Posted: October 20th, 2022

Home Depot Assignment

Identify a large corporation.We chose Home Depot.

Review the information listed on the company’s website, or interview someone from the respective company to answer and discuss the following information.

Write 250-words on the following:

How does this organization effectively raise awareness regarding stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination

Include a minimum of three credible, peer-reviewed articles to support your recommendations.
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.

As always, please include the resources that you use with intext citations and full reference for the resource page.

Chapter 6
Culture influences the behaviors associated with being male or female, and events around the world have brought international attention to gender issues. From the role of women in Muslim culture to global concern over female circumcision in Africa and Asiagender roles, ideals, and expectations are heated topics widely discussed around the world. An example of a controversial cultural practice that is rooted in perceptions of gender and gender roles is female circumcision. It has been described as part of a female initiation ceremony and an important rite of passage marking the transition from childhood to adulthood (Lightfoot-Klein, 1989). Behind this practice lie many strongly held beliefs about women and the role of women. Those who defend the practice argue that it is a requirement for marriage and emphasize the importance of upholding tradition; those who condemn it emphasize the pain, suffering, and health risks involved. To understand this controversy, we need to first examine how this practice came to be in the cultures in which they originated, and examine how our own cultural filters shape the way we view issues related to gender. If you find this practice abhorrent, why How did you come to develop those beliefs
The parallels between the impact of gender and culture on psychology are interesting. Beginning 40 or 50 years ago, what is commonly known as the womens movement in the United States led American academic communities to evaluate the treatment and presentation of women in textbooks and research. They found that most research was conducted using men as subjects, and most information presented about people in academic textbooks and university courses was based on information gathered from men. This gender bias also affected what scholars considered important to study, the relative status of different studies and topics, and the probability and outlet for publication. Psychologists became increasingly aware of the possibility that men and women may differ psychologically, calling into question previous research findings and the theories based on them. Scholars, researchers, teachers, and students alike began to question whether knowledge based primarily on men was accurate for people in general.
One consequence of this growing awareness among researchers and scholars was a conscious effort to include women as research participants, to ensure that research findings would be applicable to women as well as men. At the same time, an increasing number of women became researchers and scholars, bringing different perspectives to the field, its theories, and its findings. Today, psychology enjoys more balanced contributions by both men and women, and this combination of different perspectives and concerns makes for a dynamism that is rich, interesting, and important for the field.
As a result, we have come a long way toward improving our knowledge about both men and women in the social sciences. Although questioning the imbalance of research on men and women was difficult, many behavioral and social scientists have responded well to this inequity in our knowledge and practice. Today, studies of gender differences are commonplace in social science research and textbooks routinely incorporate sex and gender differences when imparting knowledge about people.
We are witnessing the same type of questioning with regard to culture. Just as knowledge about women and womens concerns was missing from research and scholarship 30 years ago, so too was knowledge about cultural similarities and differences and cultural diversity. Much of this gap still exists today. Many of the same questions are still being raised concerning whether what we are learning in classes and in our laboratories is indeed true for people of all cultures and ethnicities. The answer so far has been not necessarily. To address this gap, many researchers have made a conscious effort to study behaviors across cultures to learn what is similar across cultures and what is different. Academic institutions have also made a conscious effort to recruit and train people of diverse cultural backgrounds so that they too can contribute to the research, teaching, and scholarship in psychology.
These changes are evidence of a continuing evolution in the field similar to what has happened in relation to gender. As the United States and the entire world become increasingly diverse, the need for mainstream psychology to incorporate, explain, and describe that diversity increases. The field has become aware of this need only in the past decade or two (although cross-cultural research has a much longer history). Theories, research, and teaching are becoming more culturally sensitive and this increasing awareness is bound to bring with it another evolution in the face and content of psychology. For this reason, it is an exciting time in both mainstream and cultural psychology as the gap between them narrows.
In this chapter, we will examine how culture influences behavior related to sex and gender. First, we will discuss some terminology and definitions concerning sex and gender that will help us understand what we are talking about and how to focus on cultural influences. Then we will discuss cross-cultural research on gender differences on a broad range of psychological processes. Then we will discuss gender stereotypes, gender roles and self-concepts, all of which suggest the existence of a universality in stereotypes related to gender and gender roles around the world. We will next discuss some theoretical notions of how psychologists believe gender differences come to exist, and why cultures seem to differ in these differences. We will also discuss how changing cultures and clashes between cultures bring differences in gender roles to the forefront in the daily lives of many people today. Throughout this discussion, we will see that the issues surrounding gender and gender differences, both pancultural and culture-specific, are complex as well as interesting.
SEX AND GENDER
Sex generally refers to the physical characteristics and differences between men and women, and the term sex roles is used to describe the behaviors that men and women may engage in that are directly related to their biological differences and the process of reproduction. An example of a sex role for females is breastfeeding, a behavior that only women can engage in (Brislin, 1993). The term sexual identity is used to describe the degree of awareness and recognition of sex and sex roles an individual may have. Male sexual identity typically includes his awareness that he has the potential to impregnate women and knows the necessary behaviors. Female sexual identity includes the womans awareness of her reproductive potential and her knowledge about behaviors that lead to pregnancy (p. 287).
In contrast, gender refers to the behaviors that a culture deems appropriate for men and women. These behaviors may or may not be related to sex and sex roles, although they often are. Gender role refers to the degree to which a person adopts the gender-specific behaviors ascribed by his or her culture. For example, traditional gender roles suggest that males are aggressive and unemotional (with the exception of anger) and that the male should leave the home every day to make a living and be the principal wage earner. Traditional gender roles for females suggest that women are nurturant, caring, and emotional and that they should stay at home and take care of the children. Gender identity refers to the degree to which a person has awareness or recognition that he or she adopts a particular gender role. And gender stereotypes refer to the psychological or behavioral characteristics typically associated with men and women.
Not everyone can be pigeonholed into stereotypes according to sex or gender roles, as there are considerable individual differences across people with regard to these roles. In addition, gender role stereotypes interact with other forms of group membership. Separating the biological facts of sex from the behavioral aspects of gender is the first step in understanding differences between males and females. Indeed, it should become clear from this differentiation that we are mostly concerned with gender differences, not sex differences. Culture is likely to influence our perception of gender differences.
GENDER DIFFERENCES ACROSS CULTURES
Research on sex and gender differences within the U.S. has demonstrated how men and women are different, or not, on a variety of psychological and behavioral outcomes. But do the same differences occur in other cultures. And if so, to what degree In this section, we describe major findings in the field that document how the nature and size of sex differences themselves differ across cultures.
Hofstedes Study
In Chapter 1, we discuss research by Hofstede who studied work-related attitudes across 50 countries. As you might remember, Hofstede (1980) conducted a large-scale survey of work-related values in a major multinational corporation. Based on the data obtained, he generated four dimensions of differentiation among the cultures in his sample. One of these dimensions was called Masculinity v. Femininity. This dimension refers to the degree to which a culture will foster, encourage, or maintain differences between males and females. In Hofstedes research, Japan, Austria, Venezuela, and Italy had the highest Masculinity vs. Femininity scores, while Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden had the lowest scores.
Hofstede (2001) identified key differences between masculine and feminine cultures in terms of sexuality (Table 6.1). For instance, cultures high on masculinity tended to have moralistic attitudes about sex, had double standards about sex (i.e., women should be virgins at marriage but not men), and had norms encouraging passive roles of women. Cultures low on masculinity tend to have matter-of-fact attitudes about sex, a single standard concerning sex for men and women, and norms that encouraged an active role for women in society.
Table 6.1 Key Differences Between Low and High Masculine Societies Concerning Sexuality and Religion
Low Masculinity High Masculinity
In Sexual Behavior
Matter-of-fact attitudes about sex. Moralistic attitudes about sex.
AIDS prevention campaigns very outspoken. AIDS prevention campaigns restricted by taboos.
Single standard for women and men. Double standard: Women should be chaste at marriage yet men neednt.
Norm of active role of woman. Norm of passive role of woman.
Sexual attraction unrelated to career success. Men become more attractive by career success, women less.
In uncertainty-accepting cultures, few teenage pregnancies. In uncertainty-accepting cultures, frequent teenage pregnancies.
Young people more influenced by parents. Young people more influenced by peers.
Other-oriented sex. Ego-oriented sex.
Women enjoy first sex. Women feel exploited by first sex.
Unwanted intimacies not major issue. Sexual harassment major issue.
Homosexuality is a fact of life. Homosexuality is a taboo and a threat.
Weak distinction between sex and love. Sharp distinction between sex and love.
Sex and violence in media taboo. Sex and violence in media frequent.
Lovers should be educated, social. Lovers should be successful, attractive.
Happy lovers overbenefit from the other. Happy lovers get equitable mutual deal.
Interaction with other sex more intimate. Interaction with other sex less intimate.
Sex is a way of relating to someone. Sex is a way of performing.
In Religion
Tender religions and religious currents. Tough religions and religious currents.
Secularization in Christian countries. Maintenance of traditional Christianity.
Religion not so important in life. Religion most important in life.
Religion focuses on fellow human beings. Religion focuses on God or gods.
Children socialized toward responsibility and politeness. Children socialized toward religious faith.
Exemplarism and mysticism. Traditionalism, theism, and conversionism.
Dominant religions stress complementarity of the sexes. Dominant religions stress male prerogative.
Men and women can be priests. Only men can be priests.
Sex is for procreation and recreation. Sex is primarily for procreation.
Positive or neutral attitude toward sexual pleasure. Negative attitude toward sexual pleasure.
Sexuality as one area of human motivation. Sexuality as primordial area of human motivation.
Source: From Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.) by G. H. Hofstede, 2001. p. 330. Copyright 2001 by Geert Hofstede. Reprinted with permission by Geert Hofstede B. V.
Masculine and feminine cultures also differed in their attitudes about religion. Masculine cultures tend to be more traditional, focusing on religion, and focused on god or gods. Feminine cultures tend to be less traditional, emphasize the importance of religion in life less, and focus on fellow humans.
Hofstedes study was important because his findings highlighted that cultures will arrive at different ways of dealing with differences between men and women. The behaviors men and women engage in produce different psychological outcomes that have direct ramifications for actual life behaviors. Cultures vary in how they act on these gender differences, with some cultures fostering and encouraging great differences between the genders and other cultures minimizing those differences. At the same time, close inspection of the contents of Table 6.1 and Hofstedes (1980) original data suggest that Masculinity in this dimension may also be interpreted as Materialism.
Cognitive Differences
It is common folklore that males are better at mathematical and spatial reasoning tasks, whereas females are better at verbal comprehension tasks. An analysis of the scores for males and females on standardized tests in elementary school, college entrance examinations, or graduate school entrance examinations shows some degree of support for these notions, although the difference between males and females seems to have narrowed in recent years. Years ago, Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) concluded in their review of the literature that males tend to do better on spatial tasks and other tasks having a spatial component.
But early on, Berry (1966) pointed out that such differences do not appear to exist among males and females of the Inuit culture in Canada. Berry suggested that the gender difference did not exist because spatial abilities are highly adaptive for both males and females in Inuit society, and both boys and girls have ample training and experience that promote the acquisition of spatial ability (Berry et al., 1992, p. 65). Following up on the possibility of cultural differences on this gender difference, Berry (1976) and his colleagues conducted a study in which a block design task was given to males and females in 17 different cultures. A stimulus card depicting a geometric representation of a set of blocks was presented and the task was to manipulate an actual set of blocks to emulate the design provided. In a number of cultures, males indeed did better than females on the task; however, in other cultures, females did better than males. Berry et al. (1992) suggested that male superiority on the task tended to be found in cultures that were tight (that is, relatively homogeneous), sedentary, and agriculturally based but that female superiority was found in cultures that were loose, nomadic, and based on hunting and gathering. In these latter cultures, the roles ascribed to males and females are relatively flexible, with more members performing a variety of tasks related to the survival of the group.
Thus, some cultures foster male superiority in these types of tasks, but others foster female superiority, and still others foster no differences. Although some suggestions have been made as to the nature and causes of these various gender differences, research has yet to pinpoint exactly what factors influence which types of differences, and why.
Conformity and Obedience
One common stereotype is that females are more conforming and obedient than males. Is this true across cultures In actuality, the degree to which this difference occurs varies from culture to culture. In Berrys (1976) study, the researchers obtained an index of the degree to which each person conformed in the 17 cultures included in the sample. Across the 17 cultures, clear variations emerged; as with gender differences in spatial reasoning, these variations appeared to be related to the cultural concept of tightness. Cultures that were tighter appeared to foster a greater gender difference on conformity, with females more conformist than males. Tight cultures may require a greater degree of conformity to traditional gender roles on the part of both males and females. In contrast, cultures that were looser fostered less gender difference on conformity, and in some of these cultures, males were found to be more conforming than females. Thus cross-cultural differences exist in the degree and in some cases the direction of this difference.
Aggressiveness
Another common gender stereotype is that males are more aggressive than females. Indeed, there is support for this stereotype in all cultures for which documentation exists (Block, 1983; Brislin,1993). Males account for a disproportionate amount of violent crime in both industrialized and non-industrialized societies. The focus in research on this topic has been adolescent males. Several researchers have searched for the biological correlates of aggression. In particular, some researchers have questioned whether increased levels of the hormone testosterone during male adolescence may account for or contribute to increased aggression in males. Increased testosterone levels have been associated with dominance hierarchies in some non-human primates, but the human analog is less clear. On the basis of the evidence available, it appears that hormones may contribute to some degree to aggressiveness, but culture and the environment can certainly act to encourage or discourage its emergence (Berry et al., 1992).
In fact, a recent study examining physical aggression between partners shed some light on this topic. In this study (Archer, 2006), male and female aggression toward their partners were examined in 52 countries. Both males and females committed acts of aggression toward their partners in developed, Westernized nations; but this did not generalize to all nations. The magnitude of the sex difference in physical aggression was related to levels of gender empowerment and individualism in each of the countries; cultures that were more individualistic and that empowered women more had less female victimization and more male victimization. Archer argued that these findings are best explained by social role theory (Eagley, 1987), which states that sex differences in social behavior result from the division of labor between men and women with regard to homemaker or worker outside the home. These roles, it is argued, produce expectancies that lead to different patterns of behavior in men and women, and these expectancies are transmitted across generations; that is, they are a part of culture. Expectancies associated with the male role include the use of direct aggression to resolve problems; expectancies associated with female roles include communal responses to resolve problems.
Studies of sex differences in development across cultures support these ideas. Barry, Josephson, Lauer, and Marshall (1976), for instance, examined the degree to which cultures foster aggressive tendencies in the socialization of children. They found a sex-related difference in the average amount of teaching about aggressiveness across 150 different cultures. Inspection of their data, however, reveals that this average difference was produced by a disproportionate number of high-scoring cultures in which teaching aggression actually occurs. In fact, a large majority of societies did not show a sex-related difference in teaching aggression.
Some cultures are known for their aggressive tendencies. Among these is the Yanomami culture of Venezuela and Brazil (for example, Sponsel, 1998), often referred to in anthropological circles as the fierce people. Yet even with regard to these supposedly aggressive groups, more recent research and discussion have begun to call into question the potential bias in anthropological and comparative methods that may see only part of the culture (Sponsel, 1998).
Another recent study (Glick et al., 2004) also shed interesting light on this topic. In this study, 8,360 participants from 16 cultures responded to a questionnaire that assessed hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men. When people harbor both types of attitudes toward men at high degrees, they were labeled ambivalent. Ambivalent attitudes toward men were related with the degree of gender inequality in a country; that is, the more people in a country saw men as both hostile and benevolent, the greater the degree of gender inequality in the country. These findings suggested that gender inequality in a country may start with how the people view the role of men. (Women were rated more positively than men in all cultures.)
