With data from 33 nations, we illustrate the differences between cultures that are tight (have many strong norms and a low tolerance of deviant behavior) versus loose (have weak social norms and a high tolerance of deviant behavior). Tightness-looseness is part of a complex, loosely integrated multilevel system that comprises distal ecological and historical threats (e.g., high population density, resource scarcity, a history of territorial conflict, and disease and environmental threats), broad versus narrow socialization in societal institutions (e.g., autocracy, media regulations), the strength of everyday recurring situations, and micro-level psychological affordances (e.g., prevention self-guides, high regulatory strength, need for structure). This research advances knowledge that can foster cross-cultural understanding in a world of increasing global interdependence and has implications for modeling cultural change.

This article reviews research on cross-cultural organizational behavior (OB). After a brief review of the history of cross-cultural OB, we review research on work motivation, or the factors that energize, direct, and sustain effort across cultures. We next consider the relationship between the individual and the organization, and review research on culture and organizational commitment, psychological contracts, justice, citizenship behavior, and person-environment fit. Thereafter, we consider how individuals manage their interdependence in organizations, and review research on culture and negotiation and disputing, teams, and leadership, followed by research on managing across borders and expatriation. The review shows that developmentally, cross-cultural research in OB is coming of age. Yet we also highlight critical challenges for future research, including moving beyond values to explain cultural differences, attending to levels of analysis issues, incorporating social and organizational context factors into cross-cultural research, taking indigenous perspectives seriously, and moving beyond intracultural comparisons to understand the dynamics of cross-cultural interfaces.

Le ModeÁ le de Culture Fit explique la manieÁ re dont l'environnement socioculturel influence la culture interne au travail et les pratiques de la direction des ressources humaines. Ce modeÁ le a e te teste sur 2003 salarie s d'entreprises prive es dans 10 pays. Les participants ont rempli un questionnaire de 57 items, destine aÁ mesurer les perceptions de la direction sur 4 dimensions socioculturelles, 6 dimensions de culture interne au travail, et les pratiques HRM (Management des Ressources Humaines) dans 3 zones territoiriales. Une analyse ponde re e par re gressions multiples, au niveau individuel, a montre que les directeurs qui caracte risaient leurs environnement socio-culturel de facË on fataliste, supposaient aussi que les employe s n'e taient pas malle ables par nature. Ces directeurs ne pratiquaient pas l'enrichissement des postes et donnaient tout pouvoir au controà le et aÁ la re mune ration en fonction des performances. Les directeurs qui appre ciaient une grande loyaute des employe s supposaient qu'ils remplissent entre eux des obligations re ciproques et s'engagaient dans la voie donnant pouvoir aux pratiques HRM. Les directeurs qui percevaient le paternalisme et une forte distance de l'autorite dans leur environnement socio-culturel, supposaient une re activite des employe s, et en outre ne pourvoyaient pas aÁ l'enrichissement des postes et aÁ la de le gation. Des modeÁ les spe cifiques aÁ la culture qui mettent en relation ces 3 groupes de variables ainsi que les applications de ces recherches pour la psychologie industrielles trans-culturellesont e te de battus.The Model of Culture Fit explains the way in which socio-cultural environment influences internal work culture and human resource management practices. This model was tested using 1,954 employees from business organisations in 10 countries. Participants completed a 57-item questionnaire which measured managerial perceptions of four socio-cultural dimensions, six internal work culture dimensions and HRM practices in three areas. Moderated multiple regressions at the individual level analysis revealed that managers who characterised their socio-cultural environment as fatalistic also assumed that employees, by nature, were not malleable. These managers did not administer job enrichment, empowering supervision, and performance± reward contingency. Managers who valued high loyalty assumed that employees should fulfil obligations to one another, and engaged in empowering HR practices. Managers who perceived paternalism and high power distance in their socio-cultural environment assumed employee reactivity, and furthermore, did not provide job enrichment and empowerment. Culturespecific patterns of relationships among the three sets of variables, as well as implications of this research for cross-cultural industrial/organisational psychology, are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

The overarching purpose of the study was to investigate the role of three types of social support (i.e., spousal, childcare, and organizational support) in relation to work-family conflict (WFC) in dual-earner families with children ages 0-6 years. The relationship of WFC to psychological well-being and well-being in the domain of family was explored. Finally, the relationship of spousal support to psychological well-being and marital satisfaction was examined. A total of 434 participants (237 mothers, 197 fathers) in dual-earner families in Turkey with at least one preschool child participated in the study. The relative impact of childcare, spousal support, and organizational support on WFC and outcome variables was tested simultaneously for both men and women through structural equation modeling. Spousal support was related to WFC for women, whereas both spousal and organizational support were related to WFC for men. WFC had a negative relationship with psychological well-being, marital satisfaction, and parental role performance for both men and women. Implications of the results in relation to changing gender roles in a cultural context that is characterized by high collectivism and low gender egalitarianism are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract