The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7606.htm

CCM
22,1
Power distance and its
moderating role in the
relationship between situational
68 job characteristics and
Received 5 November 2013
Revised 4 March 2014
Accepted 5 June 2014
job satisfaction
An empirical analysis using different
cultural measures
Sven Hauff
University of Hamburg, Institute for Human Resource Management,
Hamburg, Germany, and
Nicole Richter
Hamburg University of Technology,
Institute for Human Resource Management and Organisations,
Hamburg, Germany

Abstract
Purpose – Power distance describes a central facet of national culture, because it influences the
acceptance and endorsement of job characteristics related to status and power. This has major
implications for international human resource management, because the importance of different
situational job characteristics for employee job satisfaction should differ across cultures. The purpose
of this paper is to analyse if and how national power distance levels moderate different situational job
characteristics’ influence on job satisfaction.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors refer to three approaches to culture: the frameworks
of Hofstede and GLOBE as well as to current scores provided in a meta-analysis. The empirical
findings are derived using regression analyses on a sample covering 16 nations.
Findings – The results are convincing regarding the basic job satisfaction driver model not involving
culture. However, the results on power distance’s impact as well as its moderating role are strongly
dependent on the culture concepts utilised. The authors provide an analysis of differences along the
measurements behind the different concepts.
Originality/value – The authors can conclude that national differences in job satisfaction, as found in
various studies, are a result of differences in situational dispositions to work life rather than a result of
different cultural surroundings in terms of power distance. The question is whether this is due to
power distance’s lack of impact or due to other factors, such as the difficulties of measuring culture.
The authors discuss the differences which are due to different measurements. For ultimately
confirming power distance’s moderating role and for advancing theorizing in this field, further
research, which can build on the framework offered in this paper, is needed that directly measures the
individual power distance facets in addition to the job characteristics and satisfaction values.
Keywords Culture, Job characteristics, Job satisfaction, Power distance
Paper type Research paper

Cross Cultural Management

Vol. 22 No. 1, 2015
pp. 68-89
Introduction
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-7606
An unequal distribution of status and power is a central characteristic of organisations.
DOI 10.1108/CCM-11-2013-0164 However, the acceptance and endorsement of authority, status privileges and power
differences varies across national cultures (Carl et al., 2004; Hofstede, 1980). This has Situational job
important implications for international human resource management, because job characteristics
characteristics related to status and power are perceived differently across cultures.
Accordingly, the importance of these factors for job motivation and employee
and job
satisfaction should differ across cultures. For instance, since employees in cultures high satisfaction
in power distance are used to receiving instructions from their supervisors, a lack of
autonomy may not have a great influence on their job satisfaction. In contrast, 69
autonomy is supposed to be more crucial for job satisfaction in cultures low in power
distance, because employees prefer to work independently (e.g. Fock et al., 2013; Huang
and Van de Vliert, 2003; Hui et al., 2004). Similar arguments can be derived for other
aspects related to status and power, such as advancement opportunities, income
and relationships to management and colleagues. Thus, it can be assumed that the
degree of power distance within a culture moderates the influence that situational job
characteristics have on job satisfaction.
To date, many authors have concentrated on the direct effect of power distance on
job satisfaction (e.g. Yetim and Yetim, 2006), although some authors have analysed
the moderating role of power distance in the relationship between specific job
characteristics and satisfaction: research relates, for instance, to aspects of organisational
or procedural justice (e.g. Lee et al., 2000; Kirkman et al., 2009; Loi et al., 2012) as well as to
questions of empowering employees and to autonomy (e.g. Huang and Van de Vliert,
2003; Hui et al., 2004; Fock et al., 2013). However, power distance’s moderating role has
not been analysed in comprehensive job satisfaction models. Various job characteristics
drive job satisfaction; some are related to status and power. Thus, culture’s moderating
role still needs to be analysed in a comprehensive fashion in order to draw definite
conclusions. This is of high relevance in light of the continued internationalisation
of organisations, which poses new challenges for HR practitioners (see also Saari and
Judge, 2004).
Tsui et al. (2007) highlight that although the definitions of and assumptions
about culture might be largely consistent, there is a great variation in the measurement
of culture. It ranges from simply equating culture to nations, to different concepts of
measuring individual cultural values. To determine the degree of power distance,
various measures and scores are found in the literature; the most frequently used are
the scores provided through Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) seminal work. Another prominent
concept of culture is represented in the GLOBE project (House et al., 2004), which also
provides information on the power distance level within a country. Finally, recent
analyses performed by Taras et al. (2012) provide an updated set of national cultural
scores; power distance is among these. Results gained in empirical research might be
sensitive to integrating either of these cultural scores into the analysis. For instance,
Huang and Van de Vliert (2003) as well as Hui et al. (2004) apply the power distance
scores stemming from the 1970s provided by Hofstede, which might no longer reflect
the then existing cultural realities. Moreover, the GLOBE researchers formulated their
measures in terms of respondent’s perceptions of their national context, rather than
averaging the self-reported values of individuals (as did Hofstede) (see the discussion in
Smith, 2006). Therewith the two follow a somewhat different measurement approach
which led to an intensive debate on the question which of the two approaches provides
more valid measures (e.g. Brewer and Venaik, 2011; Hofstede, 2006, 2010; Venaik and
Brewer, 2010) without a clear-cut recommendation for either concept. Without aiming
to judge the different measurement approaches, we will analyse the effects that
different measurement concepts of culture might have on empirical findings on the
CCM moderating role of culture and will evaluate whether there is a concept-independent
22,1 effect of power distance in empirical job satisfaction models.
This paper first theoretically analyses power distance’s moderating role in the
relationship between different job characteristics and job satisfaction. We assume that
the power distance level in a national cultural environment influences the general
importance of work and employment aspects related to status and power and that it
70 therefore moderates the effect of these job characteristics on job satisfaction. We will
thereafter analyse power distance’s moderating role using different measures of culture
in order to account for and discuss their potential influences.