Neither biology nor sex differences in teaching aggressive acts can account for gender differences in aggression observed across cultures. Some researchers (Berry et al., 1992; Segall, Dasen, Berry, & Poortinga, 1990) suggest that male aggression may be a compensatory mechanism to offset the conflict produced by a young males identification with a female care provider and his initiation into adulthood as a male. In this model, aggressiveness is viewed as gender marking behavior.
Personality
In Chapter 10, we will discuss how recent cross-cultural studies have documented the universal existence of a Five Factor Model of Personality (McCrae & Costa, 1999). This theory suggests that five personality traitsneuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, and conscientiousnessexist universally and can describe most human dispositions for behavior. In one study examining gender differences in personality traits around the world, Costa and colleagues (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001) analyzed data obtained from 23,031 respondents in 26 cultures, and tested for gender differences on the five universal personality traits and their sub-facets (each of the five personality traits are associated with six sub-facets). They found that women universally reported higher scores on Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth, and Openness to Feelings, while men scored higher on Assertiveness and Openness to Ideas. Interestingly, thedifferences between men and women were the largest in Europe and the U.S., which typically promote more individualistic and egalitarian values.
Sex and Sexuality
There are major cultural differences in the degree of importance placed on values concerning chastity, especially for women. Many traditional, conservative cultures of the world view chastity as a virtue among non-married women. Other cultures are more open and explicit about sex, approving and even encouraging multiple sexual partners before marriage. This is, in fact, one of the areas of contention between capitalistic societies found in the U.S. and Western Europe with those of predominantly Muslim countries in North Africa and the Middle East, as changing values, attitudes, and behaviors concerning sex are often attributed as the fault of countries like the U.S.
Not surprisingly, cultural differences in attitudes related to sex are also related to cultural differences in attitudes related to sexual orientation. Many traditional cultures view homosexuality as a curse or worse. These kinds of attitudes exist in many quarters of very egalitarian cultures like the U.S. as well. In some cultures, open homosexuals may be beaten, publicly humiliated and shamed, and even persecuted by the state. Attitudes concerning sex and sexuality are often linked with cultural values of honor, and transgressionsthat is, premarital sex or homosexualitycan be seen as an injury to ones own or ones familys honor, and a disgrace, with sometimes deadly consequences.
Culture affects the practice of circumcision for males and female genital mutilation (FGM) for females. The latter is a procedure that involves partial or complete removal of female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-therapeutic reasons (Organization, 1997). FGM is still practiced in some African, Middle Eastern, Asian, South American, and Pacific cultures. It can be carried out in settings as wide ranging as sterile, operating-rooms in hospitals to home with no anesthesia, antiseptics, antibiotics, or analgesics (Barstow, 1999). In many cultures in which FGM is practiced, it has ties with attitudes concerning virtuousness, chastity, and honor for women. It is also considered a way to promote marital fidelity, control womens sex drives, and even to enhance fertility among women (Whitehorn, Ayonrinde, & Maingay, 2002). These kinds of attitudes were used in part to justify the enforcement of passive gender roles on women, much like the practice of foot binding in China.
The practice of FGM is associated with many complex issues. On the one hand, there appears to be no apparent health benefit to the practice, and in fact studies have demonstrated many health problems associated with it, including death, infertility, or urinary tract infection. As a result, many people in many affluent and more egalitarian cultures view the practice as barbaric and outdated. On the other hand, the practice is tied with honor and virtue and for many women in many cultures, not having FGM would prevent a woman from finding a husband or to live life as a social outcast. For instance, a study of Egyptian female student nurses found that approximately 60% favored circumcising their own daughters and thought it beneficial (Dandash, Refaat, & Eyada,2001). The clash of cultures through immigration and improved communications technology brings these issues to the forefront for many in the world today.
Mate Selection, Mate Poaching, and Jealousy
In Chapter 14, we will discuss universal differences between men and women in their preferences for mates and in the process of mate poachingattempting to steal others mates. These differences are typically explained using an evolutionary model that suggests that males look for younger, chaste mates to bear offspring, while females look for mates that can provide resources for offspring in the long term.
One important construct related to these concepts is fidelity of a mate. Research on sexual jealousy has demonstrated interesting gender differences in jealousy that appear to be universal (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Fernandez, Sierra, Zubeidat, & Vera-Villarroel, 2006). This research has focused on two types of infidelity, sexual and emotional. Sexual infidelity occurs when a partner has sex or engages in sex-related behaviors with others. Emotional infidelity refers to the formation of an emotional bond with other people. While both types of infidelity bring about feelings of jealousy in both men and women, males are relatively more jealous about sexual infidelity, while females are relatively more jealous of emotional infidelity. These findings have been explained by suggesting that women sleeping with others threaten a mans ability to create offspring or places him in the position of caring for someone elses offspring; men falling in love with other women threaten a womans family and her offspring because the man may not be around to care for or provide for his offspring.
Division of Labor
While there are many similarities between men and women both physically and psychologically, there are differences as well. These sex differences include the fact that men are generally physically bigger and stronger than women, and women but not men carry a child, give birth, and breastfeed. These types of sex differences lead to some differences in sex roles. Mens larger size, on one hand, probably enabled them to take on the primary role of making and maintaining shelter, hunting for or producing food, and warding off enemies and rivals for food, mates, and other resources. Women, on the other hand, took on the primary role of caring for prenatal infants and newborns. Biological differences between men and women, therefore, are probably the platform by which decisions concerning a division of labor were made in our evolutionary history. One of the biggest differences between men and women worldwide concerns their division of labor in the house.
Georgas and colleagues (Georgas, Berry, van de Vijver, Kagitcibasi, & Poortinga, 2006) study of families highlights this issue. They assessed families in 30 countries around the world concerning a number of issues related to family functioning. One of the issues they assessed concerned division of labor related to household chores (housework). In all countries surveyed, there was a very large gap between the amount of work men and women did. Needless to say, women took up the brunt of the housework in all societies surveyed (Figure 6.1), even among societies in which women made up a large and increasing proportion of income earners (Hochschild & Machung, 1989 called this the second shift for women). These differences were, in fact, some of the most robust and consistent findings in their study. Thus the division of labor in the house and home appears to be quite universal. What is also apparent from the data in Figure 6.1 is that some cultures have larger differences in the division of labor between men and women than others.
Figure 6.1 Findings Regarding Division of Housework Between Men and Women Across 27 Countries, Reported by Georgas, et al., 2006

Source: Reprinted by permission of James Georgas.
Or take another piece of data from Georgas et al.s (2006) study. They identified three types of roles mothers and fathers played in families: expressive, focused on maintaining a pleasant environment and providing emotional support for one another; financial, including contributing to and managing finances; and childcare. In near all cultures surveyed, fathers were primarily concerned with finances first, then expressive issues next, and childcare last. The concerns of mothers, however, differed according to culture. Mothers were most concerned with childcare, but only in less affluent cultures. In more affluent cultures, mothers appeared to be equally concerned with all three family roles (Figure 6.2).
Similar findings were also reported by Wood and Eaglys (2002) review of the literature, who reported strong evidence of the universality of sex-typed division of labor. Men were primarily concerned with the provision of resources, while women were primarily focused on childcare. The relative difference in the division of labor between men and women, however, differed depending on whether the society was industrialized and the degree to which the society as a whole was dependent on gathering for survival; women contributed to the provision of resources more in societies that were predominantly dependent on gathering or were more greatly industrialized. Mothers predominated in the care of infants and substantially shared in the care of young children with other family members and the community. Fathers contributed to childcare more than to infant care, but their contributions were almost universally less than those of mothers.
Figure 6.2 Findings Regarding Family Roles of Mothers Across 27 Countries

The countries are listed on the bottom in three groups of affluence; the richest on the left, moderate affluence in the middle, and least affluent on the right.
Source: Figure 8.3 from Georgas, J., Berry, J. W., van de Vijver, F., Kagitcibasi, C., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2006). Families across cultures: A 30 nation psychological study. New York: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted with permission of Cambridge University Press.
Predominantly Masculine Activities Index (%) Quasi-Masculine Activities Index (%) Swing Activities Index (%) Quasi-Feminine Activities Index (%)
Hunting large aquatic fauna 100 Butchering 92.3 Generation of fire 62.3 Fuel gathering 27.2
Smelting of ores 100 Collection of wild honey 91.7 Bodily mutilation 60.8 Preparation of drinks 22.2
Metalworking 99.8 Land clearance 90.5 Preparation of skins 54.6 Gathering of wild vegetal foods 19.7
Lumbering 99.4 Fishing 86.7 Gathering small land fauna 54.5 Dairy production 14.3
Hunting in large land fauna 99.3 Tending large animals 82.4 Crop planting 54.4 Spinning 13.6
Work in wood 98.8 House building 77.4 Manufacture of leather products 53.2 Laundering 13.0
Fowling 98.3 Soil preparation 73.1 Harvesting 45.0 Water fetching 8.6
Making musical instruments 97.6 Netmaking 71.2 Crop tending 44.6 Cooking 8.3
Trapping 97.5 Making rope and cordage 69.9 Milking 43.8 Preparation of vegetal food 5.7
Boatbuilding 96.6 Basketmaking 42.5
Stoneworking 95.9 Burden carrying 39.3
Work in bone, horn, shell 94.6 Matmaking 37.6
Mining and quarrying 93.7 Care of small animals 35.9
Bonesetting 92.7 Preservation of meat or fish 32.9
Loom weaving 32.5
Gathering small aquatic fauna 31.1
Manufacture of clothing 22.4
Potterymaking 21.1
In Table 6.2, Wood and Eagly (2002) listed the average percentage of male participation in activities from 185 societies. As shown in the left half of table, the activities that were performed exclusively or predominantly by men included hunting large aquatic fauna, smelting ores, metalworking, lumbering, and clearing land. The far right columns in table display the activities that were performed mainly by women, and these included preparation of vegetal foods, cooking, and water fetching. Swing activities were activities that were performed by men in some societies, by women in others, and interchangeably by both in others. As can be seen in Table 6.2, these swing activities included bodily mutilation, crop planting, harvesting, crop tending, and burden carrying. Although few activities were assigned exclusively to one sex or the other when considered across cultures, the division of labor is evident in that, within societies, most activities were performed primarily by one sex. Wood and Eagly (2002) argued that physical differences between the sexes interacted with the resources and characteristics of the environment so that different societies produced different solutions to the needs of survival; thus while sex differences existed in virtually all societies, the exact nature of those differences varied across societies. They called this model abiosocial model of sex differences.
Table 6.2 Average Percentage of Male Participation in Activities in Societies from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample
Note: Reprinted with permission. Each index represents the average percentage of male participation in each activity, as calculated by Murdock and Provost (1973) from 185 societies of the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (Murdock and White, 1969). Each index was calculated for a given activity such that each society received a weight indicating whether the activity was exclusively male (1.0), predominantly male (0.8), equally performed by both sexes (0.5), predominantly female (0.2), or exclusively female (0). The weights were summed across societies in which the activity was performed and then divided by the number of societies. Murdock and Provost identified the four clusters of activities on the basis of this index and the variability in the index across geographic regions. The swing activities were more variable than the quasi-masculine or quasi-feminine activities, which were more variable than the strictly masculine ones.
Source: Data are from Tables 1-5 of Factors in the Division of Labor by Sex: A Cross-Cultural Analysis, by G. P. Murdock and C. Provost, 1973, Ethnology, 12, pp. 207-210. Copyright 1973 by the University of Pittsburgh Press.
Thus while different sex roles exist in all societies of the world and is thus universal, cultures differ in the specific type and degree of differentiation they encourage between the sexes. Differences in sex roles raise interesting questions about the gender stereotypes that arise because of sex role differentiation. Gender, gender roles, gender role ideologies, and gender stereotypes, remember, are culturally-specific psychological constructs that differ across cultures.
Summary
Gender differences exist on a wide variety of psychological constructs, and cultures differ in the exact degree and nature of those gender differences. So how does culture influence gender The process of learning gender roles begins very early in life. The importance of gender in organizing our expectations and thinking is illustrated in the first question that we ask when a baby is born: Is it a boy or a girl In American culture, we tend to give boys and girls different types of toys to play with and dress infants according to gender (although that trend may be changing in recent years). If you look back to your baby pictures, you may find that you were often dressed in either blue or pink. About 30 years ago, one U.S. study reported that 90% of the infants observed at a shopping mall were dressed in gendered colors and/or styles (Shakin, Shakin, & Sternglanz, 1985). By the age of three, children begin to accurately label people by sex (Fagot, Leinbach, & Hagen,1986). Gender role socialization continues throughout life from various sourcesexpectations from parents, modeling of gender roles by peers, and images of males and females in the media, to name a fewthat contribute to our ideas on what it means to be male or female.
In terms of the definitions presented earlier, a newborn has sex but no gender. Gender is a construct that develops in children as they are socialized in their environments. As children grow older, they learn specific behaviors and patterns of activities deemed appropriate and inappropriate for their sex, and they either adopt or reject those gender roles. Sandra Bem (1981), a prominent theorist on gender, argues that gender is one of the fundamental ways we organize information and understand experiences about the world. For instance, we learn what behaviors, attitudes, objects, and conventions are associated with being male and what are associated with being female, and apply these gender schemas to understand the people around us as well as ourselves.
Ensuring that reproduction occurs fulfills mens and womens sex roles. But what happens before and after that depends on a host of variables. One of these variables is culture. The biological fact and necessity of reproduction, along with other biological and physiological differences between men and women, lead to behavioral differences between men and women. In earlier days, these behavioral differences were reinforced by a necessary division of labor. Someone had to look after children while someone else had to find food for the family; no one person could have done it all. Thus, the existence of reproductive differences led to a division of labor advantageous to the family as a unit. It is argued these differences, in turn, produced differences in a variety of psychological traits and characteristics, such as aggressiveness, nurturance, and achievement.
Survival requires that societies balance a number of factors, including natural resources, affluence, and population density. These external factors help to frame and mold specific behaviors that may affect the division of labor between men and women originally necessitated by biological differences. These differential behaviors that occur because of differences in external, environmental factors lead to patterns of behaviors across time that are associated with men and women. This pattern of behaviors across time is culture. In turn, it feeds back reciprocally onto the pattern of behaviors, reinforcing those behaviors, beliefs, attitudes, and values. Thus, as different cultures must deal with different external factors, it is only natural that gender differences vary by culture. One culture may foster considerable equality between women and men and relatively few differences in their cultural practices and psychological characteristics. Another culture may foster considerable disparity between the sexes, their cultural practices related to reproduction, and psychological characteristics associated with sex roles. Some cultures may foster differences between the sexes in one direction (for example, males as primary decision makers, females compliant and obedient); another culture may foster differences in the opposite direction. This type of biosocial explanatory model may account for the range of differences obtained in previous cross-cultural research on psychological constructs. Some researchers, in fact, go as far as to say that the persistence of gender stereotypes across culture cannot be attributed to sociocultural factors and can only be explained by sociobiological models (Lueptow, Garovich, & Lueptow, 1995).
CULTURE, GENDER ROLES, AND STEREOTYPES
Culture and Gender Stereotypes
Universality in sex differences in the division of labor described above suggest that gender roles and gender stereotypes may also be universal. We are all familiar with traditional gender stereotypesthat males should be independent, self-reliant, strong, and emotionally detached, while women should be dependent, reliant, weak, nurturant, and emotional. To what degree is this an American or Western cultural phenomenon Several programs of research have examined this interesting question over the years, and have shown that many gender-related stereotypes are, in fact, universally held across cultures.
