conceptual model

Running Head: CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 1

Core Self-Evaluations and Perceived Relationship Between Supervisor and Subordinates:

The Influence of Cultural Dimensions on Job Satisfaction

Uyen Nguyen Hill

Savannah State University

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 2

Abstract

Through learning about the cultural perspectives and understand the customs of the host

countries, business leaders had been able to conduct successful business through increasing the

job satisfaction of employees in diverse workplaces and globally. However, after the 2008 global

recession, many business leaders had to reconsider their business practices to be relevant in the

dramatically changed economic situation. This study is conducted at various universities and

companies in collectivism cultures of China, Russia, and South Korea, and individualism

cultures of western countries of the United States, Australia, and United Kingdom to answer one

main question: Are businesses across the globe are still operated the way they used to be before

the recession? Are employees still satisfied at their jobs? The paper satisfies the need for new

information and intelligence to adapt to the business environment after the recession:

How do cultural dimensions affect core self-evaluations of subordinates?

How do cultural dimensions affect perceived professional and personal relationships between

managers and employees?

Consequently what effects do cultural dimensions have on subordinates’ job satisfaction?

Keywords: core self-evaluations and cultures, cultural dimensions and job satisfaction

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 3

Core Self-Evaluations and Perceived Relationship between Supervisor and Subordinates:

The Influence of Cultural Dimensions on Job Satisfaction

As he has predicted, Hofstede (2009) concluded that the global recession in 2008 which

was mostly caused by “bankers in the USA, in pursuing their business goals acted like sorcerers’

apprentices” (p. 481). Learning from that valuable lessons, many of the short-term oriented

countries (“short Term Orientation pole means valuing “face” and respect for tradition”) such as

USA, Britain, and Canada are taking countless measures in changing their business practices and

restoring favorable business outcomes (Hofstede, 2007, p. 418). However, there is a urgent need

to study whether employees and business leaders across borders are still applying business

practices within their comfort zones as they had before the global recession of 2008. As the

global economy has changed, business leaders need to learn if the business codes of conducts,

motivation approaches, training methods and so on are still valid in terms of pursuing modern

success.

Many studies have been done to help international business leaders comprehend their

diverse work force. Across borders, it is undeniable that the ultimate business goal of all cultures

was to generate profits and revenues. Each culture, greatly influenced by their traditions and

customers, has had their own business methods in trying to achieve that bottom line before the

recession. By distinguishing Hofstede’s cultural dimensions such individualism vs. collectivism,

masculinity vs. femininity, long- vs. short-term orientation, indulgence vs. restraint, power

distance index, and uncertainty avoidance index, invented by Hofstede, studies have given

business leaders broad and detailed guidelines of what was expected in different business

environments. However, as global business environments have shifted critically, this paper will

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 4

monitor new business behaviors in business students, employees, and leaders to understand how

culturally affected business practices have changed after the recession.

Hofstede’s “Asian management in the 21st century” (2007) thoroughly described how

Asian countries’ management strategies have changed over time while dealing with

“management problems [that] remain the same over time” (p. 419). However, this article was

written just right before the fall of the global economy in 2008. Therefore, this study will address

the new management strategies for the new global economic environment. In another article on

the Asia Pacific Business Review, Hofstede (2009) pointed out the need to create new training

programs that include “hands-on experience in various practical roles in their own and other

societies” to help future business leaders comprehend the new global business orders (Business

goals for a new world order, p. 487). Hence, through studying about how business is operated

and culturally affected after the recession, business leaders can create new training programs that

will best fit new business and economy body. Rashid and Ibrahim’s 2008 article discussed

sample countries’ given ethical values based on the country’s culture and religion. As it got

much hard to make ends meet in many places in the world, do business people still commit to

their known culturally- and religiously-influenced cultural values? Do their cultural values affect

core self-evaluations and relationship with their supervisor? Are subordinates satisfied with their

job based on their relationship with their supervisor? This study will answer these questions.

What makes this study significant is its timely approach. With previous valuable

knowledge on cultural effects on business practices, this study will improve its accuracy and

deepens its clarification. With the new findings, organizations can define their businesses’ core

values, mission, vision, codes of conducts to better serve their external and internal customers,

and satisfy their contemporary necessities and wishes. Most importantly, middle-level and first-

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 5

line managers can understand their subordinates’ new personal and organizational behaviors, and

correspondingly adjust their leadership styles. This study will also aid business practices

domestically and internationally.