Theoretical background
Job satisfaction and culture
Job satisfaction can be influenced by various situational job characteristics.
For instance, according to the two-factor theory, also known as motivation-hygiene
theory, antecedents of job satisfaction can be clustered in motivational factors – such as
achievement, recognition, work, responsibility, promotion and growth – and hygiene
factors, such as pay, company policy, relationships with colleagues and supervision of
(Herzberg et al. 1959). Whereas motivational factors increase job satisfaction but
do not abolish dissatisfaction, hygiene factors decrease job dissatisfaction, but do not
increase satisfaction. Similarly, the job characteristics model (Hackman and Oldham,
1976), which specifies the conditions that lead to higher job satisfaction, defines five
core job characteristics: task identity, task significance, skill variety, autonomy and
feedback, and thus highlights the importance of intrinsic job aspects. Based on a
comprehensive review, Warr (2007) identified the following job features that are
significantly associated with job satisfaction: opportunities for personal control
(employee discretion, autonomy, self-determination), opportunities for skills use (skills
utilisation, opportunities for learning), externally generated goals (job demands,
workload, work-family conflict), variety (in job content and location), environmental
clarity (information about the future and required behaviour), contact with others
(quantity and quality of interactions), availability of money (income level), physical
security (absence of danger, good working conditions), valued social position (status in
society, task significance), supportive supervision (leader consideration, supportive
management), career outlook (job security, opportunities for promotion, advancement)
and equity (fairness in one’s employment relationship, morality in an employer’s
relationship with society).
However, these situational job characteristics do not have an equally high positive
impact on job satisfaction; instead, for different persons, different situational job
characteristics drive job satisfaction (Cohrs et al., 2006; Judge and Klinger, 2007).
For instance, Locke (1976) hypothesises that job satisfaction is a function of what
individuals want, what they perceive as getting and the importance of what is wanted.
Thus, job characteristics’ effect on job satisfaction is moderated by work values
and goals.
These assumptions can also be applied to culture’s role in the relationship between
job characteristics and job satisfaction. Culture is “the collective programming of the
mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another” (Hofstede,
1980, p. 25). It refers to a set of shared core values, norms and modes of action (Erez,
1994; Ashkanasy and Jackson, 2001) as well as results in shared affective, attitudinal
and behavioural orientations (House et al., 1997). Cultural values prevalent in a nation
are (similar to other socio-economic variables) assumed to predispose how the members
of this cultural group (i.e. the nation) value different job characteristics (Huang and Van Situational job
de Vliert, 2003). Steers and Sanchez-Runde (2002) note that national culture impacts characteristics
three sources of work motivation or goals: people’s self-concept (e.g. beliefs, needs,
values, etc.), norms about work ethics (e.g. achievement, locus of control, etc.) and
and job
environmental factors (e.g. education and socialisation experiences, political and legal satisfaction
systems, etc.) (see also Latham and Pinder, 2005). Accordingly, we assume that
members of one culture are influenced by group-like national characteristics, which – in 71
turn – influence different job characteristics’ relevance or impact on job satisfaction.
Power distance’s moderating effect
In this paper, we focus on one specific aspect of culture, namely power distance,
which has been identified as the most important facet of culture when it comes to
affecting human resource management practices (Budhwar, 2000). Power distance
represents the extent to which less powerful employees expect and accept that power,
authority, status and material possessions are unequally distributed (Javidan et al.,
2006). Since these are crucial aspects of work life, it can be assumed that the
power distance level should moderate the effect of situational job characteristics
related to power and status on job satisfaction. This will be hypothesised in detail in
the following.
Autonomy. Workforces in high power distance societies are accustomed to
depending on their supervisors for direction and decision making. Employees are not
encouraged to make suggestions and do not expect to be consulted or empowered; they
expect to be told what to do and avoid disagreement. In contrast, small power distance
cultures are characterised by more participative management styles, where employees
work more independently from the influence of management (Hofstede et al., 2010; Carl
et al., 2004; Kirkman and Shapiro, 2001). It is thus reasonable to assume that autonomy
should be valued higher by employees in countries with a low power distance, and vice
versa. Several researchers have addressed power distance’s moderation role in the
relationship between autonomy and job satisfaction and provide support for this
assumption. Huang and Van de Vliert (Huang and Van de Vliert, 2003) demonstrate
that the effect of intrinsic job aspects – including autonomy – on job satisfaction is
moderated through power distance. Hui et al. (2004) as well as Fock et al. (2013) also
show that power distance mitigates the relationship between autonomy and job
satisfaction, while Robert et al. (2000) find partial support. In line with theory and past
research, we state the following hypothesis:

H1. The positive relationship between independent work and job satisfaction is
weaker in high power distance cultures.
Advancement opportunities. In high power distance cultures, there are often large
inequalities between social status, prestige and wealth. Individuals in these countries
should thus be highly motivated to get a better position within organisations or society.
This leads us to hypothesise that opportunities to advance to a higher job level has a
larger impact on job satisfaction in cultures with high power distance (see also Robie
et al., 1998). In other words, in cultures with high power distance, advancement
opportunities are more important for job satisfaction:

H2. The positive relationship between advancement opportunities and job

satisfaction is stronger in high power distance cultures.
CCM Income. Income is closely related to advancement opportunities. “Inequality of power and
22,1 inequality in wealth go hand in hand. The greater the power inequality, the greater the
wealth inequality, and vice versa” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 98). Thus, in high power distance
cultures, there is often a wide salary range between the top and the bottom of the
organisation (Hofstede et al., 2010). Accordingly, in these cultures, it may be more
important to get a high income (Huang and Van de Vliert, 2003). We therefore assume that,
72 in cultures high in power distance, income is relatively more important for job satisfaction:

H3. The positive relationship between income and job satisfaction is stronger in
cultures high in power distance.

Relationships with management and relationships with colleagues. Subordinates in low

power distance cultures expect superiors to consult them and approach superiors to
express their point of view on matters of relevance to the job or employee (Lam et al.,
2002). They therefore have opportunities to develop closer relationships with superiors
compared to employees in cultures high in power distance, where employees are less
open to their superiors or even afraid to speak up (Bochner and Hesketh, 1994;
Madlock, 2012). Hence, on the one hand, it could be assumed that, in high power
distance cultures, a good work climate in terms of a good relationship with managers is
less important for achieving high job satisfaction (see also Begley et al., 2002).
On the other hand, employees in high power distance cultures have more contact
with their supervisors, and supervision is closer and more direct (Bochner and Hesketh,
1994). Employees are thus more dependent on decisions made by and evaluations by
their supervisors. Accordingly, it can also be assumed that good relationships with
management is more important for job satisfaction in high power distance cultures.
The idea that good relationships to managers are more important in high power distant
nations is also immanent in one of the measurement versions of power distance
suggested by Hofstede (the so called VSM-94, which we will comment on later).
Furthermore, power distance will likewise affect the importance of good
relationships to colleagues; again, two contradicting results are plausible. On the one
hand, the achievement of advancement opportunities and high income always implies
competition. It has also been stated that employees in high power distance cultures are
reluctant to trust each other (Hofstede, 1980). Research by Madlock (2012) has shown
that high power distance is associated with an increasing use of negative forms of
communication in the workplace, which indicates a fairly low-quality relationship
among colleagues. Thus, it can be hypothesised that a good work climate in terms of a
good relationship with colleagues is less important for achieving high job satisfaction
in high power distance cultures. On the other hand, a significant distance between
supervisors and subordinates could strengthen the bond between employees and could
make good relationships among colleagues even more important. Therefore, it may also
be that good relationships with colleagues are more important for job satisfaction in
high power distance cultures:

H4.1. The positive relationship between good relationships with management and
job satisfaction is weaker in high power distance cultures.