The best-known study of gender stereotypes across cultures was conducted by Williams and Best (1982), who sampled people in 30 countries, 52-120 respondents per country, for a total of almost 3,000 individuals. The study used a questionnaire known as the Adjective Check List (ACL). The ACL is a list of 300 adjectives. Respondents in each country were asked to decide whether each adjective was considered more descriptive of a male or of a female. Whether the subjects agreed with the assignment of an adjective to males or females was irrelevant; instead they were asked merely to report the characteristics generally associated with males and females in their culture. The researchers tallied the data from all individuals. Looking at responses within each culture, Williams and Best (1982) established the criterion that if more than two-thirds of a sample from a country agreed on a particular term for either males or females, there was a consensus within that culture on that general characteristic. Then looking at responses across the cultures, the researchers decided that if two-thirds of the cultures reached a consensus on the characteristic, there was cross-cultural consensus on that characteristic as describing males or females. The results indicated a high degree of pancultural agreement across all the countries studied in the characteristics associated with men and women. Table 6.3 lists the 100 items of the pancultural adjective checklist reported by Williams and Best (1994).
Table 6.3 The 100 Items of the Pancultural Adjective Checklist
Male-Associated Female-Associated
Active Loud Affected Modest
Adventurous Obnoxious Affectionate Nervous
Aggressive Opinionated Appreciative Patient
Arrogant Opportunistic Cautious Pleasant
Autocratic Pleasure-seeking Changeable Prudish
Bossy Precise Charming Self-pitying
Capable Progressive Complaining Sensitive
Conceited Rational Confused Sexy
Confident Realistic Curious Shy
Courageous Reckless Dependent Softhearted
Cruel Resourceful Dreamy Sophisticated
Cynical Rigid Emotional Submissive
Determined Robust Excitable Suggestible
Disorderly Serious Fault-finding Superstitious
Enterprising Sharp-witted Fearful Talkative
Greedy Show-off Fickle Timid
Hardheaded Steady Foolish Touchy
Humorous Stern Forgiving Unambitious
Indifferent Stingy Frivolous Understanding
Individualistic Stolid Fussy Unintelligent
Initiative Tough Gentle Unstable
Varied interests Unfriendly Imaginative Warm
Inventive Unscrupulous Kind Weak
Lazy Witty Mild Worrying
Source: Lonner, Walter J., Malpass, Roy S., Psychology and Culture, 1st Edition, Copyright 1994, p. 193. Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
The degree of consensus these adjectives received in describing males and females is amazing. Berry and colleagues (1992) suggested this degree of consensus is so large that it may be appropriate to suggest that the researchers have found a psychological universal when it comes to gender stereotypes (p. 60). In addition, the possibility of a universally accepted set of gender stereotypes may make sense given the universality in division of labor independently demonstrated by other studies (described above).
Williams and Best (1982) conducted a second type of analysis on their data in order to summarize their major findings. They scored the adjectives in each country in terms of favorability, strength, and activity to examine how the adjectives were distributed according to affective or emotional meaning. They found surprising congruence in these analyses: the characteristics associated with men were stronger and more active than those associated with women across all countries. On favor-ability, however, cultural differences emerged: Some countries (such as Japan and South Africa) rated the male characteristics as more favorable than the female, whereas other countries (for example, Italy and Peru) rated female characteristics as more favorable.
How are we to interpret these results It could be that a division of labor for males and females according to reproductive processes produced differences in behaviors that produced differences in psychological characteristics. It may be that these psychological characteristics had some evolutionary and adaptive advantages for males and females to fulfill their roles as prescribed by the division of labor. It could be that men and women in all cultures became set in these precise ways, accounting for universal consensus on these descriptors. At the same time, men and women may have become set in a particular mindset about cultural differences because of perceived social inequality or social forces and indirect communication via mass media and the like. Or these findings could all be a function of the way the research was conducted, using university students as participants, which would tend to make the entire sample more homogeneous than if people were sampled randomly from each culture.
Although it is impossible to disentangle these factors, it is important to note that Williams and Best themselves collected and analyzed data concerning gender stereotypes from young children and found a considerable degree of agreement between the findings for children and those for university students (Williams & Best, 1990). These results argued against (but do not entirely eliminate) the notion that the original findings were due to homogeneity among university students.
Williams and his colleagues extended their earlier work on gender stereotypes in important ways. Williams, Satterwhite, and Best (1999), for example, took the ACL data from 25 countries in their previous work and rescored them in terms of five personality dimensions known as the Big Five, or Five Factor Model of Personality. As you will see in Chapter 9, these terms refer to the five personality traits or dimensions that are considered universal or consistent around the world. They found that males were perceived to have significantly higher scores than females on all traits except agreeableness; females, however, were perceived to have significantly higher scores than males on this personality dimension. They also correlated the sex differences with culture scores from two large value surveys (Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1994), some demographic variables, and gender ideology scores from a previous study (Williams & Best, 1990). They found that gender stereotype differentiation tended to be higher in countries that were conservative and hierarchical, with a lower level of socioeconomic development, a relatively low degree of Christian affiliation, and a relatively low proportion of women attending university. Countries that valued harmony and egalitarianism, had less traditional sex-role orientations, and viewed male stereotypes as less favorable than female stereotypes were associated with less gender stereotype differentiation on the five factors.
In summary, this set of studies informs us that gender stereotypes around the world are rather stable, and are related to interesting and important psychological characteristics. Men are generally viewed as active, strong, critical, and adultlike, with psychological needs such as dominance, autonomy, aggression, exhibition, achievement, and endurance. Men are also associated more with the personality traits of conscientiousness, extroversion, and openness. Women are generally viewed as passive, weak, nurturing, and adaptive, with psychological needs such as abasement, deference, succorance, nurturance, affiliation, and heterosexuality. They are also associated with higher scores on the personality traits of agreeableness and neuroticism. As described earlier, the degree of stability of these findings across a wide range of countries and cultures provides a strong base of evidence for some pancultural universality in psychological attribution.
Still many questions remain unanswered in this important area of psychology. How congruent are peoples behaviors with their stereotypes, and does this congruence differ across cultures and countries Are stereotypes related to important psychological constructs or behaviors that affect everyday lives How do we come to develop such stereotypeswhat are the factors that produce them, and their boundaries
Culture, Gender Role Ideology, and Self-Concept
Another important topic that has been studied across cultures is gender role ideologyjudgments about what males and females ought to be like or ought to do. To examine gender role ideologies, Williams and Best (1990) asked subjects in 14 countries to complete the ACL in relation to what they believe they are and what they would like to be. Participants also completed a sex role ideology scale that generated scores between two polar opposites labeled traditional and egalitarian. The traditional scores tended to describe gender roles that were consistent with the traditional or universal norms found in their earlier research; egalitarian scores reflected a tendency toward less differentiation between males and females on the various psychological characteristics. The most egalitarian scores were found in the Netherlands, Germany, and Finland; the most traditional ideologies were found in Nigeria, Pakistan, and India. Women tended to have more egalitarian views than men. Gender differences within each country were relatively small compared to cross-country differences, which were considerable. In particular, countries with relatively high socioeconomic development, a high proportion of Protestant Christians, a low proportion of Muslims, a high percentage of women employed outside the home, a high proportion of women enrolled in universities, and a greater degree of individualism were associated with more egalitarian scores. These findings make sense, as greater affluence and individualistic tendencies tend to produce a culture that allows women increased access to jobs and education, thus blending traditional gender roles.
Williams and Best (1990) also examined gender differences in self-concept. The same students in the same 14 countries rated each of the 300 adjectives of the ACL according to whether it was descriptive of themselves or their ideal self. Responses were scored according to masculinity/femininity as well as in terms of favorability, strength, and activity. When scored according to masculinity/femininity both self and ideal-self ratings for men were more masculine than were womens ratings, and vice versa, across all countries. However, both men and women in all countries rated their ideal self as more masculine than their actual self. In effect, they were saying that they wanted to have more of the traits traditionally associated with males.
Gender role ideologies have also been studied in younger populations by Gibbons and her colleagues (de Silva, Stiles, & Gibbons, 1992; Gibbons, Bradford, & Stiles, 1989; Gibbons, Stiles, Schnellman, & Morales-Hidalgo, 1990; Stiles, Gibbons, & Schnellman, 1990). These researchers conducted several cross-cultural studies involving almost 700 adolescents ranging in age from 11 to 17 years from Spain, Guatemala, and Sri Lanka. In their surveys, adolescents were asked to draw and describe characteristics of the ideal man or woman. Interestingly, the most important quality in these countries for both boys and girls was being kind and honest, a characteristic that was not gender-specific. Some gender differences emerged, however, with being good-looking more often mentioned as an ideal for women and being employed in a job as more of an ideal for men.
Gibbons conducted another study on adolescents attitudes toward gender roles that involved 265 international students, ages 11 to 17, who attended school in the Netherlands. Students completed an Attitude Towards Women Scale for Adolescents (Galambos, Petersen, Richards, & Gitelson, 1985) that included 12 statements such as Boys are better than girls and Girls should have the same freedom as boys. Adolescents were asked to report their level of agreement with these statements. Their feelings: girls were less traditional than boys and adolescents from wealthier and more individualistic countries were less traditional than adolescents from poorer and more collectivist countries (Gibbons, Stiles, & Shkodriani, 1991).
Gibbonss study of Sri Lankan adolescents (de Silva et al., 1992) indicated that gender role ideologies may be changing as societies undergo change. She found that more than half the girls in her study depicted the ideal woman as being employed outside the home even though the traditional role of a Sri Lankan woman was that of homemaker. Mule and Barthel (1992) describe social change in Egypt, where there has been an increase in womens participation in the workforce and, to some extent, political life. Furthermore, globalization and exposure to Western culture have presented this traditionally Islamic country with alternative gender ideologies. Subsequently, gender role ideologies may undergo modification or redefinition in these countries as Eastern and Western influences continue to combine.
Nonetheless, maintaining, not modifying, traditional gender roles in the face of modernization is also likely. For instance, a study of Palestinian women and their families found that ones level of education, participation in political activities, and employment are not major factors predicting more egalitarian family roles (Huntington, Fronk, & Chadwick, 2001). The authors were surprised by this finding and argued that cultural values defined by Islamic beliefs and practices are resisting the forces of modernity. In other words, Islamic teachings on women, the family, and relationships between men and women may be a powerful influence in maintaining traditional family functioning, and especially traditional ideas of womens roles in family and society. These findings highlight the important role of religion in understanding how gender role ideologies are defined and preserved in different cultures.
Ethnicity and Gender Roles
Research within cultures also points to important differences in gender roles, especially among different ethnic groups. Some research, for instance, has suggested that the gender identities of African Americans are more androgynous than those of European Americans. Androgyny refers to a gender identity that involves endorsement of both male and female characteristics. Harris (1996), for example, administered the Bem Sex Role Inventory, a scale that is widely used to measure gender identity, to African and European American males and females, and found that both African American males and females were more androgynous than European American males and females. In addition, he found that African American males and females have an equal propensity to endorse typically masculine traits, whereas European American males regard more masculine traits as self-descriptive than European American females do. Other studies conducted in the United States (Frome & Eccles, 1996), Israel (Orr & Ben-Eliahu, 1993), and Hong Kong (Lau, 1989) have found that adolescent girls who adopt an androgynous identity have higher levels of self-acceptance than either feminine or masculine girls. For boys, however, a masculine, not androgynous, identity is associated with the highest level of self-acceptance.
Many Asian American families have carried on traditional gender roles associated with males and females from their original culture. Asian females are often expected to bear the brunt of domestic duties, to raise children, and to be good daughters-in-law. Asian American males are often raised to remain aloof, unemotional, and authoritative, especially concerning familial issues (D. Sue,1998). Some studies, however, have suggested a loosening of these rigid, traditional gender roles for Asian American males and females. Although Asian American males may still appear as the figurative head of the family in public, in reality, much decision-making power within the family in private is held by the Asian American female head of the household (Huang & Ying, 1989).
The traditional role of the Mexican American female was to provide for the children and take care of the home (Comas-Diaz, 1992). Likewise, Mexican American males were traditionally expected to fill the role of provider for the family. These differences are related to the concept of machismo, which incorporates many traditional expectations of the male gender role, such as being unemotional, strong, authoritative, and aggressive. However, research has shown that these gender differences for Mexican American males and females are also on the decrease. Mexican American women are increasingly sharing in decision making in the family, as well as taking on a more direct role as provider through work outside the home (Espin, 1993). Although adolescent Mexican American males are generally still given more freedom outside the home than are females, gender differences may be decreasing in the contemporary Mexican American family. This is likely to continue as increasing numbers of Latina women are employed and an emerging Latina feminist movement takes hold (Espin, 1997). It is important to note, however, that this movement continues to place high value on the traditional role of wife and mother, yet offers a wider interpretation of roles acceptable for Latinas.
Gender role differentiation for Native Americans seems to depend heavily on the patriarchal or matriarchal nature of the tribal culture of origin. In patriarchal tribes, women assume primary responsibility for the welfare of the children and extended family members. But males of the Mescalero Apache tribe often take responsibility for children when they are with their families (Glover, 2001). As with other ethnic groups, the passage of time, increased interaction with people of other cultures and with mainstream American culture, and the movement toward urban living seems to have effected changes in these traditional values and expectations for Native American males and females.
CHANGING CULTURES, CHANGING GENDER ROLES
The 191 members of the United Nations have committed to creating sustainable human development and to recognizing equal rights and opportunities for men and women that are critical for social and economic progress. Tragically, one of the obstacles to this progress concerns violence against women, which is a concrete manifestation of inequality between males and females. A few years ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported the results of a study involving over 24,000 interviews with women from 15 sites in 10 countries (Garcia-Moreno, Heise, Jansen, Ellsberg, & Watts, 2005). In 13 of the 15 sites, between 35 and 76% of the women had reported being physically or sexually assaulted by someone else since the age of 15. In all settings but one, the majority of the violence was perpetrated by a current or previous partner, not a stranger. Overall, 15 to 71% of the women who ever had a partner had been physically or sexually assaulted. In most settings, almost half of the respondents reported that the violence was currently ongoing (see Figure 6.3). There was substantial variation both within and between countries, and findings indicated that women in industrialized countries may find it easier to leave abusive relationships.
These kinds of findings make it strikingly clear that despite desires for equality, inequality still persists quite strongly around the world. This, coupled with the fact that cultures are always in flux, and that cultures clash because of increased contact of peoples of different worldviews brings many of the issues discussed in this chapter to the forefront of numerous peoples lives. In many cases, they represent an interesting and complex interplay between culture, psychology, and law (Shweder, Minow, & Markus, 2002). In Europe, for instance, debates occur concerning hymenoplasty, a surgical procedure that replaces a womans hymen. Because the hymen usually breaks in the first act of intercourse, its restoration allows women who have had sex to appear as if they are virgins. This is particularly important for some women in some cultures, such as traditional Muslim culture, which values virginity in marriage partners. Many young Muslim women are caught between the freedoms that American or European societies and cultures offer and the deep-rooted traditions of their families generations, and many seek certificates of virginity to provide proof to family and prospective marriage partners.
Figure 6.3 Percentage of Ever-Partnered Women Reporting Physical or Sexual Violence, or Both, by an Intimate Partner, by Site

Source: Garcia-Moreno, C., Heise, L., Jansen, H. A. F. M., Ellsberg, M., & Watts, C. (2005). Violence against women. Science, 310, 12821283.
In many cultures, the preference for one sex over the other is also very apparent and strong. In many Muslim and Asian cultures, for example, boys are prized and girls are not. Thus the differential treatment of boys and girls happens immediately at birth. In Afghanistan, some families even go as far as to dress up their girls to masquerade as boys and send them off to school. The reasons for this include economic need, social pressure to have sons, and in some cases a superstition that doing so can lead to the birth of a real boy.