The purpose of this research is to help managers and business leaders adjust their

business practice and leadership styles to accommodate the new business environments of post-

2008-recession. Theoretical framework of this study still emphasizes strongly the relationship

between cultural dimensions and perceived creativity and relationship between supervisor and

subordinates, in turn affecting overall job satisfaction with the new circumstances of the forever-

changed business environment and economy. Sample countries including the U.S., Australia,

United Kingdom, China, South Korea, and Russia will be divided into two groups based on their

cultural dimensions: the first group possess the characteristics of individualism, masculinity,

short-term orientation, indulgence, low power distance, and low uncertainty avoidance; the

second group possess characteristics of collectivism, femininity, long-term orientation, restraint,

high power distance, and high uncertainty avoidance.

Literature Review

Table 1 was conducted based on each country’s scores retrieved from The Hofstede

Center website (Country Comparison). This paper placed sampled countries into two groups

distinguished by their cultural dimensions with exception of China that has high masculinity and

has low uncertainty avoidance. Group A consists of the Australia, U.S.A., and United Kingdom

with cultural dimensions of low power distance, high individualism, high masculinity, low

uncertainty avoidance, short-term orientation, and indulgence. Group B consists of China,

Russia, and South Korea with the characteristics of high power distance, collectivism (low

individualism), femininity or low masculinity, long-term orientation, restraint (low indulgence).

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 6

Table 1 – Countries’ Scores on Cultural Dimensions

Australia

(Country

Comparison

- Australia)

U.S.A.

(Country

Comparison -

United States)

United

Kingdom

(Country

Comparison

- United

Kingdom)

China

(Country

Comparison

- China)

Russia

(Country

Comparison

- Russia)

South Korea

(Country

Comparison

- South

Korea)

Power

Distance

36 40 35 80 93 60

Individualism 90 91 89 20 39 18

Masculinity 61 62 66 66 36 39

Uncertainty

Avoidance

51 46 35 30 95 85

Long-term

Orientation

21 26 51 87 81 100

Indulgence 71 68 69 24 20 29

Hofstede defined power distance as the acceptable amount of unevenly distributed power

between managers and employees within an organization (Country Comparison - Australia).

Managers and employees in organizations in group A countries actively and directly participate

in decisions making, share information, and work together to accomplish day-to-day goals.

Usually their “communication [channel] is informal” and every person’s voice matters. In

contrast, organizations in group B countries are highly centralized and have clear organizational

structures (Country Comparison - South Korea). Managers and employees in these countries

know their places and act accordingly to their legitimate power and official status.

Citizens of countries in group A are identified as individualists who “think for

themselves” and act upon their uniqueness to achieve tasks and goals in the workplace (Country

Comparison - United Kingdom). Employees, even when working in teams, are expected to be

independent and proactive; hence most bonuses, raises, promotions are rewarded individually

based on each employee’s performance. Contrarily, countries in group B possess collectivistic

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 7

characteristics that are family-liked where everyone works for the greater good of the whole, not

just himself or herself (Country Comparison - China). While organizations in these countries are

highly tasked-oriented, close interpersonal relationships and interactions are more appreciated;

therefore, everyone wants to belong and be accepted by their superiors and peers. Once an

employee feels like he or she has become a part of the work family, that person is exceedingly

committed and loyal to the organization and the work itself.

Masculinity (group A) and femininity (group B) dimensions refer to “what motivates

people” (Country Comparison - Australia). Employees of countries in group A strive to be on top

of their fields and are proud of their personal “successes and achievements in life.” These

masculine cultures are often referred as “winner takes all.” In the opposite direction, employees

in feminine cultures act and work with a modest and harmonic approach. Femininity dimension

is much aligned with the low power distance dimension where employees emphasize the

organization’s achievements rather their own.

Uncertainty avoidance dimension is the most controversial dimension regarding each

country’s score. Countries in group A are predicted to have low uncertainty avoidance, however,

based on Table 1, only the United Kingdom from group A has significantly low uncertainty

avoidance and China as an exception from group B that is predicted to have high uncertainty

avoidance. Hence, for the purpose of this study, group A countries are said to have low moderate

uncertainty avoidance, and group B high uncertainty avoidance, with the exception of China.