H4.2. The positive relationship between good relationships with management and
job satisfaction is stronger in high power distance cultures.
 H5.1. The positive relationship between good relationships with colleagues and job Situational job
satisfaction is weaker in high power distance cultures. characteristics
H5.2. The positive relationship between good relationships with colleagues and job
and job
satisfaction is stronger in high power distance cultures. satisfaction
Measuring differences in power distance 73
There are several approaches to culture in the literature which – although theoretically
close – differ to a large extent in terms of its measurement (Tsui et al., 2007). The most
influential work theoretically and conceptually stems from the thinking of Hofstede
(1980, 2001). In his 1980 study, he introduces four key factors that determine the
functioning of societies worldwide, among them the relationship to authorities or power
distance. Based on data collected in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Hofstede provided
national cultural scores for these four dimensions, which have since been used in many
studies to analyse culture’s influence (for a critique of Hofstede’s work see McSweeney,
2002; Oyserman et al., 2002; Taras et al., 2012). The power distance index in particular
has been computed on the basis of three questions (later summarised in the 1982
version of Hofstede’s survey instrument, VSM-82), which capture the following aspects:
nonmanagerial employees’ perception that employees are afraid to disagree with their
manager, subordinates’ perception that their boss tends to make decisions in an
autocratic or persuasive/paternalistic way and subordinates’ preference for anything
but a consultative style of decision-making by their boss. The index ranges from 0 for a
small power distance to 100 for a large power distance (Hofstede, 1980; for an overview,
see Table I). Later, Hofstede made suggestions for improving his measurement
instrument to be used in follow-up studies (see for instance Hofstede, 1994; yet,
Hofstede himself did not provide an updated set of cultural scores based on these
measures). For instance, the VSM-94 version of his questionnaire incorporated the
following four items:
(1) the frequency that subordinates are afraid to express disagreement with their
superior;
(2) the importance of good working relationships with the direct superior;
(3) the importance of being consulted by the direct superior in decisions; and
(4) the agreement to the statement that an organisation structure in which
subordinates have two bosses should be avoided at all cost.
Nonetheless, according to Hofstede et al. (2010) the scores, or more specifically the
differences between cultures reflected in the scores, are rather stable: “One should
remember that the scores measured differences between country cultures, not cultures
in an absolute sense. The cultures may have shifted, but as long as they shifted
together under the influence of the same global forces, the scores remain valid”
(Hofstede et al., 2010, pp. 62-63).
Recently, Taras et al. (2012) provided an updated set of national cultural scores
along Hofstede’s original dimensions. Their scores are based on a meta-analysis of 451
empirical studies which are consistent with the construct definitions by Hofstede
(or with the items given in two versions of his instrument, VSM-82 and VSM-94).
To calculate the cultural scores, cultural data from different studies were converted
into common measures ranging from −2 to +2 (where low numbers indicate a low
preference and high numbers a strong preference for a cultural facet). The authors
CCM Concept Hofstede (1980) Taras et al. (2012) GLOBE (House et al., 2004)
22,1 Method Survey Meta-analysis Survey

Scales/scores/ Index calculation: Calculation: cultural data Calculation: grand mean of

calculation PDI ¼ 135–25 (mean B46) from different studies questions representing a
+(% of 1 or 2 in A 55) − were converted into country’s power distance
74 (% of 3 in A 54) theoretical common measures level. Scales: 1 to 7; power
range 0-100 possible ranging from −2 (low distance level ranges
scores − 90-210 preference) to +2 (high between 1 (low) to 7 (high
preference for power power distance)
distance)
Questions or Corresponding to VSM-82 Including studies that Society values:
definitions (1) (B46) Non-managerial reported cultural values of (1) I believe that followers
employees are afraid to participants measured should obey their leaders
disagree with their using models and without question vs
managers methodology comparable question their leaders
(2) (A55) Subordinates’ with those devised by when in disagreement
perception that their boss Hofstede, i.e. consistent (2) I believe that power
tends to take decisions with construct definitions should be concentrated
in an autocratic or and items in the VSM-82 at the top vs. shared
persuasive/paternalistic (see left column) and VSM- throughout the society
way (manager type 1 94 versions of Hofstede’s
or type 2) instrument (see below):
(3) (A54) Subordinates’ VSM-94: How important
preference for anything would it be to you to:
but a consultative style of (3) Have good working
decision making in their relationships with your
boss; that is, for an direct superior?
autocratic, a persuasive/ (6) Be consulted by your
paternalistic, or a direct superior in his/her
democratic style decisions?
(14) How frequently,
in your experience, are
subordinates afraid to
express disagreement
with their superior?
(17) To what extent do
you agree or disagree with
this statement: “An
organization structure in
which certain
subordinates have two
bosses should be
avoided at all cost?”
(PDI ¼ –35(3)+35(6)+25
(14)–20(17)–20)
Concept focus No expression of No expression of Follow the leader without
disagreement. disagreement. No question. Concentration of
No involvement in involvement in decision power at the top
decision making making. Importance of
good working
Table I.
relationships with
Measuring power
superiors. No two bosses
distance according to
different approaches Sources: Based on Taras (2008), Hofstede (1982, 1994)
provide different sets of national cultural scores for different decades, from the 1980s to Situational job
the 2000s; hence, their scores indicate the direction and extent of cultural change in characteristics
different nations. Taras et al. (2012) report that their meta-analytically derived scores
match those of Hofstede (1980) quite closely with high correlations, however,
and job
correlations seem to drop over the decades analysed. While the meta-analytic scores satisfaction
from the 1980s correlate to 0.91 with Hofstede’s power distance values, this correlation
drops to 0.70 in the 2000s. In contrast to Hofstede’s assumption, the authors observe 75
that cultural change is not uniform across countries and that these changes lead to
substantial changes in the relative rankings of countries along these culture scores.
Finally, the basic ideas from Hofstede’s work are also found in another prominent
concept, the GLOBE project (House et al., 2004), which replicates and expands his
approach. GLOBE involves investigators worldwide studying national cultures with
respect to nine dimensions, partly derived from dimensions of Hofstede, such as the
dimension power distance. The GLOBE findings stem from the mid-1990s and have
also been influential to many studies analysing culture (for a critical discussion, see
Hofstede, 2006, 2010). The GLOBE project provides two different power distance scores
at the societal level: one for power distance values (should be) and one for power
distance practices (as is). To measure power distance values, respondents are asked to
indicate whether they believe that followers should obey their leader without question
or question their leader when in disagreement and power should be concentrated at the
top or shared throughout society. The same items are used for power distance
practices, but in an as is format. Based on these questions, a grand mean is calculated,
which represents a country’s power distance level. As response categories ranged from
1 to 7 (and were recoded), the power distance level ranges between 1 and 7 (where
higher scores indicate a higher power distance level) (Carl et al., 2004). The major
differences between the concepts incorporated by GLOBE and Hofstede discussed in
the literature (see Hofstede, 2010; Smith, 2006) relate to the measurement level and
terminology. As regards the first, Hofstede’s values describe the desired status by
individuals. In contrast, GLOBE used the term values for answers to their “should be”
questions which refer to the desirable national (not individual) status. Moreover the
terminology in the GLOBE concept is “far from the respondents daily terminology” as
criticised by Hofstede. In their review, Hofstede et al. (2010) report that there is no
correlation between the power distance scores along the two concepts and come to the
conclusion that the GLOBE score does not represent an alternative to the Hofstede
power distance value.
The above suggest that there will be considerable differences in empirical findings
when using the different measurement concepts: Looking at the countries involved in
our study, we find a negative and significant correlation of −0.148 between the
Hofstede (1980) and GLOBE power distance scores in our data, and a positive and
significant correlation of 0.528 between the Hofstede (1980) and the Taras et al. (2012)
power distance values (see the correlation table in the Appendix). Owing to the different
foci of these measurement concepts reflected in the different correlations between
measures, we assume that the results of any analysis on the influence and/or
moderating role of national culture in the form of national culture scores will largely
depend on the measures used. Focusing on the measurement (instead of concentrating
on the theoretical definition) of power distance, the following can be expected: First, all
three concepts involve the idea of “following but not questioning the leader and his/her
decisions”. This suggests that the hypothesis on the (negative) moderation effect
on independent work should be measurement-concept-independent. Second, the
CCM measurements applied in the GLOBE project focus very much (and more than the
22,1 other two concepts) on the idea that a concentration of power at the top is culturally
desirable. This strongly relates to our hypothesis on advancement – individuals
are highly motivated to advance to a better and more powerful position. We assume
that the moderation effect on advancement might be more pronounced when
applying the GLOBE measures. Third, the scores collected by Taras et al. (2012)
76 involve the aspect of good working relationships with superiors. Hence, when using
the values provided by Taras et al. (2012), we would expect to find support for the
H4.2, that the positive relationship between good relationships with management and
job satisfaction is stronger in high power distance cultures. Finally, neither
measurement concept directly picks up aspects of income and relationships to
colleagues; hence it will be interesting to see, whether the concepts really cover all
theoretical aspects related to the difference in value attached to certain work
characteristics in different cultures.