These aspects of clashing cultures exist in the U.S. as well. For instance, among the most pressing issues and concerns facing the United States today are gender differences across different ethnicities and the continuing struggle for gender equity across all cultural and ethnic groups. Just as people in different cultures in faraway lands may have different gender roles and expectations, people of different ethnic backgrounds in the United States can have different gender role expectations as well. Many of these gender differences across ethnic lines are rooted in the cultures people of these ethnicities brought with them when they originally came to the United States. Gender differences in the United States today, along with this melting pot effect, produce a uniquely American influence and reflect gender issues in a uniquely American way.
How is one to deal with the social isolation, physical beating, and even murder of young women that would be justified in another culture because of perceived dishonor brought about by premarital sex What should be the response of communities and societies toward female genital mutilation, especially when condoned by the operators and recipients How can democracies deal with acts that they condemn in their laws while at the same time being open and embracing of cultural differences These are tough questions that all of us have to face in todays pluralistic world.
Clearly, as we have mentioned throughout this book, culture is not a static entity; it is dynamic and ever changing. Cultural changes are brought about by many factors, especially economic. Witness the great cultural changes that are occurring in many countries of the world since the end of World War II. Japan, for instance, was decimated at the end of that war; yet, today it stands as one of the worlds economic powers. Such changes bring with them a major shift in the culture of the society, and we are witness to such shifts in Japan today (Matsumoto, 2002a). Similar changes are occurring or have occurred in many other cultures as well, including South Korea and China.
Much of the cultural changes that are brought by economics give rise to tensions between tradition and progress, conservatism and liberalism. Images capture these tensions: watching young women in Japan dressed in traditional Japanese kimono as they observe a centuries-old tradition of coming-of-age (seijin-shiki), as they talk on their cell phones and instant message with friends, as they ride the fastest trains in the world, produce a stark contrast between tradition and progress. Similarly, young adults in the Middle East may, on one hand, condemn the U.S. yet, on the other, be willing to obtain a visa and immigrate to the U.S.
Changing and clashing cultures bring about many confrontations between gender differences across culture. Changing culture around the world, for example, that is associated with increased economic power, affluence, and individualism is associated with changing gender roles. More women work outside the home, are more economically independent, and have a greater say at home and at work. Yet there are social consequences of such cultural changes; in such cultures, divorce rates increase (Matsumoto, 2002a; Yodanis, 2005); the amount and type of health related problems for women increase, such as rising incidence of cardiovascular problems, alcoholism, and rates of smoking (Allamani, Voller, Kubicka, & Bloomfield, 2000). Changes in culture, therefore, have both positive and negative consequences, and full consideration should be given before weighing in on the pros and cons of such changes.
CONCLUSION
Sex refers to the biological and physiological differences between males and females. Sex roles are behaviors expected of males and females in relation to their biological differences and reproduction. Gender refers to the psychological and behavioral traits and characteristics cultures carve out using sex differences as a base. Gender roles refer to the degree to which a person adopts the gender-specific behaviors ascribed by his or her culture. Gender and its permutationsroles, identities, stereotypes, and the likeshare an important link with culture.
Gender roles are different for males and females in all cultures. Some stereotypic notions about gender differences seem to be universal across cultures such as aggressiveness, strength, and lack of emotionality for males and weakness, submissiveness, and emotionality for females. Other research, however, has shown that the degree, and in some case the direction, of these differences varies across cultures. That is, not every culture will necessarily harbor the same gender differences in the same way as other cultures. Further research is needed to gain a better understanding of culture-constant and culture-specific aspects of gender differences.
Examining gender differences in the United States is especially challenging because of the cultural and ethnic diversity within this single country and the influence of interactions with mainstream American culture. Each ethnic group has its own cultural preferences for gender differentiation, but some blending of the old with the new, the traditional with the modern, appears to be taking place. Without evidence to the contrary, it is probably best to consider this blending as an addition of cultural repertoires concerning gender differences rather than a subtraction from the old ways.
As we meet people from different cultural backgrounds, we may encounter gender roles that are different from our own. Often we feel strongly and negatively about these differences. Yet despite our own personal outlook, we must exercise considerable care and caution in imposing our preferences on others. In most cases, people of other cultures feel just as strongly about their own way of living. Many people of many other cultures, men and women, still harbor many of the traditional values of their ancestral culture, and we have seen conflicts arise because somemen and women alikelook down on these traditional ways, criticize them, and attempt to force change. Many women in many cultures want to marry early, stay home, and take care of the family; many men want to adopt the traditional male roles as well. These tendencies are alive in many different people within the most egalitarian cultures and societies. We need to respect these differences rather than attempt to change them because they are not consonant with our own individual or cultural preferences. Nonetheless, this is a delicate balancing act for all of us because there is a fine line between cultural relativity (a desired state of comprehension) and the unacceptable justification of oppression.
Future research will need to tackle the important questions posed by our understanding of cultural and gender differences, elucidating on the mechanisms and factors that help produce and maintain those differences in individual cultures, and then across cultures. In addition, future research will need to explore the relationship between differences in actual behaviors and psychological constructs and gender-related stereotypes, investigating whether these are two different psychological systems of the mind or whether they are linked in ways that are not yet apparent. Indeed, research to date is rather silent on the mechanisms that produce gender and cultural differences, and the interrelationship among different psychological processes. The important point to remember is that different cultures may arrive at different outcomes through the same process. Men and women will have gender-specific roles in any society or culture. All cultures encourage particular behavioral differences between the genders and help to define the roles, duties, and responsibilities deemed appropriate for males and females.
EXPLORATION AND DISCOVERY
Why Does This Matter to Me
1. Have you encountered a gender role or behavior that was culturally different than yours How did you feel What did you think What were the origins of that gender role
2. Do you think gender roles are produced by gender stereotypes, or vice versa
3. How do some of the findings from the studies reviewed in this chapter relate to your preconceived notions about gender roles
4. How do you perceive your national culture with respect to Hofstedes Masculinity vs. Femininity dimension
5. As a parent, what kind of gender role and identity would you want your children to adopt Why
Suggestions for Further Exploration
1. Consider a hypothetical research study that you might like to conduct that would investigate gender differences of a particular behavior or psychological phenomenon. How would you conduct the study cross-culturally
2. What do you think are the origins of some of the universal aspects of gender differences described in the chapter How would you study them
3. Consider the ways women have been portrayed in recent television shows and movies that you have watched. Do you think that portrayals of women and men are changing in the media or not Design a study that would test your ideas.
InfoTrac College Edition
Use InfoTrac College Edition to search for additional readings on topics of interest to you. For more information on topics in this chapter, use the following as search terms:
culture and sex roles
culture and gender identity
ethnicity and gender
GLOSSARY
androgyny
A gender identity that involves endorsement of both male and female characteristics.
biosocial model
A model that suggests that biological differences between the sexes interact with the environment to produce culture-specific sex roles that are adaptations to the environment.
gender
The behaviors or patterns of activities a society or culture deems appropriate for men and women. These behavioral patterns may or may not be related to sex and sex roles, although they often are.
gender identity
The degree to which a person has awareness of or recognition that he or she has adopted a particular gender role.
gender role
The degree to which a person adopts the gender-specific behaviors ascribed by his or her culture.
gender role ideology
Judgments about what gender roles in a particular culture ought to be.
gender stereotype
The psychological or behavioral characteristics typically associated with men and women.
machismo
A concept related to Mexican American gender role differentiation that is characterized by many traditional expectations of the male gender role, such as being unemotional, strong, authoritative, and aggressive.
sex
The biological and physiological differences between men and women, the most obvious being the anatomical differences in their reproductive systems.
sex roles
The behaviors and patterns of activities men and women may engage in that are directly related to their biological differences and the process of reproduction.
sexual identity
The degree of awareness and recognition by an individual of his or her sex and sex roles.

Chapter 15
An organization is a structure created by people to achieve certain objectives. Organizations are composed of people who work collectively to address the overall goals of the organization. Different people or groups may have different specific goals within the organization, but theoretically they should collectively address a common goal (for example, building a car, selling groceries). Different people or groups may be specialized according to role, objective, or task; and rank or status within a hierarchy may differentiate them from one another.
We all spend a major portion of our lives in organizations. In fact, most of you reading this book are probably doing so within the educational systeman organization that plays an important part in many peoples lives and is an important agent of socialization in the development and maintenance of culture. The companies that we work for are also organizations. Churches, sport teams, government, community centers, the military, and small businesses are all different types of organizations to which we all belong. And we are witness to culture and organizational issues in everyday news, from events involving the United Nations to clashes between groups, religions, and countries.
In this chapter, we describe how culture influences peoples behaviors in organizations and the organizations themselves. We will focus on work organizations because they have been the topic of many cross-cultural studies and provide the context for our knowledge of the effects of culture on organizations. The work context may be an interesting place to study the influence of culture on psychological processes because it may enhance or diminish differences. Sanchez-Burks, Lee, Choi, Nisbett, Zhao, and Koo (2003), for instance, demonstrated that American versus East Asian cultural differences in attention to indirect meaning were actually larger in work as compared with non-work settings. Still, its important to remember that the information gained in understanding the relationship between culture and work organizations can be useful in understanding the many other organizations that are part of our lives as well.
We begin by examining cross-cultural research analyzing organizational culture first through work-related values, focusing on Hofstedes four major dimensions of culture, because of the great contributions this work has made to this area of cultural psychology. Using the Hofstede dimensions as a base, we then describe how culture influences organizations, and individuals within organizations, including attitudes about work, motivation and productivity, leadership and management, and decision making. We examine intercultural issues related to business and work, and discuss the important issue of sexual harassment across cultures.
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK-RELATED VALUES: HOFSTEDES CULTURAL DIMENSIONS
The most well-known work on culture and organizations has been the study of employees work-related values by Geert Hofstede (1980, 1984). Although this work has its roots in the study of organizational culture, it has aided scientists in understanding national cultures as well, which we discussed in Chapter 1 and throughout this book. His study began in the 1960s and involved employees at International Business Machines (IBM), a multinational corporation with branch offices and subsidiaries in many different countries. In his original report in 1980, Hofstedereported data collected from workers in 40 different countries. In his 1984 study, he reported data from an additional 10 countries. More recently, he has reported data from 72 countries involving the responses of more than 117,000 employees of a multinational business organization, spanning over 20 different languages and 7 occupational levels to his 63 work-related values items (Hofstede,2001). Hofstede identified four major dimensions of work-related values and computed overall scores for each country on each of these four dimensions. As we discussed in Chapter 1, the four dimensions Hofstede reported were Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism-Collectivism, and Masculinity-Femininity. Each of the dimensions is related to concrete differences in attitudes, opinions, beliefs, and behaviors within organizations, and each forms the basis for understanding certain societal norms in each of the countries in Hofstedes studies. These dimensions also have consequences for organizational structure and interorganizational behavior, and we focus here on what they mean in terms of organizational culture.
Power Distance
Organizations need vertical or hierarchical relationships based on status and power. Differentiating people according to their roles, functions, and positions is vital to the successful operation of an organization. The various statuses afforded to different individuals within a hierarchy come with certain benefits, rights, privileges, and power not afforded to others. The chain of command within an organization identifies the players and their roles.
The basic hierarchical relationship is that between a boss and his or her immediate subordinate. In most cases, an employee is involved in a hierarchical relationship both with someone of higher status and with others of lower status. People within each culture develop ways of interacting with others according to the status differential that exists between the individual and the person with whom he or she is interacting. Power Distance refers to the degree to which different cultures encourage or maintain power and status differences between interactants. Organizations (and cultures) high on Power Distance develop rules, mechanisms, and rituals that serve to maintain and strengthen the status relationships among their members. Cultures low on Power Distance minimize those rules and customs.
Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty is a fact of life. This is true for individuals, and it is true for organizations. Todays profits can easily turn into tomorrows losses and vice versa. How a market will react to a new product, revisions in old products, corporate restructuring, mergers and acquisitions, and all the other changes that occur within organizations and in the business world is a major source of uncertainty. The future of churches, schools, community centers, and sports teams depends heavily on membership and performance, both of which are not guarantees, and thus bring about uncertainty. With this uncertainty can come confusion, stress, and anxiety.
Every society and organization develops its own ways of dealing with the anxiety and stress associated with uncertainty. Often, these ways involve development of rituals, informal or written, concerning a code of conduct among employees, as in intracompany policies regarding communication or interpersonal relationships. These rules may also govern behavior between companies within a society, or across cultures, as in domestic and international laws governing business and inter-business relationships.
Uncertainty Avoidance describes the degree to which different societies and different cultures develop ways to deal with the anxiety and stress of uncertainty. Cultures high on Uncertainty Avoidance develop highly refined rules and rituals that are mandated and become part of the company rubric and normal way of operating. Companies in these cultures may be considered rule-oriented. In Hofstedes survey, Greece, Portugal, Belgium, and Japan were the four countries with the highest scores on this dimension. Cultures low on Uncertainty Avoidance are less concerned with rules and rituals to deal with the stress and anxiety of uncertainty. Companies in these cultures have a more relaxed attitude concerning uncertainty and ambiguity and mandate fewer rules and rituals for their employees. In Hofstedes study, Sweden, Denmark, and Singapore had the lowest scores on Uncertainty Avoidance.
Individualism-Collectivism
As described throughout this book, Individualism-Collectivism has been used to explain, understand, and predict cultural differences in a variety of contexts. It is also a very important dimension in relation to work organizations. This dimension refers to the degree to which individuals will sacrifice personal goals for the sake of their ingroup. Individualistic cultures foster less sacrifice for the group and prioritize individual goals, wishes, and desires. Collectivistic cultural values foster more compliance with company policies and more conformity in group, section, or unit behavior. Collectivism also fosters a greater degree of reliance on group work and group orientation to company and organizational tasks. Harmony within groups, sections, or business units is valued more in collectivistic cultures; members are more likely to engage in behaviors that ensure harmony and to refrain from behaviors that threaten harmony.
In Hofstedes study, the United States, Australia, Great Britain, and Canada had the highest scores on Individualism-Collectivism. Workers in these countries were characterized as being the most individualistic of all workers in the study. It is interesting to note that each of these countries has a strong historical link to Great Britain. Peru, Pakistan, Colombia, and Venezuela had the lowest scores on Individualism-Collectivism and were the most collectivistic.
Masculinity-Femininity
Biological differences between men and women are a given. The question that every society, culture, and individual has to deal with is the degree to which the biological differences translate, or should translate, to practical differences in social roles, functions, or positions. Traditionally, American culture has expected men to be more assertive, dominant, and the primary wage earner and women to be more nurturing, caring, and primarily concerned with family and child care issues (see also Chapter 7). This picture has been changing rapidly in the United States and continues to be a source of conflict, controversy, and confusion. Values concerning equity and equality have infused the workplace, and many American companies are still in transition toward providing gender equity in the workplace.
Each culture and society must deal with the issue of sex roles and gender differences. A fourth dimension emerged in Hofstedes study, which he labeled Masculinity-Femininity. According to Hofstede, Masculinity-Femininity refers to the degree to which cultures foster or maintain differences between the sexes in work-related values. Cultures high on Masculinity-Femininitysuch as Japan, Austria, Venezuela, and Italywere associated with the greatest degree of sex differences in work-related values. Cultures low on Masculinity-Femininitysuch as Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Swedenhad the fewest differences between the sexes.
Interestingly, Hofstedes original definition of this dimension was not so related to sex differences as it was related to competitiveness and achievement orientation and was labeled simply as Masculinity (Hofstede, 1980). Over the years, the label for this dimension and its description was transformed to a bipolar comparison with femininity.