Uncertainty avoidance refers to “the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by

ambiguous or unknown situations and have created beliefs and institutions that try to avoid

these” (Country Comparison - Australia).

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 8

Scores of countries in group A reflect short-term orientation with the United Kingdom’s

moderate score of 51. While organizations in these countries have five- to ten-year strategic

plans, their work efforts still focus on the immediate results and achievements, and “they exhibit

… a relatively small propensity to save for the future” (Country Comparison - Australia). On the

other hand, countries in group B are long-term orientated which means employees work hard to

“save and invest, [practice] thriftiness, and preference in achieving results” (Country

Comparison - China). Moreover, organizations and employees in group B believe in the long-

term sustainability and stability of the whole organization and act accordingly to maintain such

goal. Countries in group A are indulgent cultures. Managers and employees in group A value

their own “impulses and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun” (Country

Comparison - Australia). In the opposite, organizations and employees in group B are

constrained in terms of emphasizing their own “leisure” and “indulging themselves” (Country

Comparison - China).

Hofstede and Minkov (2010) showed that countries that are short-term orientated (goals

are set to be achieved in short periods) are also individualistic and indulgent in which people’s

“main work values are freedom, rights, achievement, and thinking for oneself.” “Old age” was

interestingly discussed as favorable or unfavorable in the long-term and short-term orientated

cultures respectively (p. 469, 467). Most importantly, Hofstede and Minkov (2010) concluded

that “people’s ways of thinking are culturally constrained” which means the same person born

and grown up in two different cultures could have different sets of values and beliefs. Luczak,

Mohan-Neill and Hills (2014) stated, in one of his earliest studies, Hofstede (1991) also linked

individualism and collectivism with masculinity and femininity respectively. Managers and

employees in collective and feminist cultures make business decisions and deliver their work in

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 9

tribute “to the formulation of cultural norms and values.” Nowadays, young people are raised not

only by their parents and families, but also by the World Wide Web that they have easy access to

everyday. This led to the questions: Do young people still exhibit cultural traits as their parents

or grandparents, and practice business accordingly? This study will answer that major question.

Theoretical Framework and Research Hypotheses

When the power distance between supervisor and subordinates is greater, subordinates

are less likely to discuss openly their thoughts and ideas with their supervisor. These habit

confines the subordinates’ freedoms to think, act, and speak their mind, due to fear of being

criticized for challenging their supervisor’s authority and power. In the end, this pattern weakens

subordinates’ “[belief] in their inner worth and basic competence,” which results in negative core

self-evaluations (Robbins & Judge, 2013, p. 82). Core self-evaluations are defined as the

“bottom-line conclusions individuals have about their capabilities, competence, and worth as a

person” (Robbins & Judge, 2013, p. 83).

H1 (-): The power distance between supervisor and subordinates has a negative

relationship with subordinates’ positive core self-evaluations.

Individualist subordinates, who value the idea of every-man-for-himself, have positive

perception of core self-evaluations. The subordinates’ belief that he or she has what it takes to

accomplish anything sets individualists apart from others. Individualists use their “capabilities,

competence, and worth of a person” to uniquely define themselves. As a result, these

individualistic subordinates may have a hard time getting along with their supervisor as they seek

to differentiate themselves.

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 10

H2 (+): Subordinates’ level of individualism has a positive relationship with their

positive core self-evaluations.

H7 (-): The greater the subordinates’ individualism, the poorer the perceived relationship

between supervisor and subordinates.

Figure 1 – Theoretical Framework

H1 (-)

H2 (+)

H3 (+)

H4 (-)

H5 (+) H12 (+)

H7 (-)

H8 (-) H6 (-)

H13 (+)

H9 (+)

H10 (+)

H11 (+)

Subordinates’

positive core self-

evaluations

Perceived

relationship

between supervisor

and subordinates

Subordinates’ job

satisfaction

Power distance

(acceptance of

unevenly

distributed power)

Individualism

(importance of the

greater good)

Masculinity

(need of being on

top, believing in

winner-takes-all)

Uncertainty

avoidance

(tolerance to

ambiguity)

Long-term

orientation

(importance of

long-term stability)

Indulgence

(level of self-

indulgence)

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 11

Similar with individualists, subordinates with high level of masculinity not only strive to be

different from every else, but also to rise above and be on the very top. Hence, to do so,

masculine individuals use positive core self-evaluations as a stepping stool for their progress. In

addition, along the process of striving on top, subordinates with high level of masculinity might

challenge their supervisor’s official authority and power. As a result, the relationship between

masculine subordinates and their supervisors would suffer.