Data and method

The sample
The following analyses are based on data from the work orientation module of the
International Social Survey Program (ISSP) gathered in 2005. The ISSP is an
international cooperation project that conducts attitude surveys on different topics.
The ISSP work orientation sample comprises 31 nations (for a detailed study
description and descriptive statistics of the data, see GESIS, 2013). For our purposes,
we will focus on the nations for which Hofstede, the GLOBE project as well as Taras
et al. (2012) provide power distance scores. This results in 16 nations: Australia,
Germany, Great Britain, the USA, Hungary, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada,
Philippines, Israel, Japan, Spain, France, Switzerland, Finland and Taiwan. In all
nations, we focus on the responses of employees currently working for pay (i.e. people
who are retired as well as housewives and housemen are left out). This yields an overall
sample size of n ¼ 10,017 respondents, which can be used to test our job satisfaction
driver model. Due to data unavailability issues, our analyses are based on n ¼ 8,435
usable answers on all variables included into our model (i.e. we made use of the
case-wise deletion procedure of missing values).
The international comparability of attitudes is a central benefit of the ISSP, but is
also a weak point, because attitudes are always context-dependent. Thus, possible
differences in values and attitudes could be the result of different meanings and
connotations of a specific concept rather than due to national differences (Hult, 2005).
To minimise potential biases from this source and to increase questionnaire validity,
careful procedures have been implemented, such as independent translations and
thorough discussion of questionnaires (Scholz and Faaß, 2007).

Measures
In the ISSP questionnaire, our dependent variable job satisfaction was asked directly,
with a scale between 1 (completely dissatisfied) and 7 (completely satisfied). The ISSP
data contains several items that can be used to measure the following situational
job characteristics – our independent research variables: income, advancement, job
security, interesting job, independent work, qualification possibilities, opportunities for
skills use, low workload, good relationships with managers and colleagues,
opportunities to help others, usefulness to society and work-family compatibility.
Most of the explanatory variables are measured on scales between 1 (strongly disagree) Situational job
and 5 (strongly agree); to hypothesise only about positive relationships, we recoded characteristics
variables if necessary. Finally, if possible, we combined items to a factor using factor
analyses (Table II provides an overview).
and job
To operationalise the extent of power distance in a society and therewith the effect satisfaction
this will have on job satisfaction drivers, we will refer to the three concepts or measures
of culture introduced above: Hofstede (1980), the new cultural scores identified by 77
Taras et al. (2012), and the GLOBE cultural scores (House et al., 2004). Concerning the
GLOBE cultural scores, we refer to the response biased corrected scores (Hanges, 2004).
From Taras et al. (2012) we use the scores provided for the 2000s. These scores best
meet the time frame of the ISSP sample used and are thus expected to show more
realistic results as compared to the ones of Hofstede (1980). The power distance scores
are merged into the data set by assigning each national power distance score to each

Job characteristic Measurement

Income “My income is high” five-point scale: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
(recoded)
Advancement “My opportunities for advancement are high” five-point scale: 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (recoded)
Job security Factor focusing on the absence of job future ambiguity or insecurity; explains 66
per cent of the variance in the two items involved “My job is secure” five-point
scale: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (recoded) “To what extent, if at all,
do you worry about the possibility of losing your job?” four-point scale: 1 (worry a
great deal) to 4 (do not worry at all)
Interesting job “My job is interesting” five-point scale: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
(recoded)
Independent work “I can work independently” five-point scale: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree) (recoded)
Qualification “My job gives provides me with opportunities to improve my skills” five-point
possibilities scale: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (recoded)
Opportunities for “How much of your past work experience and/or job skills can you make use of in
skills use your present job?” four-point scale: 1 (almost none) to 4 (almost all)
Low workload Factor focusing on the workload; explains 74 per cent of the variance in the two
items: “Do you come home from work exhausted?” “Do you find your work
stressful?” Both: five-point scale: 1 (always) to 5 (never)
Good relationships “In general, how would you describe the relationships at your workplace between
with management management and employees?” five-point scale: 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good)
(recoded)
Good relationships “In general, how would you describe the relationships at your workplace between
with colleagues colleagues?” five-point scale: 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good) (recoded)
Opportunities to “In my job, I can help other people” five-point scale: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
help others (strongly agree) (recoded)
Usefulness to “My job is useful to society” five-point scale: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
society agree) (recoded)
Work-family Factor focusing on work-family compatibility; explains 59 per cent of the variance
compatibility in the two items involved “How difficult would it be for you to take an hour or two
off during working hours to take care of personal or family matters?” four-point
scale: 1 (very difficult) to 4 (not difficult at all) (recoded) “How often do you feel Table II.
that your job’s demands interfere with your family life?” five-point scale: 1 Job characteristics
(always) to 5 (never) and measures
CCM respondent from that cultural context. For instance, in our sample, the Hofstede power
22,1 distance scores for Germany are assigned to each respondent from Germany.