Long- versus Short-Term Orientation
Although Hofstede originally reported four cultural dimensions of work-related values, a fifth dimension was added to the original fourLong- versus Short-Term Orientation. This dimension originated from his research in Asia, where he and his collaborators found that there was an additional dimension that characterized organizational cultures there (Chinese Culture Connection,1987; Hofstede & Bond, 1988). This dimension refers to the degree to which cultures encourage delayed gratification of material, social, and emotional needs among its members. The most long-term-oriented cultures in Hofstedes study were China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan; the most short-term-oriented were Poland, West Africa, and Spain.
Cultures with Long-Term Orientations are based on two principles:
Unequal status relationships lead to a stable society.
The family is typical of all social organizations.
These principles translate to abstract values that play an important role not only in interpersonal relationships in business but also as organizational goals and principles. For example, cultures and organizations high in Long-Term Orientation differentiate more between elders and youngers, and between brothers and sisters; believe that humility is a great human virtue, focus on building relationships and market position rather than bottom-line profits, integrate business and family lives, and coordinate more hierarchically and horizontally (Hofstede, 2001).
To be sure, Hofstedes is not the only work on work-related values across cultures. There have been several other large-scale attempts to measure organizational culture around the world, and these undoubtedly aid in our understanding of national culture as well. For example, Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaarss (1996) have reported two universal value orientations in their work in organizations; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, and Gupta (2004) have reported nine value orientations related to leadership; and Inglehart (1997) has reported two attitudinal-belief-valueorientations (Table 15.1). Thus, in reality, there is a wide range of cultural dimensions to use in developing cultural theories and accounting for between-country differences. Many of these dimensions, however, are theoretically and empirically related to each other. Hofstede (1996), for instance, reanalyzed Trompenaarss (1993) data, and reported that Trompenaarss dimensions were statistically correlated with his own. And, Hofstedes work has arguably had the largest impact on the field. Therefore in the next section, we will use Hofstedes work as a base to describe cultural differences in organizational cultures and behavior.
Table 15.1 Four Major Sets of Dimensions of Cultural Variability Found in Studies of Work-Related Values
Framework Dimensions
Hofstedes (2001) dimensions of work-related values
IndividualismCollectivism
Power Distance
Uncertainty Avoidance
Masculinity-Femininity
Long- vs. ShortTerm Orientation
Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaarss (1996) dimensions of values
Egalitarian Commitment vs. Conservatism
Utilitarian Involvement vs. Loyal Involvement
Performance Orientation
Assertiveness Orientation
House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, and Guptas (2004) dimensions of leadership values Future orientation
Human Orientation
Institutional Collectivism
Family Collectivism
Gender Egalitarianism
Power Distance
Uncertainty Avoidance
Ingleharts (1997) dimensions of attitudes, values, and beliefs
Traditional vs. Secular-Rational Orientation
Survival vs. Self-Expression Values
Over the years many scientists have examined how Hofstedes cultural dimensions are related to organizational culture and behavior. Most of this work has focused on Hofstedes original four dimensions. In the next few sections, well describe some of the major findings from these studies, using Hofstedes dimensions as a base.
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE
Cultural Differences in Organizational Culture
Each organization is unique, and because each contains a group of people with a way of existence, they have culture. This is known as organizational culture or corporate culture (OReilly, 1989; OReilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). Recall that in Chapter 1 we defined culture as a meaning and information system, shared by a group and transmitted across generations, that allows the group tomeet basic needs of survival, pursue happiness and well-being, and derive meaning from life. Likewise, organizational culture can be defined as a meaning and information system shared within an organization and transmitted across successive generations of members, that allows the organization to survive and thrive.
The concept of organizational culture needs to be compared with another closely related construct,organizational climate. This refers to a shared perception of the way things are around here (Reichers & Schneider, 1990)a shared perception of organizational policies, practices, and procedures. In addition, the term contains nuances of an emotional climatethat is, how people generally feel in their normal, everyday business practices. Climate can probably be best understood as a manifestation of organizational culture (Reichers & Schneider, 1990; Schein, 1985), or a perception of how things are. Organizational culture generally refers to a deeper, less consciously held set of values, attitudes, and meanings.
The concept of organizational climate is a long-standing one in the field of industrial and organizational psychology. Reichers and Schneider (1990), in their review of these two constructs, point out that writing appeared as early as 1939 on organizational climate and its relationship to work behaviors. Organizational culture, on the other hand, is a relatively new concept. It first appeared in the literature in 1979 and has currently become an important catchphrase. Most of the cross-cultural research on organizations has focused on culture, not climate.
Organizations differ according to Hofstedes dimensions (Table 15.2). For example, in low Power Distance cultures, employees are less afraid of disagreeing with their boss, and generally show more cooperativeness. In high Power Distance cultures, however, employees have greater fear of disagreeing with their boss, and are more reluctant to trust each other. This makes sense because high Power Distance cultures encourage greater status and power differences between bosses and subordinates, and likely produce institutional procedures and rules to maintain those status differences. Low Power Distance cultures minimize such differences and thus encourage greater conflict and disagreement across status hierarchies.
Other aspects of organizational culture are also different across other Hofstede dimensions. For example, there are more women in jobs with mixed-sex composition and smaller or no value differences between the sexes in the same jobs in Feminine cultures, whereas the opposite is true in Masculine cultures. Conflict in organizations is seen as natural in low Uncertainty Avoidance cultures, whereas it is undesirable in high Uncertainty Avoidance cultures.
Culture and Person-Organization Fit
One topic that has gained prominence not only in the scientific literature but also in applied work is the issue of cultural fit between person and company. Given the work conducted in the past two decades on organizational culture, and the work that has been done for years on individual culture, a logical question concerns the match between employees and the cultures they come from, on the one hand, and a company and its organizational culture, on the other. Do mismatches create conflicts Do successful matches lead to more productive companies
Abrams, Ando, and Hinkle (1998) examined cross-cultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of workers turnover intentions. In their study, employees of companies in Great Britain and Japan completed questionnaires related to turnover intentions, attitudes toward leaving the organization, subjective norms regarding perceived approval for leaving, and organizational identification. In the British sample, turnover intentions were predicted by organizational identification; workers with stronger identifications with the company had lower turnover intentions. In the Japanese sample, however, turnover intentions were associated with both organizational identification and subjective norms. These findings suggest that although social identity is strongly associated with employee turnover in both cultures, subjective normative aspects of group membership play a larger role in predicting turnover in Japan than they do in Great Britain.
Table 15.2 Differences in Organizational Processes According to Hofstedes Cultural Dimensions
Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance Individualism vs. Collectivism Masculinity vs. Femininity
Low High Low High Collectivistic Individualistic Feminine Masculine
Employees less afraid of disagreeing with their boss. Employees fear to disagree with their boss. Competition between employees can be fair and right. Competition between employees is emotionally disapproved of. More traditional time-use pattern. More modern time-use pattern.
Employees show more cooperativeness. Employees reluctant to trust each other. Rules may be broken for pragmatic reasons. Company rules should not be broken. More women in jobs with mixed-sex composition. Fewer women in jobs with mixed-sex composition.
Conflict in organizations is natural. Conflict in organizations is undesirable. Smaller or no value differences between men and women in the same jobs. Greater value differences between men and women in the same jobs.
Research has also documented positive aspects of employee-company cultural congruence. Meglino, Ravlin, and Adkins (1989), for example, questioned 191 production workers, 17 supervisors, and 13 managers on job satisfaction and organization commitment; they also collected objective data concerning attendance, performance, and efficiency. Two measures of employees values congruence were computed and correlated with all psychological and behavioral data. Correlational analyses indicated that workers who were more satisfied and committed had values that were congruent with those of their supervisor.
These findings raise important questions concerning the nature of personnel selection in all companies and cultures today, especially in the United States with its diverse workforce population. Adding to the complexity of these issues are the cultural and ethnic differences in career choices of todays young adults (Kim, 1993) and perceived past and future barriers to career development (Luzzo, 1993). Finding an appropriate match between employer and employee is a daunting task for both individuals and organizations, as neither side profits from an unsuitable relationship or unhappy employees.
But there is also some evidence that person-organization fit may not be that important in some contexts, especially in developing countries (Nyambegera, Daniels, & Sparrow, 2001). Thus, more research is certainly necessary on organizational culture and the fit between employee and company. These are real-life issues that have important implications in our everyday lives. Organizations today struggle with the issue of cultural match between employee and company, and new ways of assimilating newcomers into organizations are constantly being developed from a cultural perspective (see, for example, Hess, 1993). Although most research approaches this issue from the organizations point of view, some researchers have also addressed efforts by employees to assess the fit between themselves and the culture of the organization to which they are applying (for example, Pratt, 1993). Systematic research on these issues is still young, and we have much to learn. What constitutes a successful or unsuccessful match How do we make these assessments In some cultures, as Love et al. discovered, making such assessments may be counter to the prevailing cultural norms. And how valid is the suggestion that all personnel election decisions should be informed by matches Are there optimal levels of mismatches that may spur on maximal performance For example, although individualism is usually associated with creativity and initiative, at least one study has shown that innovation and entrepreneurship is highest under conditions of balanced individualism and collectivism, and lowest in either highly individualistic or highly collectivistic corporations (Morris, Avila, & Allen, 1993). Could such an effect exist within organizations as well
CULTURE AND ATTITUDES ABOUT WORK AND ORGANIZATIONS
People of different cultures construe themselves and their existence in relation to work differently across cultures and these differences are related to meaningful dimensions of cultural variability. Again Hofstedes dimensions are useful in understanding cultural differences in attitudes about work. For instance, people in low Power Distance cultures have a stronger perceived work ethic and a strong disbelief that people dislike work, whereas the opposite is true for people in high Power Distance cultures. Duty in life appeals to people in collectivistic cultures while enjoyment in life appeals to people in individualistic cultures. People in higher performance capabilities in Masculine cultures feel empowered to make decisions and seek opportunities to voice their opinions, whereas people with less capabilities in Feminine cultures value the importance of nurturing people with lower capability (van den Bos et al., in press). See Table 15.3.
People of different cultures differ in their levels of organizational commitment, and what factors are important to it. A meta analysis by Meyer and colleagues (2002), for example, showed thatnormative commitmentthe degree to which ones ties to the organization are bound by duty and obligationand affective commitmentthe level of personal feelings associated with ones relationship to an organizationboth were predictive of organizational commitment, but to different degrees across cultures. Some people may view their work groups and the organizations to which they belong as a fundamental part of themselves. In collectivistic cultures, work, colleagues, and the organization become synonymous with the self. The bonds between these people and their colleagues, and between themselves and the organization, are stronger and qualitatively different from those of people in individualistic cultures. In individualistic cultures, however, people have an easier time separating themselves from their organizations. They make greater distinctions between work time and personal time, and between company-based expense accounts and personal expenses. They also make greater distinctions between social and work activities, with regard to both their work colleagues and their business associates (potential clients, customers, and so forth).
Cultural differences in the meaning of work can manifest themselves in other aspects as well. For example, in American culture, it is easy to think of work simply as a means to accumulate money (pay or salary) and make a living. In other cultures, especially collectivistic ones, work may be seen more as fulfilling an obligation to a larger group. In this situation, we would expect to find less movement of individuals from one job to another because of the individuals social obligations toward the work organization to which he or she belongs and to the people comprising that organization. In individualistic cultures, it is easier to consider leaving one job and going to another because it is easier to separate jobs from the self. A different job will just as easily accomplish the same goals.
All of the work in this area point to differences in the nature of the psychological contracts that exist between organizations and their members (Rosseau & Schalk, 2000). These are the perceptions of mutual obligations that exist between organizations and their members, and they differ across cultures.
Table 15.3 Differences in the Meaning of Work According to Hofstedes Cultural Dimensions
Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance Individualism vs. Collectivism Masculinity vs. Femininity
Low High Low High Collectivistic Individualistic Feminine Masculine
Stronger perceived work ethic, strong disbelief that people dislike work. Weaker perceived work ethic, more frequent belief that people dislike work. Prefers manager career over specialist career. Prefers specialist career over manager career. Duty in life appeals to employees. Enjoyment in life appeals to employees. People prefer shorter working hours to more salary. People prefer more salary to shorter working hours.
Higher tolerance for ambiguity in looking at own job (lower satisfaction scores). Lower tolerance for ambiguity in looking at own job (higher satisfaction scores). Managers choose duty, expertness, and prestige as life goals. Managers choose pleasure, affections, and security as life goals. Employees like small companies. Employees like large corporations.
More years of schooling needed to do a given job. Fewer years of schooling needed to do a given job. Lower job stress. Higher job stress.
Less skepticism as to factors leading to getting ahead. Skepticism as to factors leading to getting ahead.
Optimism about peoples amount of initiative, ambition, and leadership skills. Pessimism about peoples amount of initiative, ambition, and leadership skills. Importance of provisions by company (training, physical conditions). Importance of employees personal life (time). Theory X (employees dislike work) strongly rejected. Theory X gets some support.
Preference for broad guidelines. Preference for clear requirements and instructions. Emotional dependence on company. Emotional independence from company. Relationship with manager, cooperation, friendly atmosphere, living in a desirable area, and employment security relatively more important to employees. Earnings, recognition, advancement, and challenge relatively more important to employees.
Less hesitation to change employers. Tendency to stay with the same employer. Large company attractive. Small company attractive. Work less central in peoples lives. Greater work centrality.
Loyalty to employer is not seen as a virtue. Loyalty to employer is seen as a virtue Moral involvement with company. Calculative involvement with company. Companys interference in private life rejected. Companys interference in private life accepted.
Preference for smaller organizations as employers. Preference for larger organizations as employers.
Employee optimism about the motives behind company activities. Employee pessimism about the motives behind company activities.
Also one cannot ignore the large influence of the socioeconomic status of the society. In many cultures of the world, people young and old alike are without work, and thus have many difficulties making a living for themselves and their families. The inability to work, related to the unavailability of work, has major consequences for individuals and societies, causing great unrest and hardship at both levels. To many around the world, having a jobany jobis a luxury. A glance at the differences in per capita gross domestic product at purchasing power parity, which is an index of the purchasing power of the average individual in each country controlled for the cost of living, gives one an idea of these differences (Table 15.4).
Table 15.4 Selected Countries GDP per capita (PPP) in 2010 from the International Monetary Fund
Rank Country US$
1 Luxembourg 108,832
2 Norway 84,444
3 Qatar 76,168
4 Switzerland 67,246
5 United Arab Emirates 59,717
6 Denmark 56,147
7 Australia 55,590
8 Sweden 48,875
9 United States of America 47,284
10 The Netherlands 47,172
11 Canada 46,215
16 Japan 42,280
33 South Korea 20,591
53 Brazil 10,816
56 Russia 10,437
61 Mexico 9,586
94 Peoples Republic of China 4,382
119 Egypt 2,789
121 Iraq 2,564
138 India 1,265
And regardless of the type of work one does, in many cultures of the world, people who have work come to perceive their work as their lifework. That is, people tend to ascribe important meaning to what they are doing. The ability to do so is probably unique to humans because of the unique cognitive skills humans have, as we discussed in Chapter 1. Peoples views of their lifework are an important aspect of human culture.
CULTURE, MOTIVATION, AND PRODUCTIVITY
One important issue all organizations must address is the degree to which their members will be productive in various types of settings. All organizations want to maximize productivity while minimizing costs, whether a company, church, or sport team. This concern has led to an important area of research on productivity as a function of group size.
