis is Personnel Research Psychol- interests in work & family issues and individual
ogist with the Department of Homeland Security differences. His papers have appeared in journals
where his work focuses on employee selection and such as JAP, JOM, JOB, JVB, JOHP, and Science.
promotion testing. Previously, he was involved in
developing certification exams for the Society for Salar Mesdaghinia (PhD, MBA) is an Associate
Human Resource Management. He has presented Professor of Management at Eastern Michigan
his research at conferences and has published in University. His research interests include organiza-
journals such as Journal of Management and Organi- tional ethics, leadership, and employee-organiza-
zational Research Methods. tion relationship. Salar has been consulting
organizations on management and organizational
Michael T. Ford is an associate professor of man- productivity. He has also worked as a software
agement at the University of Alabama. His research engineer. He is a member of the Academy of
interests focus on the employee–organization Management.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
Supplementary information accompanies this article on the Journal of International Business Studies website (www.palgrave.com/journals).
Accepted by Wayne Cascio, Area Editor, 30 September 2019. This article has been with the authors for three revisions.

Rockstuhl Et Al. (2020)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rockstuhl Et Al. (2020)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of International Business Studies (2020)

ª 2020 Academy of International Business All rights reserved 0047-2506/20

Perceived organizational support (POS)

Thomas Rockstuhl1, Correspondence:

Electronic supplementary mate-

INTRODUCTION Second, Lam, Liu, & Loi (2016) drew on social-

Journal of International Business Studies

PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND The literature on organizational identification is

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

obligations in relationships with organizations p. 227). Thus, a collective or organizational identity

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Germany 4 China 61 Psychometric meta-analyses

Journal of International Business Studies

Hypotheses tests Sensitivity Analysis, Publication Bias Check,

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

The contour-enhanced funnel-plots are also publication bias. In vertical-collectivistic cultures,

Journal of International Business Studies

Attitudinal outcomes Behavioral outcomes

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Organizational citizenship behavior .08 (.01) .000 .08 (.01) .000

kr/ks/kc 986/609/53 986/609/53 343/281/33 343/281/33

Lower Upper Lower Upper

Journal of International Business Studies

institutional contexts as an alternative explanation mechanisms apply across cultures. We therefore

POS correlate n k r q SDq 80% CV 95% CI Z p

Lower Upper Lower Upper

Journal of International Business Studies

Attitudinal outcomes Behavioral outcomes

Intercept 1.00 (.08) .000 .22 (.09) .009

Journal of International Business Studies

Cross-Cultural Convergence POS Effects vertical-collectivistic cultures, this relationship has

Lower Upper Lower Upper

Journal of International Business Studies

Lower Upper Lower Upper

Task performance (same source)

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Universality of social-identity theory? The potency Organizational support: social-exchange or social-

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Finally, although we provided some evidence CONCLUSION

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

Journal of International Business Studies

You might also like