The analysis technique

To demonstrate the influence of situational job characteristics and culture on job
satisfaction, a standard regression model is applied using ordinary least squares
78 estimation. Job satisfaction is the dependent variable and the 13 situational job
dimensions are our independent constructs.
We will first estimate the basic situational driver model (excluding the power
distance variables) individually for each country. This is done to provide an overview
of the national or cultural differences in the driving force of certain job facets on
satisfaction.
Second, with regard to analysing the hypothesised moderation or interaction
effect between specific situational job characteristics and specific dimensions
of culture, we introduce interaction terms into the model. This is done by referring to
the orthogonalising or residual centring approach, as proposed by Lance (1988);
it has the following advantages: The regression coefficients and standard errors of
our first-order effect terms (i.e. our situational job characteristics) remain unchanged
when the interaction term is entered. Furthermore, the interaction term’s significance
is unbiased by the orthogonalisation process. Finally, the procedure ensures full
independence between the interaction term and its constituent main effects (Little
et al., 2006). To build our orthogonalised interactions, we proceed as follows: to form,
for instance, the interaction term between power distance (PD) and income (PAY),
we first build the simple product term PD.PAY ¼ PD×PAY. Second, we regress it on
the two original variables, i.e. PD.PAY ¼ a+b1×PD+b2×PAY+residual. Third,
we save the resulting residual as a new variable PDPAY and use this variable to
represent the interaction between PD and PAY. This is done for each pair of original
variables for which a moderating effect is hypothesised (see the procedure
description in Burril, 1998).
To pay attention to the fact that we use national – and therewith nationwide
constant – power distance scores but individual job characteristics and satisfaction
evaluations, we complement the regression analysis by using a cluster command.
While this procedure does not change coefficient estimates, it produces standard errors
robust to the correlation in our nation clusters, that is, standard errors take into account
that the observations of the cultural scores within nations are non-independent
(Williams, 2000). All models also control for age, gender and years of schooling.
To check for the appropriateness of the chosen procedure, we conducted several
tests ex post: First, to test for multicollinearity, we refer to the VIFs, which all remain
below 1.8 and thus below the recommended threshold of 5. We also refer to the Kernel
density estimate plots in order to evaluate the normality of residuals (see, for instance,
Urban and Mayerl, 2006). No plot indicated a nonnormality problem. Testing for
homoscedasticity became obsolete: errors are not independent when using constant
cultural scores for each observation. However, the chosen cluster procedure
nonetheless produces robust standard errors (Williams, 2000).

Results
The results of the basic situational driver model (without culture) analysed for each
country individually are shown in Table III, which presents nations along established
 Situational job
characteristics
and job
satisfaction

79

Table III.
Ranking of
Notes: Fields without a colour indicate a nonsignificant (i.e. p W0.1) impact of a single job regression results for
characterstic on job satisfaction; the ranking of top drivers is based on situational job characteristics each country
only (age, gender and education are controlled for but are not presented) (without culture)

cultural clusters (starting, for instance, with the Anglo cluster). The table also provides
information on the model’s explanatory power in different nations: for 13 of the 16
analysed countries, it explains at least 40 per cent, and for seven countries it even
explains more than 50 per cent of the variation in job satisfaction. The most important
drivers of satisfaction are an interesting job and good relationships between
management and subordinates, almost across all nations. Nonetheless, there are several
considerable differences between the nations or cultures concerning the impact of job
characteristics on satisfaction. For employees from the Philippines, for instance, low
workload is most important, which is also a relevant driver in Australia, New Zealand,
Germany and Finland. For workers from the USA, Switzerland, France and Sweden,
good relationships with colleagues are among the top drivers of job satisfaction,
in contrast to all other nations. Income is among the top three drivers in Taiwan,
CCM yet it is not a significant antecedent of job satisfaction in countries such as Sweden or
22,1 Finland, among others.
While these differences might also be a result of differences in institutional contexts
(e.g. welfare, regulations in the labour markets, etc.), we are especially interested in the
question whether culture – and, particularly, power distance – is able to at least partly
explain these differences.
80 Table IV presents the results of our regression analyses on the full data set. The
basic situational driver model results total for all countries are provided in the first
column (Model 1)[1]. Overall, only one situational driver does not show a significant
impact on job satisfaction: opportunities to help others. All other job characteristics
included in the analyses are statistically significant determinants when it comes to
satisfying employees. From the individual analyses, having an interesting job and good
relationships with management are the most important overall satisfaction drivers.
The basic model already explains a large share of variance in job satisfaction, namely
44 per cent – as also expected from the individual analyses.
The next columns present the results, including the situational drivers and the
power distance scores provided by the work of Hofstede (1980), Taras et al. (2012) as
well as GLOBE (House et al., 2004). First, results are presented for the models without
interactions, that is, covering only power distance’s direct effect on job satisfaction
(Models 2, 4 and 6). Second, results are also provided for the models involving the
interactions (Models 3, 5 and 7). Introducing power distance as a moderator into
the analyses did not significantly increase the model’s explanatory power when using
the scores provided by Hofstede (1980), Taras et al. (2012), or GLOBE (the R2 increases
by less than one percentage point).
Concerning power distance’s direct effect on job satisfaction, we find no effect when
using the scores provided by Hofstede (1980). However, it significantly impacts job
satisfaction, both when applying the GLOBE scores as well as when using Taras et al.’s
(2012) scores, which are more current compared to the ones of Hofstede (1980) and thus
better correspond to our ISSP sample data. Applying the latter (in contrast to GLOBE)
yields a significant positive impact of power distance on job satisfaction, that is, job
satisfaction increases with increasing power distance levels. This meets previous
findings: Yetim and Yetim (2006) find that worker satisfaction and power distance are
positively correlated, since power clashes between supervisors and workers that could
reduce satisfaction are not experienced. However, we need to highlight that this finding
depends on the measures of culture one uses, since the GLOBE power distance scores
point to a negative direct effect.
In the models involving the interaction terms, we find no significant interaction
effects when applying the Hofstede (1980) scores (which is most probably due to the
considerably different time frames of the two studies). The models referring to
the scores of GLOBE as well as Taras et al. (2012) each yield one significant effect:
The GLOBE model (Model 7) results support the assumed higher influence of
advancement opportunities on job satisfaction (H2). Thus, in nations where power
distance, and thus concentration of power at the top, is desirable, advancement
opportunities are more important to job satisfaction. The Taras et al. (2012) model
(Model 5) results support H1 – of a negative interaction effect of power distance on the
relationship between autonomy and job satisfaction. Hence, in nations where
individuals prefer a high level of power distance and anything but a consultative style
of decision-making by the superior, working independently is less important to job
satisfaction. This is a result which we would also have expected to find for the GLOBE
 Hofstede (1980) Taras et al. (2012) GLOBE (House et al., 2004)
Job characteristic Hypotheses (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Income + 0.080*** 0.078*** 0.078*** 0.076*** 0.076*** 0.076*** 0.078***

Advancement + 0.068*** 0.070*** 0.070*** 0.067*** 0.066*** 0.068*** 0.066***
Job security + 0.036*** 0.039*** 0.039*** 0.043*** 0.043*** 0.039*** 0.039***
Interesting job + 0.296*** 0.296*** 0.297*** 0.299*** 0.299*** 0.296*** 0.297***
Independent work + 0.022** 0.026* 0.025* 0.021 0.021* 0.022 0.022
Qualification possibilities + 0.087*** 0.086*** 0.085*** 0.088*** 0.089*** 0.090*** 0.090***
Opportunities for skills use + 0.030*** 0.035** 0.035** 0.037** 0.036** 0.031** 0.030**
Low workload + 0.106*** 0.107*** 0.107*** 0.107*** 0.107*** 0.104*** 0.104***
Good relationships with management + 0.230*** 0.230*** 0.231*** 0.225*** 0.225*** 0.228*** 0.227***
Good relationships with colleagues + 0.083*** 0.087*** 0.087*** 0.089*** 0.088*** 0.084*** 0.085***
Opportunities to help others + 0.002 0.002 0.002 −0.004 −0.005 0.008 0.008
Usefulness to society + 0.049*** 0.047*** 0.047*** 0.044*** 0.045*** 0.044*** 0.044***
Work-family compatibility + 0.071*** 0.070*** 0.070*** 0.069*** 0.069*** 0.073*** 0.073***
Power distance 0.036 0.035 0.062*** 0.062*** −0.062*** −0.063***
PDxAdvance + 0.000 −0.020 0.020**
PDxIndependent − −0.002 −0.023*** 0.011
PDxIncome + 0.010 0.019 −0.010
PDxClimMan − 0.009 −0.001 0.015
PDxClimColl − 0.001 −0.007 −0.002
Education −0.065*** −0.065*** −0.064*** −0.059*** −0.059*** −0.054*** −0.054***
Gender 0.024*** 0.025** 0.025** 0.026** 0.026** 0.025*** 0.025***
0.060*** 0.062*** 0.062*** 0.065*** 0.067*** 0.062*** 0.062***
R2 0.441 0.442 0.443 0.445 0.446 0.445 0.446
n 8,435 8,435 8,435 8,435 8,435 8,435 8,435
Notes: ***p o 0.01; **p o 0.05; *p o 0.1
characteristics