Early research on group productivity in the United States typically showed that individual productivity tends to decline in larger groups (Latan, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). These findings contributed to the coining of the term social loafing. Two factors appear to contribute to this phenomenon. One is reduced efficiency resulting from a lack of coordination among workers efforts, resulting in lack of activity or duplicate activity. The second factor is a reduction in effort by individuals when they work in groups as compared to when they work by themselves. Latan (1981) and his colleagues (Latan et al., 1979) conducted a number of studies investigating group size, coordination, and effort and found that in larger groups, both lack of coordination and reduced effort resulted in decreased productivity. Latan (1981) attributed these findings to a diffusion of responsibility in groups. As group size increases, the responsibility for getting a job done is divided among more people, and group members ease up because their individual contribution is less recognizable.
Early cross-cultural research on groups and their productivity, however, found exactly the opposite phenomenon in other cultures. Earley (1989) examined social loafing in an organizational setting among managerial trainees in the United States and in the Peoples Republic of China. Subjects in both cultures worked on a task under conditions of low or high accountability and low or high shared responsibility. The results clearly indicated social loafing for the American subjects, whose individual performances in a group were less than when working alone, but not for the Chinese.
Shirakashi (1985) and Yamaguchi, Okamoto, and Oka (1985) conducted studies involving Japanese participants in several tasks. They found that social loafing did not occur; instead working in a group enhanced individual performance rather than diminished it. Gabrenya, Wang, and Latan (1985) also demonstrated this social striving in a sample of Chinese schoolchildren. These authors speculated that cultures such as China and Japan foster interpersonal interdependence and group collective functioning more than do the American culture, thus fostering group productivity because of increasing coordination among ingroup members. These cultures also place higher values on individual contributions in group settings.
Interestingly, this trend may also be occurring in the United States (see Ebrahimpour & Johnson,1992; Hodgetts, Luthans, & Lee, 1994). As a result of studying successful business practices overseas, many American companies have tried to adapt and adopt practices including increasing teamwork in their daily work behaviors. Indeed, several studies involving American participants have begun to challenge the traditional notion of social loafing (for example, Harkins, 1987; Harkins & Petty,1982; Shepperd & Wright, 1989; Wagner, 1995; Weldon & Gargano, 1988; Zaccaro, 1984). Jackson and Williams (1985), for instance, reported that Americans working collectively improved performance and productivity. In a more recent study, Westaby (1995) asked participants in the United States and Japan to complete a paper-and-pen tracing task, either individually or in the presence of a group. Although the author expected that the Japanese would perform better in the group situation, the effect of group presence was actually the same for Americans and Japanese. Participants of both cultures had higher productivity and job quality in the presence of a group than when working alone. Further analyses indicated that although Japanese participants had higher productivity than American participants in general (regardless of social context), there was no difference in the quality of the work. Thus, our notions of social loafing and group productivity are now being challenged not only cross-culturally but also within American culture. Indeed, workaholism seems be a growing concern for many, and some research suggests that the relationship between workaholism and work-life imbalance is not influenced by culture (Aziz, Adkins, Walker, & Wuensch, 2009).
How does social striving work in the United States Clearly, the same processes that work in one culture may or may not work in another. Bagozzi, Werbeke, and Gavino (2003), for instance, showed that while shame produced positive effects in Filipino employees (enhanced customer relationship building and civic virtue), it had negative effects in Dutch employees (diminished sales volume, and problems in communication and relationships). Some scholars have suggested that one way in which work groups and teams can become more productive in cultures like that in the United States is through the use of constructive thought patterns that help to transform self-managing teams into self-leading teams (for example, Manz, 1992; Neck & Manz, 1994). The idea is that employees become empowered to influence strategic issues concerning what they do and why, in addition to how they do their work. Again, these suggestions highlight the notion that different bases may underlie productivity or nonproductivity in different cultural groups.
Hofstedes dimensions also provide some understanding of cultural differences in motivation and productivity. There is generally greater achievement motivation in low Uncertainty Avoidance cultures compared to high, and in Masculine cultures compared to Feminine. Individual initiative is encouraged in individualistic cultures, whereas it is looked down upon in collectivistic cultures, which encourage group achievement. In high Masculine cultures, achievement is defined in terms of recognition and wealth, whereas achievement is defined in terms of personal relationships in Feminine cultures. And the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance is stronger in Individualistic, low Power Distance, low Uncertainty Avoidance, and Masculine cultures (Ng, Sorenson, & Yim, 2009). See Table 15.5.
Not only are the factors that influence motivation and productivity different across cultures, but leaders perceptions of the motivations of subordinates differ. In one study (DeVoe & Iyengar, 2004), for example, North American and Latin American managers perceptions of their subordinates intrinsic motivation was a better predictor of performance appraisal, whereas perceptions of both subordinate intrinsic and extrinsic motivations were better predictors of performance appraisals for Asian managers.
Table 15.5 Differences in Motivation and Productivity According to Hofstedes Cultural Dimensions
Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance Individualism vs. Collectivism Masculinity vs. Femininity
Low High Low High Collectivistic Individualistic Feminine Masculine
Stronger achievement motivation. Less achievement motivation. Moral importance attached to training and use of skills in jobs. More importance attached to freedom and challenge in jobs. Employees less interested in recognition. Employees aspire to recognition (admiration for the strong).
Stronger ambition for individual advancement. Lower ambition for individual advancement. Individual initiative is socially frowned upon; fatalism. Individual initiative is socially encouraged. Weaker achievement motivation. Stronger achievement motivation.
Achievement defined in terms of human contacts and living environment. Achievement defined in terms of recognition and wealth.
CULTURE, LEADERSHIP, AND MANAGEMENT STYLES
Culture and the Meaning of Leadership
In many industrialized cultures, leadership can be defined as the process of influence between a leader and followers to attain group, organizational, or societal goals (Hollander, 1985, p. 486). Leaders may be autocratic, dictatorial, democratic, and so on. In common language, we speak of strong and effective leaders as opposed to weak and ineffective ones. In many organizations, especially in the United States, we expect leaders to have vision, authority, and power and to give subordinates tasks that have meaning in a larger picture. In American culture, leaders are expected to be decision makersmovers and shakers of organizations and of people.
In other cultures, leaders may share many of these same traits, but their leadership and managerial styles are not necessarily seen as dynamic or action-oriented. For example, some of the most effective leaders and managers in organizations in India are seen as much more nurturing, taking on a parental role within the company and in relation to their subordinates (Sinha, 1979). These leaders are seen as much more participative, guiding and directing their subordinates tasks and behaviors as opposed to merely giving directives. Still leaders and managers in India need to be flexible, at times becoming very authoritative in their work roles. Thus, the optimal leadership style in India, according to Sinha, is somewhere between a totally participative and totally authoritative style.
Another way leadership and managerial styles differ across cultures is in the boundaries of that leadership. In American culture, for example, workers make a clear distinction between work and personal life. When 5:00 P.M. arrives and the bell to end work rings, many American workers consider themselves off from work and on their personal time. The boundary between work and their personal lives is very clear. Leaders, bosses, and others in the company should have nothing to say about how members of the company live their personal lives (for example, where they should live or whom they should marry). In other cultures, however, the boundaries between work and personal life are less clear. In many countries, the individuals existence at work becomes an integral part of the self. Thus, the distinction between work and company, on the one hand, and ones personal life, on the other, is fuzzy and blurred. Needless to say, leaders in such cultures can request overtime work from their subordinates and expect to receive it with much less griping than in American culture.
As the distinction between work and self becomes blurred, so do the boundaries of jurisdiction for leaders. For example, leaders and managers in India and Japan are expected to look after their subordinates in terms of their work and existence within the company; but it is not uncommon for leaders to be concerned with their subordinates private lives as well. Subordinates in these cultures often will not hesitate to consult with their bosses about problems at home and to seek advice and help from them about those problems. Leaders, more often than not, will see helping their subordinates with this part of their lives as an integral and important part of their jobs. In India and Japan, it is not uncommon for bosses to find marriage partners for their subordinates and to look after them inside as well as outside the company. The bond between them extends well beyond the company.
Culture and Leadership Behaviors
Given these cross-cultural differences in the definition of leadership, it is not surprising that many cross-cultural studies report differences in specific leadership behaviors (see, for example, Black & Porter, 1991, on managerial differences in the United States and Hong Kong; Okechuku, 1994, on managers ratings of subordinates in Canada, Hong Kong, and China; Smith, Peterson, & Schwartz,2002, on sources of guidance of managers in 47 nations). Smith, Peterson, and Misumi (1994), for instance, obtained effectiveness ratings of work teams in electronics assembly plants in Japan, Great Britain, and the United States, as well as ratings of ten event-management processes used by superiors. The results indicated that for the Japanese, work performance depended on the relatively frequent use of manuals and procedures and on relatively frequent guidance from supervisors (related to high Uncertainty Avoidance). American and British supervisors, however, favored more contingent responses, suggesting that the preferred managerial response depends on the specific event or task they face.
Many other studies have documented cross-cultural differences in leadership and managerial style, and many of their findings can be summarized using Hofstedes dimensions. For example, leaders in high Power Distance cultures tend to be autocratic or paternalistic in their decision-making and interactional style, while leaders and managers in low Power Distance cultures tend to be more participative and consensual. Managers in high Uncertainty Avoidance cultures tend to be selected on the basis of seniority, whereas in low Uncertainty Avoidance cultures they tend to be selected on other criteria, such as merit. In Individualistic cultures, autonomy is important to managers, whereas in collectivistic cultures security is more important (Table 15.6).
Not all cross-cultural research on this topic, however, has shown cultural differences; a substantial amount of literature documents cultural similarities in leadership behaviors as well. For example, Smith, Peterson, Misumi, and Bond (1992) examined work teams in Japan, Hong Kong, the United States, and Great Britain and found that leaders who were rated high in behaviors related to task performance and group maintenance all achieved higher work quality. Smith (1998) also found consistent themes in a survey of managers handling of day-to-day work events in Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina. Many other studies (see review by Bond & Smith, 1996) show similar cross-cultural consistencies in some aspects of managerial behavior.
How are we to make sense of the literature that shows both similarities and differences across cultures in leadership and managerial behaviors Misumi (1985) suggests that management involves general and universal functions that all effective leaders must carry out, but that the specific ways in which they are carried out may differ. Misumi contrasts functions related to task performance and group maintenance, and suggests that both domains involve universal leadership goals that are consistent across cultures and companies. Different specific behaviors may be used to accomplish these managerial goals, however; depending on situations, companies, and cultures, these behaviors will vary. This approach invites us to examine and understand human behavior on multiple levelsone level involving cross-cultural universals or similarities in functions and goals, and the other involving differences in culture- and context-specific instrumental behaviors.
Table 15.6 Differences in Leadership and Management Styles According to Hofstedes Cultural Dimensions
Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance Individualism vs. Collectivism Masculinity vs. Femininity
Low High Low High Collectivistic Individualistic Feminine Masculine
Close supervision negatively evaluated by subordinates. Close supervision positively evaluated by subordinates. Managers selected on criteria other than seniority. Managers selected on basis of seniority. Managers aspire to conformity and orderliness. Managers aspire to leadership and variety. Managers relatively less interested in leadership, independence, and self-realization. Managers have leadership, independence, and self-realization ideal.
Managers more satisfied with participative superior. Managers more satisfied with directive or persuasive superior. A manager need not be an expert in the field he/she manages. A manager must be an expert in the field he/she manages. Managers rate having security in their position more important. Managers rate having autonomy more important. Managers have more of a service ideal. Managers relatively less attracted by service role.
Subordinates preference for managers decision-making style clearly centered on consultative, give-and-take style. Subordinates preference for managers decision-making style polarized between autocratic-paternalistic and majority rule. Delegation to subordinates can be complete. Initiative of subordinates should be kept under control. Managers endorse traditional points of view, not supporting employee initiative and group activity. Managers endorse modern points of view on stimulating employee initiative and group activity.
Managers like seeing themselves as practical and systematic; they admit a need for support. Managers like seeing themselves as benevolent decision makers. Acceptance of foreigners as managers. Suspicion toward foreigners as managers.
Managers seen as showing more consideration. Managers seen as showing less consideration.
Mixed feeling about employees participation in management. Ideological support for employees participation in management.
Mixed feelings among managers about the distribution of capacity for leadership and initiative. Ideological support among managers for a wide distribution of capacity for leadership and initiative.
In addition to cultural explanations of differences in leadership behaviors, an emerging line of research has demonstrated the potential effects of climate and national wealth on leadership. In an interesting series of studies, Van de Vliert and his colleagues have shown that the climate of a countrywhether hot, cold, or mildis related to levels of poverty and workers wages (Van de Vliert, 2003), motives for volunteer work (Van de Vliert, Huang, & Levine, 2004), happiness and altruism (Van de Vliert, Huang, & Parker, 2004), domestic violence (Van de Vliert, Schwartz, Huismans, Hofstede, & Daan, 1999), and leader reliance on subordinates (Van de Vliert & Smith,2004). In one of his latest studies, Van de Vliert (2006) examined the relationship between climate and autocratic leadership, in which superiors act in more self-centered ways, make decisions unilaterally, and supervise subordinates activities more closely. The sample included 17,370 middle managers from companies in 61 cultures. He found that autocratic leadership styles were less effective in rich countries with a demanding (very harsh hot or cold) climate, but more effective in poor countries with a demanding climate (Figure 15.1).
Figure 15.1 Autocratic Leadership as a Joint Function of Demanding Bioclimate and National Wealth

Source: Evert Van de Vliert. Autocratic Leadership Around the Globe: Do Climate and Wealth Drive Leadership Culture, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18(1), p. 53, Copyright 2006 by Sage Publications. Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications.
One of the largest and most influential studies on the characteristics of leaders has been the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Project (the GLOBE Project; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2003). In this project, perceptions of leadership were assessed in 62 cultures involving about 17,000 middle managers. The findings revealed that there were two characteristics of leaderships that were universally endorsed: charisma and team orientation. Cultures differed, however, on the relative degree of importance they placed on both of these attributes. Charisma was relatively less important, for instance, in high Power Distance and Collectivistic cultures, whereas it was relatively more important in low Power Distance, Individualistic cultures.
CULTURE AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES
How are decisions made in the organizations of which you are a part How is pay determined How are members recognized for their efforts How is change implemented These and other decisions are some of the most important things any organization does. Culture influences organizational decision-making processes.
Organizational Decisions
One way of making decisions many Americans are familiar with is a democratic decision-making procedure. (Although Americans should realize there are many different definitions and types of democracies.) In this procedure, every person involved has a say in the decision, usually by way of a vote; once votes are tallied, the decision of the majority prevails. This procedure has advantages and disadvantages. A major advantage to this procedure is that everyone has an equal say in the process. Democratic decision making is associated with an individualistic cultural viewpoint, which tends to see each person as a separate, autonomous being.
The democratic process can also lead to considerable red tape and bureaucracy. Many organizations, in fact, are not so much democracies as oligarchies (Ferrante, 1992). An oligarchy is an organizational structure characterized by rule-or decision-making power of a few. Decisions are typically made by people at the top, who then impose their decisions on subordinates. Sometimes the sheer size of organizations necessitates that they be oligarchies if decisions are to be made at all. If everyone were to be involved in all types of decisions, the bureaucratic process would simply be too unwieldy and time-consuming. This top-down approach to business decision-making is characteristic of many American companies.