H3 (+): Subordinates’ level of masculinity has a positive relationship with their positive

core self-evaluations.

H8 (-): The greater the subordinates’ masculinity, the poorer the perceived relationship

between supervisor and subordinates.

Employees with high level of uncertainty avoidance are those who fear the unknown and

unstructured. Hence, as their imagination is restricted by the need of being sure and certain, their

“capabilities, competence, and worth as a person” are bounded by the need of knowing what will

work and what will not, what will succeed and what will not (Robbins & Judge, 2013, p. 83).

Moreover, they will maintain the harmonic relationship with their supervisor to minimize the

chances of facing uncertainty and running into the unexpected.

H4 (-): Subordinates’ level of uncertainty avoidance has a negative relationship with their

positive core self-evaluations.

H9 (+): The greater the subordinates’ uncertainty avoidance, the greater the perceived

relationship between supervisor and subordinates.

Subordinates, who believe in their positive core self-evaluations as key factors for their

achievements, enjoy taking care of themselves, value the idea of work hard, play hard, and use

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 12

relaxation as a deserving reward after their hard work. They also believe in self-indulgence as a

rejuvenating method for their core self-evaluations.

H5 (+): Subordinates’ level of self-indulgence has a positive relationship with their

positive core self-evaluations.

The moment a supervisor and the subordinates accept the unevenly distributed power between

them, the supervisor sets interpersonal boundary with each of his or her subordinates. This means

the supervisor and the subordinates agree to a mental contract in which the subordinates

acknowledge and abide to the supervisor’s power and authority. Following their professional

relationship, the supervisor and subordinates’ personal relationship also leans towards the

acceptance of the power difference.

H6 (-): The greater the power distance between supervisor and subordinates, the poorer

the perceived relationship between supervisor and subordinates.

As subordinates with long-term orientation strive for stability and sustainability, they will aim to

maintain a harmonic and beneficial relationship with their supervisors and colleagues. The

professional and personal relationship between the supervisor and subordinates could also be on

the ground that both parties believe in longevity and other related longevity-based beliefs.

H10 (+): The greater the subordinates’ long-term orientation, the better the perceived

relationship between supervisor and subordinates.

Subordinates with high level of self-indulgence enjoy taking care of themselves outside of work

and invest in their leisure times. These subordinates are also likely to do it with their colleagues

and even invite their supervisor to join such events.

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 13

H11 (+): The greater the subordinates’ level of self-indulgence, the greater the

relationship between supervisor and subordinates.

Subordinates with positive core self-evaluations tend to have “a positive feeling about a job,

resulting from an evaluation of its characteristics” because they believe in their capabilities to

accomplish their tasks successfully and overcome any obstacles (Robbins & Judge, 2013, p. 74).

Hence, they “are more satisfied with their jobs than those with negative core self-evaluations …

who set less ambitious goals and are more likely to give up when confronting difficulties [, and]

… be stuck in boring, repetitive jobs” (Robbins & Judge, 2013, p. 82).

H12 (+): Subordinates’ positive core self-evaluations have a positive relationship with

their job satisfaction.

As subordinates work with their supervisor on a daily basis, their perceived relationship with

their supervisor plays a major role in determining how the job is done and evaluated by the

supervisor. If the perceived relationship between supervisor and subordinates is good, the

subordinates believe in the extra privileges that come with the relationship such as more freedom

and less formalization about the job description.

H13 (+): Perceived relationship between supervisor and subordinates is positively related

to subordinates’ job satisfaction.