satisfaction

scores as moderators
Regression results
using power distance
81

Table IV.
and job
Situational job
CCM values. Concerning the remaining three hypotheses on income, relationships with
22,1 management and relationships with colleagues, our models do not point to significant
results for the hypothesised moderation effects, and thus neither reject nor support our
hypotheses.

Discussion
82 We addressed power distance’s moderating role in the relationship between situational
job characteristics and job satisfaction. Our basic assumption was that the effect of
different job characteristics on job satisfaction depends on power distance, because job
characteristics are valued differently in cultures with different power distances. We
have drawn up and empirically tested five hypotheses using three different ways to
measure culture: the scores provided by Hofstede (1980), Taras et al. (2012) and GLOBE
(House et al., 2004).
Our results are convincing regarding the basic job satisfaction driver model not
involving culture. However, the results on power distance’s impact as well as its
moderating role are not completely convincing when compared to our theoretical
hypotheses. Concerning power distance’s direct impact on job satisfaction – as has
frequently been researched – only the scores provided by Taras et al. (2012) support the
past empirical findings that indicate a positive impact of power distance on job
satisfaction. Incorporating power distance as a direct effect into our models yields a
negligible additional explanatory power regarding job satisfaction level variation.
Regarding the introduction of our interaction terms, we gain additional explanatory
power that accounts for less than one percentage point over the basic job satisfaction
model. Accordingly, there is weak confirmation for our hypotheses derived on the basis
of theoretical definitions of the concept power distance. H1 finds support when using
the culture scores from Taras et al. (2012). In low power distance cultures, where
individuals value a consultative style of decision making by the superior, employee
empowerment is more important to increase job satisfaction. This corresponds with the
rather strong theory on autonomy and empowerment issues and is in line with various
past findings. Yet, it is a surprise that this does not come out when applying the
GLOBE scores, which likewise involve the aspect of “following, but not questioning
the leader”.
H2 is supported by using GLOBE power distance scores. We find a positive
interaction effect, pointing to advancement’s increased importance for job satisfaction
in cultures generally high in power distance. Hence, although there is limited upward
social mobility, employees strive for the better and higher-valued top positions in
countries high in power distance, in order to benefit from the special privileges
attributed to higher-level jobs. From a practical perspective, this could encourage
human resource management to develop career development plans for their employees
in GLOBE’s high power distance countries. That this effect becomes especially visible
by means of the GLOBE values is no surprise when recalling the measurements
which are behind the values.
H3, H4 and H5 are not supported by the findings. Regarding the impact power
distance might have on the relevance of good relationships with managers and
colleagues, this may be the result of countervailing effects, since different theories have
pointed to both a higher and lower importance in cultures high in power distance.
Nonetheless, the measurements involved in Taras et al. (2012) should have pointed to a
positive moderation effect of power distance on the relationship with managers.
Concerning income, the missing support is theoretically rather surprising as theoretical
underpinnings provide convincing arguments. Yet recalling the measurements used, Situational job
income is no topic of direct relevance in either concept. characteristics
The outcome that our results are strongly dependent on the culture concepts utilised
is as expected and is due to the strongly differing scores according to each of the three
and job
approaches. The new scores provided by Taras et al. (2012) are the most current indices satisfaction
and most strongly correspond to our sample’s time frame; they are thus expected to
show the results that best meet the individual de facto power distance value in each of 83
the analysed nations. However, four of the hypothesised interaction effects are
insignificant in the model involving Taras et al.’s (2012) scores. While the values by
Taras et al. (2012) are appealing in terms of time frame and in terms of correspondence
to the initial concepts proposed by Hofstede (1980), a criticism could point to the
aggregation of individuals to nations. This is one of the major differences to the
GLOBE values which immediately tackle a national ideal which is supposed to measure
the societal peculiarities in a nation (with again the drawbacks already mentioned).
Against the background of these results, we must highlight that the above
implications should be taken with caution: our models’ explanatory power do not
show a significant upward move when including culture; power distance’s
explanatory power seems to be limited. This offers fairly weak support for
national power distance level differences as explanatory terms for different
satisfaction levels and satisfaction drivers across cultures. From our results, we can
conclude that national differences in job satisfaction, as found in various studies, are
a result of differences in situational dispositions to work life (e.g. job conditions,
such as the provision of interesting jobs, the availability of money, supportive
supervision, etc.) rather than a result of different cultural surroundings in terms of
power distance as measured by current concepts. The question is whether this is due
to power distance’s lack of impact or due to other factors, such as the difficulties of
measuring culture as well as its facets.
Concerning the chosen sample, it can be stated that it has both advantages and
deficiencies: the ISSP satisfies basic quality standards such as measures that address
the international comparability of questionnaire items (e.g. independent translations
and thorough discussion of questionnaires). Moreover, the ISSP surveys only consist of
self-reported measures, that is, the results may suffer from common method bias;
however, job satisfaction is mostly influenced by the self-perceived work situation and
is less dependent on objective conditions (Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza, 2000).
Furthermore, the questionnaire contains only one item to measure overall job
satisfaction. While the use of a single item to measure job satisfaction has drawn
criticism, it has also been shown that single-item measures of job satisfaction are
reliable measures (e.g. Wanous et al., 1997). While the survey also only offers a narrow
set of items that can be referred to for measuring situational job characteristics, we are
confident that both the data collection procedure and the measures chosen to
operationalise job characteristics fit our purposes well. The job characteristics involved
come up to human research management research standards and perform well in our
basic situational driver model across all analysed countries. We therefore do not see
any major problems arising from the ISSP data set.
The chosen analysis technique appropriately considers that job characteristics are
measured individually, while power distance is operationalised on a nationwide basis
(by applying the cluster command, resulting in robust standard errors). Furthermore,
probing ex post for violations of the regression premises does not point to critical
issues. Alternative procedures applied, such as ordered logit models, offer similar
CCM statistical results, leading to the same conclusions. Hence, we are also confident that it
22,1 is not the analysis technique that leads to the surprising results.
Regarding the impact of culture and the cultural scores applied, we must ask: Are
the cultural scores provided by Hofstede (1980) still practically applicable in a work
context (e.g. Taras et al., 2009)? Taras et al. (2012) analyse the dynamics of culture and
show that cultural values change over time. This underlines the need to apply up-to-
84 date cultural scores in empirical research, since national cultures are changing (see also
Ladwig et al., 2012). However, even when applying the Taras et al. (2012) scores, results
do not come up to our expectations. Are the values provided by project GLOBE better
in terms of measuring national power distance values as they aggregate perceptions in
one’s society rather than self-perceptions or are they worse as they are farer from
measuring the individual perceptions? Taras et al. (2010) point to the fact that culture’s
impact is clearly weaker when referring to secondary culture data compared to directly
measuring individual cultural values (see also the discussion in Brewer and Venaik,
2010, McSweeney, 2002 and Hofstede, 2002). Therefore, for ultimately confirming
power distance’s moderating role in the context of job characteristics and job
satisfaction – for which we remain confident that our general assumptions are plausible –
further research is needed that directly measures the power distance values in addition to
the job characteristics and satisfaction values. Ideally, such measurement approaches
involve all theoretical aspects related to the definition of power distance. Therewith,
empirical findings can contribute to advancing theoretical foundations in the field.
The framework offered in this paper is of value, since it, first, contributes to
theorizing on the moderating role of power distance in job satisfaction models. Second,
it contributes to our empirical knowledge, as it analyses the impact of the most
prominent concepts of culture in job satisfaction models and compares findings
generated by means of national cultural values.