Decision-making is different in different cultures. The Japanese process, for instance, is known as the ringi system. In a Japanese organization, there is no formal system by which every person is ensured a vote. Instead, a proposal is circulated among all people who will be affected by it regardless of status, rank, or position. Initiatives for proposals can come from top, middle, or lower management, or from subordinates. Even before a proposal is formally circulated among all interested parties, there is often considerable discussion and debate about the proposal. All views are taken into account so that the proposal, when written and formally circulated, addresses concerns and negative consequences raised by as many parties as possible. There is considerable consultation about the proposal on as broad a basis as possible, and consensus is achieved before the proposal is formally implemented. This broad-based, consensus-building procedure is callednemawashi. If proposals do not achieve consensus by this procedure, they do not appear formally. Proposals that have gone through this procedure and have received the blessing of all those affected are then put in the form of a formal proposal on paper. A routing of the proposal involves all section chiefs and managers before it gets to the person or persons on top, who then put their formal stamp of approval on it. Needless to say, by the time something gets to that stage, it has met with the approval of many people throughout the organization.
Like all decision-making procedures, the Japanese system has advantages and disadvantages. One of the major disadvantages is the time-consuming nature of the process. The inability of Japanese managers to make a decision on the spot in international negotiations has been a source of frustration for American negotiators, who are used to dealing with single decision makers. The Japanese negotiator, however, must contact all the people within the company affected by the impending decision prior to making that decision. An advantage of the Japanese system, however, is the speed with which decisions can be implemented. Although the Japanese typically take much more time making a decision, they can usually implement it relatively quickly. No doubt, having everyone briefed in advance about the proposal aids in speedy implementation. Also, people in a collectivistic culture are more likely to get behind a decision that is for the good of the company, whatever their personal feelings about it.
One problem that has plagued decision-making in groups is groupthinka collective pattern of thinking that hinders effective group decisions. Groupthink is generally characterized by direct pressure; self-censorship; illusions of invulnerability, unanimity, or morality; mind guarding; collective rationalization; and shared stereotypes (Janis, 1983). These types of processes may underlie social loafing and general apathy toward work and productivity. Such destructive thought patterns, however, can be transformed into constructive ones, or teamthink (Neck & Manz, 1994). Teamthink involves the encouragement of divergent views, open expression of concerns and ideas, awareness of limitations and threats, recognition of members uniqueness, and discussion of collective doubts. These constructive patterns lead to more effective decision-making. Such a process may be critical for many organizations in many cultures, and especially for increasingly diversified companies in the United States, because it may be one way of maintaining individuality while serving the collective common good of the organization.
Hofstedes dimensions also provide a way of understanding cultural differences in decision-making. In low Power Distance cultures, for example, managers are seen as making decisions after consulting with subordinates, and informal employee consultation is very possible. In high Power Distance cultures, however, managers are seen as making decisions autocratically and paternalistically. Organizations in low Uncertainty Avoidance cultures engage in more risk taking, whereas organizations in high Uncertainty Avoidance cultures exercise more restraint in taking risks (see Table 15.7).
Organizational Fairness
Leaders and organizations often rely on being perceived as fair in order to have any sense of effectiveness. But cultures differ on definitions of fairness and procedures by which to achieve it. One way to understand fairness is by delineating whether decisions are made on the basis of equity or equality. Equity refers to whether ones contributions and efforts are considered in making organizational decisions. Equality refers to whether the demographic characteristics of individuals such as age or seniority in the organization are considered primarily in making organizational decisions. Cross-cultural research on these topics has provided mixed results. One meta-analysis of the literature showed that equity was preferred in individualistic cultures, while equality was preferred in collectivistic cultures (Sama & Papamarcos, 2000). Another, however, showed that Individualism vs. Collectivism was not related to reward allocation preferences (Fischer & Smith,2003). It may be that who is making the decision and who is the recipient of the decision contribute to these conflicting findings. If the individual making the decision is also the person receiving the benefits of the decision, then it appears that individuals in collectivistic cultures prefer equality; if individuals making the decisions are not recipients of the benefits of the decision, however, individuals in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures tend to prefer equity (Leung, 1997).
Table 15.7 Differences in Decision Making According to Hofstedes Cultural Dimensions
Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance Individualism vs. Collectivism Masculinity vs. Femininity
Low High Low High Collectivistic Individualistic Feminine Masculine
Managers seen as making decisions after consulting with subordinates. Managers seen as making decisions autocratically and paternalistically. More risk-taking. Less risk-taking. Group decisions are considered better than individual decisions. Individual decisions are considered better than group decisions. Belief in group decisions. Belief in the independent decision maker.
Informal employee consultation possible without formal participation. Formal employee participation possible without informal consultation. More sympathy for individual and authoritative decisions. Ideological appeal of consensus and of consultative leadership.
Another important line of research in this area examines outcomes of decisions regarding the distribution of resources such as pay (distributive justice), and on the process of making such decisions (procedural justice). Morris and Leung (2000) reviewed the research in this area, and classified cross-cultural studies or distributive justice into two types: studies examining cross-cultural differences in the criteria by which decisions are made, and studies examining cross-cultural differences in the behaviors judged to match the criteria. With regard to the former, Morris and Leung noted many inconsistencies in the literature across studies in the findings, and concluded that people of different cultures apply different criteria in making allocation decisions, and that these criteria are based on situational cues. Different situations in different cultures produce different cues which, in turn, are associated with different criteria to be used in making allocating decisions.
With regard to the behaviors judged to match criteria, Americans judgments of fairness are more likely to be tied to judgments of performance and merit, whereas many East Asians judgments are more tied to seniority, education, and family size (Hundley & Kim, 1997). Morris and Leungs analysis of these studies suggested that these types of judgments are not static; as cultural beliefs, values, and opinions change across time, their judgments of this aspect of fairness also shift across time. In Japan today, for example, there is a much larger concern for performance and merit-based rewards than seniority and education, as compared with 20 or 30 years ago (Matsumoto, 2002a).
As with distributive justice, Morris and Leung (2000) separated studies related to procedural justice into studies examining criteria and then the behaviors associated with the criteria. The studies they reviewed suggested that in hierarchical, high-Power-Distance cultures, people in legitimate positions of authority can treat subordinates more harshly before this behavior is seen as unfair. Moreover, a meta-analysis examining 25 studies in 14 cultures (Fischer & Smith, 2003) indicated that the hierarchical nature of cultures was important in influencing reward allocation. Specifically, they found that rewards such as pay and promotions were distributed in hierarchical cultures differentially on the basis of equity and performance, whereas more egalitarian, horizontal cultures preferred equality over equity. Also importantly, as mentioned above, Fischer and Smith found that individualism-collectivism was not as important in determining reward allocations as the hierarchical, power dimensions of culture were.
Consumer Decisions
One interesting area of research that has blossomed in recent years has been cross-cultural research on consumer decision making. While consumer and economic decision making in general has been a major area of research for many years, it has only been in the recent decade or two that cross-cultural research has taken hold. Recent studies, for example, have shown that compared to European Americans, Asian Americans typically choose more brand-name products, and this difference appears to be related to greater social status concerns among Asian Americans than European Americans (Kim & Drolet, 2009). Certainly this kind of knowledge is important to marketing products, goods, and services.
In the study of consumer behavior, the role of emotion in consumer decision-making has also gained importance in recent years. And while emotion is a universal phenomenon, people of different cultures differ in how much they express and experience emotions, and control them (seeChapter 8). These psychological processes are at work in consumer behavior as well. When given an unexpected gift, for instance, East Asians report less surprise and pleasure than Americans. This difference appears to be associated with East Asians motivations to maintain balance and emotional control. But when the unexpected gift is attributed to good luck, East Asians experience greater pleasure than Westerners (Valenzuela, Mellers, & Strebel, 2009).
Another interesting line of research on consumer behaviors concerns the endowment effect. This refers to the tendency for owners and potential sellers of goods and products to value those products more than potential buyers do. Although this effect has been widely studied in the U.S., a recent study showed that the size of the effect differs across cultures. East Asians demonstrated a smaller endowment effect compared to Americans and Canadians, and this difference was attributed to the idea that ownership of the product enhanced the self more in individualistic contexts like the U.S. and Canada than in Asia (Maddux et al., 2010).
CULTURE AND NEGOTIATION
In the United States, Americans generally approach negotiation with a certain set of assumptions that are rooted in our culture and values. For example, we view time as a commodity (time is money), and we believe we are in control of our lives. Americans value specialization, pragmatism, equal opportunity, independence, and competition (Kimmel, 1994). Thus, in the United States, negotiation is a business, not a social activity. The objective of the negotiation is to get a job done, which usually requires a mixture of problem solving and bargaining. Communication is direct and verbal, with little deliberate or intentional use of nonverbal behaviors in the communication process. And sometimes it is confrontational and competitive.
Negotiation processes in other cultures, however, challenge many of these traditionally American assumptions. In the arena of international negotiation, negotiators come as representatives not only of their companies but of their cultures as well. They bring all the issues of culturecustoms, rituals, rules, and heritageto the negotiating table. Factors that we are not even aware of play a role in these negotiating sessions, such as the amount of space between the people, how to greet each other, what to call each other, and what kinds of expectations we have of each other. The diplomatic dance that has been observed between American and Arab negotiators is but one example. People from Arab cultures tend to interact with others at a much closer distance than Americans are accustomed to. As the Arabs move closer, Americans unconsciously edge backward, whereupon the Arabs unconsciously edge forward, until they are almost chasing each other around the room.
Cross-cultural studies on negotiation challenge many American assumptions about it (see, for example, Allerheiligen, Graham, & Lin, 1985; Goldman, 1994; Graham, 1983, 1984, 1993; Graham & Andrews, 1987). One interesting cultural difference between American approaches to negotiation from those in many other cultures concerns the role of socializing. Americans are used to sitting down at the table and hammering out a deal. East Asian negotiators may want to have dinner, go for drinks, or play golf. Negotiation in the Middle East and many other parts of the world must occur with the tribal leaders over tea. People of other cultures are more willing to engage in these activities because they are interested in developing a relationship with their business partners as people; it also gives them a good opportunity to make judgments about the character or integrity of potential partners, which is an important aspect of their business decisions. Americans are primarily concerned with the deal and what is right for the organizations bottom line. Many American business negotiators not used to the other styles of negotiating often become impatient with these activities, feeling as though they never get to talk business. By the same token, negotiators in many other cultures feel put on the spot by Americans, as though they have been thrust into a situation and forced to make a decision they cannot possibly make. Needless to say, these cultural differences in negotiation styles have led to many a breakdown in international negotiations.
Cultural differences exist in many other aspects of negotiation as well. Expressing anger relative to not expressing it elicits more concessions from European Americans, probably because of the often competitive and contentious nature of negotiation; but it elicits smaller concessions from Asian and Asian American negotiators probably because it violates cultural norms of appropriateness (Adam, Shirako, & Maddux, 2010).
Gelfand and colleagues (2006) have argued that relational self-construalsthat is, viewing oneself as fundamentally connected with othersis an important aspect to understanding negotiation. Negotiation starts with individuals coming with their own sense of relational self, which is influenced by the culture from which they come. Over the process of negotiation, one of the goals of negotiation is to align the relational self-construal of the negotiators so that they are congruent. Congruence between the relational self-construals of the negotiators aids in the production of relational behaviors, created value, and eventually economic or relational capital. One implication of this model, therefore, is that even if behaviors are adapted to the situation, negotiation may not be as fruitful as it can be unless the relational self-construals of the negotiators are aligned through the negotiation process.
Although research has documented many major cultural differences in negotiation (summarized inTable 15.8), the available research tells us little about the degree to which negotiators adjust their cultural practices depending on whom they are negotiating with, and on what parameters such adjustment occurs. Nor has cross-cultural research done much to elucidate the ingredients of a successful negotiation. A review of cross-cultural studies on negotiation (Gelfand & Dyer, 2000) suggests that factors such as proximal social conditions (deadlines, negotiator relationships), the negotiators psychological states (implicit theories and metaphors, judgment biases), and behaviors (tactics) are also important in understanding international/intercultural discussions and negotiations. Indeed, Gelfand and Dyers model of the influence of culture on the negotiation process identifies many important variables that indicate that the process is very complex (Figure 15.2). Future studies are needed to examine these important issues.
Table 15.8 A Comparison of U.S. Assumptions about Negotiating with Those of Other Cultures
Topic U.S. Beliefs Outside U.S. Beliefs
Conception of the negotiation process Negotiation is a business, not a social activity. The object is to get a job done, which usually requires a mixture of problem-solving and bargaining activities. Most negotiations are adversarial, and negotiators are trying to get as much as possible for their side. The flow of a negotiation is from prenegotiation strategy sessions to opening sessions to give-and-take (bargaining) to final compromises to signing and implementation of agreements. All parties are expected to give up some of their original demands. Success can be measured in terms of how much each party achieves its bottom-line objectives. Negotiation is based on human relationships, and thus must be built on social activity. The object is to develop a long-term relationship with someone or another organization that can be mutually beneficial for a long time. Thus negotiation should be collegial and collaborative. Success can be measured in terms of how both parties mutually benefit.
Type of issues Substantive issues are more important than social and emotional issues. Relationships are of prime importance.
Differences in positions are seen as problems to be solved. Differences in positions are of personal importance.
Protocol Negotiations are scheduled occasions that require face-to-face interactions among the parties involved. Efficiency of time centering on substantive tasks is valued over ceremony and social amenities. During negotiation, standardized procedures of interaction should be followed; social interactions are informal and should occur elsewhere. Negotiation can occur anytime, anywhere, and especially in social settings such as dinners, tea, golf outings, and the like.
Reliance on verbal behaviors Communication is direct and verbal. What is said is more important than how it is said, or what is not said. Communications tend to be spontaneous and reactive after presentation of initial positions. Actions speak louder than words.
Nature of persuasive arguments Tactics such as bluffing are acceptable in the bargaining process. Current information and ideas are more valid than history or tradition. History and tradition are extremely important. Lying may be acceptable.
Individual negotiators latitude The representatives who negotiate have a great deal of latitude in reaching agreements for their companies. Individuals who represent a group may not have much latitude.
Bases of trust Negotiators trust the other parties until they prove untrustworthy. Trust is judged by the behavior of others. Other parties are untrustworthy until proven trustworthy.
Risk-taking propensities Negotiators are open to different or novel approaches to problem issues. Time tested solutions are often the best.
Brainstorming is good. Avoiding uncertainty is not important in the negotiation process. Fixed ideological positions and approaches are not acceptable. Ideology is sometimes non-negotiable and sacred.
Value of time Time is very important. Punctuality is expected. A fixed time is allotted for concluding a negotiation. Time is open ended and fluid.
Decision-making system Majority voting and/or authoritative decisions are the rule. Certain team members are expected to be authorized to make binding decisions. The decision of a single leader is final and absolute. What the leader says goes.
Forms of satisfactory agreement Oral commitments are not binding. Written contracts that are exact and impersonally worded are binding. There is the expectation of contractual finality. Lawyers and courts are the final arbitrators in any arguments after contracts have been signed. People are taken on their word. A persons word is everything.
Source: The U.S. beliefs are adapted from Kimmel (1994).
Figure 15.2 A Dynamic and Psychological Model of Culture and Negotiation

Source: Gelfand, Michele J. A Cultural Perspective on Negotiation: Progress, Pitfalls and Prospects, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(1), p. 77, 2000, Blackwell Publishing. Reprinted with permission.
INTERCULTURAL ISSUES REGARDING BUSINESS AND WORK
In the past, it was probably easier than it is now to study organizations in relative isolation from issues of culture. Previously, the American workforce was less racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse than it is today. With less cultural diversity, the expectations of the members of any work organization were generally similar. Communication, lines of authority, and hierarchical structure were established with less conscious awareness of differences among people. Members of organizations had implicit, tacit knowledge about how to behave around one another and how to work together, because they all started with relatively similar cultural backgrounds.
Organizations were more isolated from issues of culture in yet another way, as many companies in the past were entirely or primarily domestic. Most of the work-related issues companies dealt with were confined to the United States and its culture. And most of the companies that competed or cooperated with one another were based in the same country and culture. This national work environment is now a thing of the past. Not only is the American workforce culturally diverse, but many companies today operate in an international arena.