Research Methodology

Demographic Profile

The sample population in each sample country includes any participant that has or had

worked before. Background information of participants include: 1) Gender: Male and Female; 2)

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 14

Nationality; 3) Country of Residence; 4) Age Group: 18-23, 24-29, 30-35, 36-41, 42-47, 58-53,

54-59, 60 and over; 5) Highest Education: High school Diploma / GED, Some college,

Bachelor’s, Master’s, Ph.D.’s, and Other; 6) Degree’s Major (acquired or expected): Accounting,

Computer Information Systems, Logistics, Management, Marketing, Finance, and Others; 7)

Annual Income in U.S. Dollars or VND; 8) Classification if in School: Freshman, Sophomore,

Junior, Senior, MBA Candidate, Ph.D. Candidate; 9) Enrollment Status if in School: Full-time

Student, Part-Time Student, and Other; 10) Working status: Full-time, Part-time, and Other; 11)

Department at Company: Marketing and Advertising, Finance and Accounting, Human

Resources, IT, Administration, Sales, Production, and Other.

Research Design and Materials

The survey packet for this study includes Consent form, Power Distance Belief Scale,

Individualism Scale, Masculinity Scale, Uncertainty Avoidance Scale, Long-Term Orientation

Scale, Indulgence Scale, The Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES), Perceived Relationship

between Supervisor and Subordinates Scale (LMX 7 Questionnaire), Job Satisfaction Scale, and

Background Information. The Power Distance Belief Scale, ranging from Strongly Disagree (1)

to Strongly Agree (5), was adapted from Doftman and Howell (1988) to measure subordinates’

acceptance of unevenly distributed power. Higher total scores indicate higher acceptance of

unevenly distributed power that results in higher power distance belief. The Individualism Scale

(Yoo, Donthu, & Lenartowicz, 2011), ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5),

is to measure the importance of the greater good to subordinates. Higher total scores indicate

high levels of individualism. The Masculinity Scale (Yoo et al., 2011), ranging from Strongly

Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5), is to measure subordinates’ need to be on top and belief in

winner-takes-all. Higher total scores indicate higher levels of masculinity. The Uncertainty

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 15

Avoidance Scale (Yoo et al., 2011), ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5), is

to measure subordinates’ tolerance for ambiguity. Higher total scores indicate higher levels of

uncertainty avoidance. The Long-Term Orientation Scale (Yoo et al., 2011), ranging from

Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree, is to measure the importance of long-term sustainability

and stability to subordinates. Higher total scores indicate longer-term orientation. The

Indulgence Scale, adapted from Hofstede (2011), ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly

Agree (5), is to measure subordinates’ levels of self-indulgence. Higher total scores indicate

higher levels of self-indulgence. The CSES (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003), ranging

from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5), is to measure whether the participant has

positive or negative core self-evaluations. Higher total scores indicate positive core self-

evaluations, while lower total score do negative core self-evaluations. This scale was shorten by

eliminating the negatively worded items. LMX 7 Questionnaire (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) was

modified to have a scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5) and two items

were eliminated to avoid confusion for the participants. Perceived job satisfaction scale (Weiss,

Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967), ranging from Very Dissatisfied (1) to Very Satisfied (5), is

to measure how employees rate their satisfaction about their job’s aspects.

Discussions and Implications

Interestingly, majority of the subordinates in countries with assumed high power distance

belief actually leans towards the lower power distance side as most of them think that people in

higher position should still consult and discuss work matters with people in lower positions.

People in collective cultures do show relatively low levels of individualism; however, they are

not as low as predicted as subordinates at some extend still think individuals should have their

own benefit and should not entirely sacrifice for the good of the entire group. Countries predicted

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 16

to have high level of masculinity show a mixed result in which half of people do not think that

“It is more important for men to have a professional career than it is for women” and one-third of

them think that “There are some jobs that a man can always do better than a woman.” The

uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and indulgence scores were surprisingly universal

and relatively high for both groups of countries with predicted low levels of uncertainty

avoidance and countries with predicted high level of uncertainty avoidance. This means that

subordinates nowadays, regardless of their pre-assumed cultural measures, seek clear instruction

and structure in their work, believe in saving and planning for the future, and enjoy taking care

of themselves.