Note
1. We refrain from presenting the control model results comprising age, gender and education,
which resulted in an R2 value of only 9 per cent.

References
Ashkanasy, N.M. and Jackson, C.R.A. (2001), “Organizational culture and climate”, in Anderson,
N., Ones, D.S., Sinangil, H.K. and Viswesvaran, C. (Eds), Handbook of Insutrial Work and
Organizational Psychology, Sage Publications, London, pp. 399-415.
Begley, T.M., Lee, C., Fang, Y. and Li, J. (2002), “Power distance as a moderator of the relationship
between justice and employee outcomes in a sample of Chinese employees”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 692-711.
Bochner, S. and Hesketh, B. (1994), “Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related
attitudes in a culturally diverse work group”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 233-257.
Brewer, P. and Venaik, S. (2010), “GLOBE practices and values: a case of diminishing marginal
utility?”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1316-1324.
Brewer, P. and Venaik, S. (2011), “Individualism-collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 436-445.
Budhwar, P.S. (2000), “Indian and British personnel specialists’ understanding of the dynamics of
their function: an empirical study”, International Business Review, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 727-753.
Burril, D. (1998), “Modeling and interpreting interactions in multiple regression”, available at: Situational job
http://qualitytrainer.in/uploadedFiles/Content/News/Published_Articles/
interactions_in_multiple_regression.pdf (accessed 24 March 2013).
characteristics
and job
Carl, D., Gupta, V. and Javidan, M. (2004), “Power distance”, in House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan,
M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The satisfaction
GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 513-563.
Cohrs, J.C., Abele, A.E. and Dette, D.E. (2006), “Integrating situational and dispositional 85
determinants of job satisfaction: findings from three samples of professionals”, Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 140 No. 4, pp. 363-395.
Erez, M. (1994), “Toward a model of cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology”, in
Triandis, H.C., Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 559-608.
Fock, H., Hui, M.K., Au, K. and Bond, M.H. (2013), “Moderation effects of power distance on the
relationship between types of empowerment and employee satisfaction”, Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 281-298.
GESIS (2013), “ISSP 2005 – work orientations III: variable report”, GESIS-Variable Reports,
No. 2013/23, Cologne.
Hackman, J. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory”,
Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 250-279.
Hanges, P.J. (2004), “Response bias correction procedure used in GLOBE, appendix B”, in House,
R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership, and
Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 737-753.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B.B. (1959), The Motivation to Work, Wiley Chapman
& Hall, New York, NY, London.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G. (1982), “VSM 82”, Values Survey Module 1982 Manual, Maastricht.
Hofstede, G. (1994), “VSM 94”, Values Survey Module 1994 Manual, Maastricht.
Hofstede, G. (2002), “Dimensions do not exist: a reply to Brendan Mc Sweeney”, Human Relations,
Vol. 55 No. 11, pp. 355-361.
Hofstede, G. (2006), “What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’
minds”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 882-896.
Hofstede, G. (2010), “The GLOBE debate: back to relevance”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1339-1346.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (2010), Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind:
Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Hofstede, G.H. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations across Nations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
House, R.J., Wright, N.S. and Aditya, R.N. (1997), “Cross-cultural research on organizational
leadership: a critical analysis and a proposed theory”, in Earley, P.S. and Erez, M. (Eds),
New Perspectives on Industrial/Organizational Psychology, The New Lexington Press, San
Francisco, CA, pp. 535-625.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (2004), “Culture, leadership,
and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies”, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
CA, pp. xxviii, 818.
CCM Huang, X. and Van de Vliert, E. (2003), “Where instrinsic job satisfacton fails to work: national
moderators of instrinsic motivation”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 2,
22,1 pp. 159-179.
Hui, M.K., Au, K. and Fock, H. (2004), “Empowerment effects across cultures”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 46-60.
Hult, C. (2005), “Organizational commitment and person-environment fit in six western
86 countries”, Organization Studies, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 249-270.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., de Luque, M.S. and House, R.J. (2006), “In the eye of the beholder:
cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE”, Academy of Management
Perspectives, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 67-90.
Judge, T.A. and Klinger, R. (2007), “Job satisfaction: subjective well-being at work”, in Eid, M. and
Larsen, R. (Eds), The Science of Subjective Well-Being, Guilford Publications, New York, NY.
Kirkman, B.L. and Shapiro, D.L. (2001), “The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and
organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: the mediating role of employee
resistance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 557-569.
Kirkman, B.L., Chen, G., Farh, J.-L., Chen, Z.X. and Lowe, K.B. (2009), “Individual power distance
orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: a cross-level, cross-cultural
examination”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 744-764.
Ladwig, T.J., Richter, N.F., Ringle, C.M. and Heitger, N. (2012), Cultural Hybrid Personalities?
Clustering Nations According to the Big Five Personality Traits, Hamburg University of
Technology, Hamburg.
Lam, S.S.K., Schaubroeck, J. and Aryee, S. (2002), “Relationship between organizational justice
and employee work outcomes: a cross-national study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Lance, C.E. (1988), “Residual centering, exploratory and confirmatory moderator analysis, and
decomposition of effects in path models containing interactions”, Applied Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 163-175.
Latham, G.P. and Pinder, C.C. (2005), “Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the
twenty-first century”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 485-516.
Lee, C., Pillutla, M. and Law, K.S. (2000), “Power-distance, gender and organizational justice”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 685-704.
Little, T.D., Bovaird, J.A. and Widaman, K.F. (2006), “On the merits of orthogonalizing powered
and product terms: implications for modeling interactions among latent variables”,
Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 497-519.
Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunnete, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally College Pub. Co., Chicago, IL,
pp. 1297-1343.
Loi, R., Lam, L.W. and Chan, K.W. (2012), “Coping with job insecurity: the role of procedural
justice, ethical leadership and power distance orientation”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 108 No. 3, pp. 361-372.
McSweeney, B. (2002), “Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences:
a triumph of faith-a failure of analysis”, Human Relations, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 89-118.
Madlock, P.E. (2012), “The influence of power distance and communication on Mexican workers”,
Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 169-184.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M. and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002), “Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 3-72.
Robert, C., Probst, T.M., Martocchio, J.J., Drasgow, F. and Lawler, J.J. (2000), “Empowerment and Situational job
continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: predicting fit on
the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism”, Journal of Applied
characteristics
Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 643-658. and job
Robie, C., Ryan, A.M., Schmieder, R.A., Parra, L.F. and Smith, P.C. (1998), “The relation between satisfaction
job level and job satisfaction”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 470-495. 87
Saari, L.M. and Judge, T.A. (2004), “Employee attitudes and job satisfaction”, Human Resource
Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 395-407.
Scholz, E. and Faaß, T. (2007), ISSP 2005 Germany Work Orientations III ZUMA Report on the
German Study, ZUMA-Methodenbericht, Mannheim.
Smith, P.B. (2006), “When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: the GLOBE and Hofstede
projects”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 915-921.
Sousa-Poza, A. and Sousa-Poza, A. (2000), “Well-being at work: a cross-national analysis of the
levels and determinants of job satisfaction”, Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 29 No. 6,
p. 517.
Steers, R.M. and Sanchez-Runde, C.J. (2002), “Culture, motivation, and work behavior”, in Gannon,
M.J. and Newman, K.L. (Eds), The Blackwell Handbook of Principles of Cross-Cultural
Management, MPG Books, Bodmin, pp. 190-216.
Taras, V. (2008), “Catalogue of instruments for measuring culture”, available at: http://ucalgary.
ca/~taras/_private/Culture_Survey_Catalogue.pdf (accessed 23 February 2014).
Taras, V., Kirkman, B.L. and Steel, P. (2010), “Examining the impact of culture’s consequences: a
three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 405-439.
Taras, V., Rowney, J. and Steel, P. (2009), “Half a century of measuring culture: approaches,
challenges, limitations, and suggestions based on the analysis of 112 instruments for
quantifying culture”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 357-373.
Taras, V., Steel, P. and Kirkman, B.L. (2012), “Improving national cultural indices using a
longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 47
No. 3, pp. 329-341.
Tsui, A.S., Nifadkar, S.S. and Ou, A.Y. (2007), “Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational
behavior research: advances, gaps, and recommendations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33
No. 3, pp. 426-478.
Urban, D. and Mayerl, J. (2006), Regressionsanalyse: Theorie, Technik und Anwendung, VS Verlag
für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.
Venaik, S. and Brewer, P. (2010), “Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede and GLOBE”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1294-1315.
Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E. and Hudy, M.J. (1997), “Overall job satisfaction: how good are
single-item measures?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 247-252.
Warr, P. (2007), Work, Happiness, and Unhappiness, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Williams, R.L. (2000), “A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data”,
Biometrics, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 645-646.
Yetim, N. and Yetim, U. (2006), “The cultural orientations of entrepreneurs and employees’ job
satisfaction: the Turkish small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) case”, Social
Indicators Research, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 257-286.
 88
22,1
CCM