The workplace of the world now includes unprecedented numbers of multinational and international corporationswork organizations that have subsidiaries, satellite offices, and work units in more than one country. Increasingly, these companies need to deal with people of diverse and varied backgrounds. Today, transfers from one business unit to another within the same company can mean a transfer from one country to another. Clearly, this internationalization of business brings with it more intercultural issues and challenges.
Even domestic companies that are not multinational in their structure must face the challenge of internationalization, with its associated intercultural issues. New trade laws and treaties, along with the Internet, have brought more business competitors from distant cultures, as well as increased opportunities for opening markets in other countries and cultures. Advances in communication and transportation allow companies and individuals to work more easily today than ever before over vast physical and cultural distances. Technological changes in communicationtelephones, facsimile machines, videoteleconferencing, and electronic mailhave forced the issue of culture to the forefront of our work lives. The business world has become a global village, in which the exchange of goods, services, and resources knows few boundaries. This global village raises issues within our borders as well as across borders. Many of these issues are cultural. Our ability to deal with these issues in an ever-changing business world will determine our success or failure.
As companies become increasingly dependent on other companies in other countries and cultures for business survival and success, people today are facing an ever-larger number of intercultural issues in the workplace. Add to these organizational developments the increasingly porous and flexible nature of national borders, and the result is a large number of people of different cultural backgrounds, lifestyles, values, and behaviors living and working together. These social trends and changes bring their own particular set of issues, challenges, and opportunities regarding inter-cultural interactions in the workplace and other work-related situations.
For multinational corporations, international business is not just international; it is intercultural. As we have seen throughout this chapter, business organizations are affected in many different ways by the cultures in which they reside. Organizational structures differ, organizational decision-making procedures differ, and people differin their definitions of work, work-related values, identification between self and company, and rules of interacting with other workers. Todays international business world requires that business organizations, and the people within them, gain intercultural competence as well as business competence.
In this section of the chapter, we will discuss two broad areas in which intercultural issues have come to the fore in recent decades: overseas assignments and working with an increasingly diverse workforce population.
Overseas Assignments
Many corporations with subsidiaries and business partners in other countries are finding it increasingly necessary to send workers abroad for extended periods. Worker exchanges and overseas assignments are used to train employees and business units in another country in skills that are found only there. Such overseas assignments can give rise to myriad problems, not only because of all the cultural differences discussed in this chapter, but also because of limited language skills and differing expectations of the person on assignment and his or her hosts.
American companies today would not hesitate to send the most qualified person on assignment, either for negotiation or for the long term, regardless of sex, race, or ethnicity. Many other cultures, however, are not accustomed to women in important positions in business, and may not be totally receptive to people of different perceived races or ethnicities. In many contexts, a woman would not be taken as seriously as a man, and racial/ethnic stereotypes may dominate interactions. Resulting frustrations might include not being looked at during a conversation and having questions directed to a man when a woman is the recognized leader or expert on an assignment team.
Many of the most pressing problems for people on overseas assignments occur not at work but in other aspects of living in a foreign country. Major differences in lifestyle, customs, and behaviors often overshadow cultural differences at work. If an individual goes on an overseas assignment with his or her family, there is the added problem of their adjustment to the new culture, especially if school-age children are involved. The entire spectrum of intercultural adjustment and acculturation becomes important. Even when workers do well in their work environment, they may do poorly in their home and community adjustment. And while employees may find a safe haven during the workday in a milieu with which they are somewhat familiar, their families are often left bearing the brunt of intercultural adaptation. Interested readers should review the material presented in Chapter 9 on intercultural communication and the development of intercultural sensitivity.
On the positive side, people who go on overseas assignments have a tremendous opportunity to learn new skills and new ways of doing their work that can help them when they return. They may learn a new language and customs, broadening their perspectives. They may make new friends and business acquaintances, and this type of networking may have business as well as personal payoffs in the future. Foreign assignment is an important aspect of todays international business world that promises to play an even larger role in the global village of the future. Completing these assignments to the best of our abilities requires us to understand all the influences of culture, both inside and outside the workplace. In the future, these types of skills will be even more valuable than they are today. Little systematic, formal research exists on this topic in the published literature (despite an abundance of anecdotal and case-study data that are proprietary to many companies). Future research on this important topic will help in the design of intercultural adjustment programs for company employees, allowing them to be more effective in their overseas assignments.
Working with an Increasingly Diverse Workforce Population
Organizations all around the world are dealing with an increasingly diverse workforce population. For example, American companies are increasingly hosting workers from other countries. Joint ventures between American and Asian and European companies have increased over the past 20 yearsmost visibly in automobile manufacturing, but also in computers and semiconductors, communication technology, and many other fields. One result is an influx of workers from these countries and cultures to the United States.
Many of the problems that arise when American workers go overseas also arise when foreign workers come to the United States. Often, managers from another culture come to oversee and supervise production or assembly, bringing with them all the expectations, customs, and rituals of their home country. Not surprisingly, they find that those ways of doing business do not work in the United States, because the people are different and the system is different. Similarly, many of the problems experienced by American families abroad are also experienced by the families of workers who come to the United States.
One study highlights some of the problems and issues that may arise in these situations. In this study, Graham (1993) spent six months as a hidden participant observer at a Japanese automobile plant near Lafayette, Indiana (Subaru/Isuzu Automotive). During this time, the author was able to document worker resistance to Japanese management practices in the form of sabotage, protest, agitation, and confrontation. The results of this study brought into question the validity and worth of simply transferring the Japanese management model to the American milieu. The data also failed to support the contention that participation schemes (such as teamwork) automatically increase worker control or that decentralized authority structures increase worker autonomy.
Another study focused on cultural differences in ways of handling disagreement. In this study (Smith, Dugan, Peterson, & Leung, 1998), managers and supervisors from a variety of organizations in 23 countries completed a questionnaire about how they handled disagreements in their work unit. The responses were aggregated for each country, and the country mean values on the questionnaire were correlated with the countrys scores on Hofstedes dimensions described earlier. The results indicated that Power Distance (PD) significantly predicted the frequency of disagreements between work groups. In handling disagreements, people in low-PD cultures tended to rely on subordinates and coworkers. People of individualistic countries relied more on their own personal experience and training, whereas people of collectivistic cultures relied more on formal rules and procedures. Although this study involved participants in different countries, these types of psychological differences based on Power Distance and Individualism-Collectivism may be important in understanding cultural differences within a single multicultural organization.
Despite the potential problems associated with receiving foreign workers, many of the advantages of overseas assignments also apply to receiving people from abroad. The ability to reap these benefits depends on the openness of the host organization to learn and on the goodwill and intent of the employee and the company to engage in a mutually beneficial partnership.
Even without international joint ventures and worker exchanges, many American companies are dealing with increasing diversity solely on the basis of the increasing diversity of the American population. The United States is home to people of many different races, ethnicities, and cultures. Within this mixed salad of cultures are generational differences, from recent immigrants to second-, third-, and multiple-generation Americans of wide-ranging ethnic and cultural backgrounds. The problems that can occur when two cultures clash can be magnified many times over when people from multiple cultures are thrust together to interact and work toward a common goal.
Many of the issues raised in dealing with people across countries and cultures are relevant for domestic work organizations dealing with an increasingly diverse American workforce as well. People come to work with different expectations, and different expectations can lead to intercultural clashes. Cultural differences in the management of time and people, in identification with work, and in making decisions all provide areas for conflict. People in the United States come to work with differences in work-related values and the degree to which they respect or minimize power and status differences between them. People come to work with different views regarding sex differences and how to manage uncertainty.
Many successful companies have met these challenges by making explicit what kinds of communication styles, decision making, productivity, and worker behaviors are important for the success of the company. Many companies today actively train their employees in intercultural issues ranging from communication to expectations (see, for example, Goldman, 1992); the most successful of these programs undoubtedly have important positive, practical implications in many areas of peoples lives. Many companies have created temporary organizational cultures in which their employees can move and adapt without fear of losing themselves or their own personal cultures. They have designed ways not only of avoiding problems but also of handling problems effectively and constructively when they do arise. Negotiating all these issues requires additional work and effort by companies and people alike, but organizations that can do so successfully are likely to realize long-term benefits to the bottom line.
CULTURE AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT
You are the boss of a company that is trying to close a major deal with another company in another country. Your best negotiator is a woman, whom you trust and has been with the company for years. You have been told, however, that the people from the other company will not deal with a woman. When previous negotiating teams have been sent, their negotiators clearly ignore the woman and talk only to the male, even though the male is the womans Helpant. What would you do
Complex issues concerning gender and sex are commonplace in organizations that work cross-culturally. One of these is sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is defined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature in which submission to such behavior is a condition to employment and employment decisions affecting the individual (such as promotion), and where the behavior interferes with the individuals work environment or creates an intimidating, offensive, or hostile work environment. The past few decades have seen a dramatic increase in awareness to issues concerning sexual harassment in the U.S. workplace. The increase in the number of intercultural contacts in work organizations brought about by the creation of multinational companies and transfer of employees across borders has brought about an increase in the awareness of these issues cross-culturally as well.
To our knowledge, there is not yet formal research across a wide range of cultures documenting the incidence of sexual harassment, but we believe it is also widespread across cultures. This may be true for a variety of cultural reasons (Luthar & Luthar, 2002). For one, sex- and gender-based discriminatory actionsboth in terms of behaviors and wordsmay be tolerated more across different cultures. Recall, for example, our discussion of cultural differences in masculinity versus femininity (Chapter 6). Cultures differ greatly in the degree to which they differentiate behaviors between men and women. One may even say that these differences are not only tolerated but also expected and natural; thus, what may be construed as sexual harassment in the United States may not been seen as such in other cultures. Moreover, there are large cultural differences in sex roles, which contribute to this situation. Differences across cultures in power and hierarchy also contribute to this state of affairs, because power differences contribute to the maintenance of sex and gender differences within a culture, and in many cultures males have more powerful roles in organizations.
When it occurs, sexual harassment may have the same effects across cultures. Studies examining the experiences of individuals have shown that there are three major types of sexual harassment-related experiences: sexist hostility, sexual hostility, and unwanted sexual advances (Fitzgerald, Gelfand, & Drasgow, 1995); these same clusters of experiences were reported by Latina women as well (Cortina, 2001). Fitzgerald and colleagues (Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley, 1997) demonstrated that sexual harassment in the U.S. workplace affects job satisfaction, health conditions, and psychological conditions. Subsequently, these same types of effects have been shown to occur in Turkey (Wasti, Bergman, Glomb, & Drasgow, 2000) and among Latinas (Cortina, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 2002).
Being the victim of sexual harassment can be stressful for anyone, and research shows that women across a wide range of cultures attempt to cope with these experiences in a variety of ways, including avoidance, denial, negotiation, advocacy seeking, and social coping (Cortina & Wasti,2005; Wasti & Cortina, 2002). Research has demonstrated acculturation effects as well; in one study, Hispanic women with greater affiliation to mainstream American cultures experienced moresexual harassment than Hispanic women with less affiliation (Shupe, Cortina, Ramos, Fitzgerald, & Salisbury, 2002). Clearly, more cross-cultural research on this very important topic is needed, as well as education across many strata of society in many cultures.
CONCLUSION
The cultural differences that people bring with them to an organization present us with challenges unprecedented in the modern industrialized period of history. To meet these challenges, business, government, and private organizations look to research and education about cultural diversity as it relates to work. Intercultural communication and competence training and organizational consulting with regard to managing diversity have become major growth industries.
Too often, the idea of managing diversity rests on the underlying assumption that diversity is an unwanted by-product of our work environmenta nuisance variable that must be dealt with in order to maximize efficiency. As we move toward a greater appreciation of cultural similarities and differences, however, we may gain a better appreciation for the different approaches to work, management, and leadership that have worked for different cultures. As we confront the challenges of diversity in the future, we need to move away from the notion of managing a nuisance variable to viewing it as a potential resource for tapping into products, services, and activities that will make companies more efficient, productive, and profitable than ever before. By tapping into diversity rather than managing it, perhaps we can increase international and intercultural cooperation not only in business but among people in general.
EXPLORATION AND DISCOVERY
Why Does This Matter to Me
1. Have you ever encountered difficulties working in groups, either at school or your job What kind of problems occurred Do you think some of these problems may have been the result of cultural differences How did you resolve them Do you think you would try to resolve such problems differently in the future
2. How do the organizations to which you belong make decisions Is it top-down, bottom-up, or something else How does it compare to the Japanese system described in the text What system would work best, and why
3. Have you ever experienced sexual harassment What would you do if you were sexually harassed in a job interview Most people say they would not tolerate such treatment and be angry and confrontive, but in a study that examined what people actually did, the very same people who said they would be angry and confrontive actually tolerated it and were polite and respectful (Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001). How about you
Suggestions for Further Exploration
1. How would you study the culture of your organization Design a study that would examine what an organizations culture is like. Why did you select the variables you did
2. What kind of training would you provide to a person who was going to be moved to another country for work Would your training program be limited to the employee, or include the employees family as well
3. What kinds of reward systems work best in different organizational and national cultures How would you design a study that examined cultural differences in reward systems
GLOSSARY
affective commitment
The level of personal feelings associated with ones relationship to an organization.
distributive justice
Fairness regarding the distribution of resources, such as pay, the corner office, or perks.
endowment effect
This refers to the tendency for owners and potential sellers of goods and products to value those products more than potential buyers do.
equality
Refers to whether the demographic characteristics of individuals such as age or seniority in the organization are considered primarily in making organizational decisions.
equity
Refers to whether ones contributions and efforts are considered in making organizational decisions.
groupthink
A collective pattern of thinking that hinders effective group decisions.
leadership
The process of influence between a leader and followers to attain group, organizational, or societal goals (Hollander, 1985).
multinational and international corporations
Work organizations that have subsidiaries, satellite offices, and work units in more than one country.
nemawashi
The broad-based consensus-building procedure that occurs within the Japanese ringi system of decision making.
normative commitment
The degree to which ones ties to the organization are bound by duty and obligation.
oligarchy
An organizational structure characterized by rule- or decision-making power of a few. Decisions are typically made by people at the top, who impose their decisions on subordinates.
organizational climate
A shared perception of organizational policies, practices, and procedures, and how people feel about them.
organizational commitment
The degree to which a person is committed, identifies with, and makes efforts for, his or her organization.
organizational culture
A dynamic system of rules involving attitudes, values, beliefs, norms, and behaviors that are shared among members of an organization.
procedural justice
Fairness associated with the procedures and processes that organizations use to make decisions.
psychological contracts
The perceptions of mutual obligations that exist between organizations and their members, which differ across cultures.
ringi
The Japanese process of decision making, which involves circulating a proposal among all people who will be affected by it, addressing concerns and negative consequences raised by as many parties as possible, consulting on as broad a basis as possible about the proposal, and achieving consensus before the proposal is formally implemented.
sexual harassment
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature in which submission to such behavior is a condition to employment and employment decisions affecting the individual (such as promotion), and where the behavior interferes with the individuals work environment or creates an intimidating, offensive, or hostile work environment.
social loafing
The common finding in research on group productivity in the United States that individual productivity tends to decline in larger groups.
social striving
The opposite of social loafing; the finding in many cultures that working in a group enhances individual performance rather than diminishes it.
teamthink
Teamthink involves the encouragement of divergent views, open expression of concerns and ideas, awareness of limitations and threats, recognition of members uniqueness, and discussion of collective doubts.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: AI Plagiarism free essay writing tool, Australian best tutors, best trans tutors, buy essay uk, cheap dissertation writer