Data collected showed results in favors in all hypotheses. Subordinates with low levels of

power distance belief and high levels of individualism, masculinity, and indulgence show

positive core self-evaluations. Subordinates with low levels of power distance belief,

individualism, masculinity and high levels of uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and

indulgence show greater perceived relationship with their supervisors. Last but not least,

subordinates with positive core self-evaluations and greater perceived relationship with their

supervisors are satisfied at their job. To increase subordinates’ core self-evaluations, supervisors

should not suppress their individualism and masculinity, but rather encourage it so that it would

benefit the group’s success as friendly competitions are always beneficial. In majority of

business settings, supervisors should use participative leadership style with their subordinates to

engage with each subordinates regardless of pre-assumed power distance belief and improve the

personal and professional relationship between the supervisors and their subordinates. Moreover,

in cultures with low levels of indulgence, supervisors can encourage their subordinates to

participate in out-of-work activities as relaxing and reenergizing method. As subordinates’ core

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 17

self-evaluations become positive and the relationship with the supervisors improve, subordinates

will be more satisfied at the work and become more productive workers.

Conclusion

Subordinates in today work settings exhibit low levels of power distance belief and

uncertainty voidance, and high levels of individualism, masculinity, long-term orientation, and

indulgence. To increase subordinates’ job satisfaction, supervisors should adjust their leadership

styles to enhance their subordinates’ core self-evaluation and improve the perceived relationship

with their subordinates. As the sample size were limited, researchers can expand the sample size

to different demographic targets for future research. In addition, instead of using five cultural

dimension scales, new research can utilize the GLOBE Project’s nine cultural dimension scale of

performance orientation, uncertainty avoidance, humane orientation, instructional collectivism,

in-group collectivism, assertiveness, gender egalitarianism, future orientation, and power

distance (Grove, 2005). This new scale will provide a broader view on cultural dimensions, in

hope to provide clearer understanding of cultural characteristics of the sample size.

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 18

References

Country Comparison. (n.d.). Retrieved from The Hofstede Center: http://geert-

hofstede.com/countries.html

Country Comparison - Australia. (n.d.). Retrieved from The Hofstede Center: http://geert-

hofstede.com/australia.html

Country Comparison - China. (n.d.). Retrieved from The Hofstede Center: http://geert-

hofstede.com/china.html

Country Comparison - Russia. (n.d.). Retrieved from The Hofstede Center: http://geert-

hofstede.com/russia.html

Country Comparison - South Korea. (n.d.). Retrieved from The Hofstede Center: http://geert-

hofstede.com/south-korea.html

Country Comparison - United Kingdom. (n.d.). Retrieved from The Hofstede Center:

http://geert-hofstede.com/united-kingdom.html

Country Comparison - United States. (n.d.). Retrieved from The Hofstede Center: http://geert-

hofstede.com/united-states.html

Dorfman, P., & Howell, J. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership

patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 127-

150.

Gough, H. G. (1979). A Creative Personality Scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398-1405.

Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Thoery of Leadership Over 25 Years: Applying a

Multi-Level, Multi-Domain Perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.

Grove, C. N. (2005). Introduction to the GLOBE Research Project on Leadership Worldwide.

Retrieved from GroveWell : http://www.grovewell.com/pub-GLOBE-intro.html

Hofstede, G. (2007). Asian management in the 21st century. Asia Pacific J Manage, 24, 411–

420.

Hofstede, G. (2009, Oct.). Business goals for a new world order: beyond growth, greed and

quarterly results. Asia Pacific Business Review, 15, 481-488.

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online

Readings in Psychology and Culture.

Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2010, Oct.). Long- versus short-term orientation: new perspectives.

Asia Pacific Business Review, 16, 493–504.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The Core Self-Evaluations Scale:

Development of a Measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 315.

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND JOB SATISFACTION 19

Luczak, C., Mohan-Neill, S., & Hills, G. (2014). A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF BUSINESS

OWNERS AND PERCEIVED NETWORK BENEFITS: COLLECTIVIST VS.

INDIVIDUALIST BASED CULTURES. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 20, 1-

18.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2013). Organizational Behavior (15th ed.). Upper Saddle River:

Pearson.

Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R., England, G., & Lofquist, L. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota

Satisfaction Questionnaire. Handbook of Organizational Measurement, 228-31.

Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofstede's five dimensions of

cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. J. Int.

Consumer Market, 23, 193-210.