Table AI.
Pearson correlations
Appendix

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Job satisfaction (1) 0.279*** 0.304*** 0.237*** 0.509*** 0.280*** 0.377*** 0.224*** 0.225*** 0.454*** 0.355*** 0.253*** 0.238*** 0.244*** −0.062 *** −0.046*** 0.053*** −0.006 0.011 0.095***
Income (2) 1 0.451*** 0.270*** 0.251*** 0.164*** 0.252*** 0.135*** 0.063*** 0.159*** 0.100*** 0.098*** 0.082*** 0.104*** −0.020* −0.020* 0.050*** 0.133*** −0.137*** −0.024**
Advancement (3) 1 0.267*** 0.315*** 0.187*** 0.374*** 0.149*** 0.023** 0.199*** 0.131*** 0.166*** 0.131*** 0.080*** −0.074*** 0.000 0.040*** 0.070*** −0.097*** −0.145***
Security (4) 1 0.193*** 0.132*** 0.165*** 0.117*** 0.111*** 0.203*** 0.149*** 0.151*** 0.139*** 0.154*** −0.116*** 0.051*** −0.077*** 0.092*** 0.031*** 0.011
Interesting job (5) 1 0.367*** 0.524*** 0.308*** 0.076*** 0.235*** 0.239*** 0.386*** 0.343*** 0.099*** −0.092*** 0.052*** −0.034*** 0.108*** 0.027*** 0.085***
Independent work 1 0.297*** 0.215*** 0.085*** 0.196*** 0.159*** 0.282*** 0.172*** 0.176*** −0.132*** 0.040*** 0.026** 0.032*** −0.016 0.038***
(6)
Qualif. possi- 1 0.290*** −0.009 0.217*** 0.181*** 0.390*** 0.385*** 0.071*** −0.032*** 0.074*** 0.014 0.144*** −0.005 −0.068***
bilities (7)
Opport. for skills 1 −0.039*** 0.132*** 0.120*** 0.193*** 0.168*** 0.013 −0.171*** 0.045*** −0.113*** 0.113*** 0.008 0.126***
use (8)
Low workload (9) 1 0.197*** 0.151*** −0.029*** −0.053*** 0.413*** −0.021** −0.004 0.017* −0.021** −0.044*** 0.029***
Good rel. with 1 0.517*** 0.144*** 0.110*** 0.244*** −0.094*** −0.005 0.037*** −0.047*** 0.018* 0.023**
managers (10)
Good rel. with 1 0.130*** 0.116*** 0.166*** −0.134*** 0.025** −0.058*** 0.004 0.015 −0.005
colleagues (11)
Opport. to help 1 0.567*** 0.008 −0.054*** 0.089*** 0.082*** 0.081*** 0.097*** 0.065***
others (12)
Usefulness to 1 −0.038*** 0.002 0.005 0.072*** 0.079*** 0.051*** 0.088***
society (13)
Work-family 1 −0.033*** 0.027*** 0.011 −0.023** −0.042*** 0.035***
compat. (14)
PD (Hofstede) (15) 1 −0.148*** 0.528*** −0.007 −0.027*** −0.090***
PD (GLOBE) (16) 1 −0.202*** 0.180*** 0.036*** 0.017*
PD (Taras et al.) 1 −0.085*** −0.047*** −0.100***
(17)
Education (18) 1 0.041*** −0.083***
Gender (19) 1 −0.030***
Age (20) 1
Notes: ***,**,*Correlation is significant at 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 levels (two-tailed), respectively
About the authors Situational job
Dr Sven Hauff is a Post-Doc Researcher at the Institute for Human Resource Management at the characteristics
University of Hamburg. His research interests include outsourcing of HR functions, employment
systems, work values, and person-organisation fit. and job
Dr Nicole Richter is a Post-Doc Researcher at the Institute for Human Resource Management satisfaction
and Organizations at the Hamburg University of Technology. Her major research fields include
international management, in particular the internationalisation and performance relationship,
and international human resource management. Dr Nicole Richter is the corresponding author 89
and can be contacted at: nicole.richter@nordakademie.de

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com