standard is at ion and culture

8/2/2019 Standard is at Ion and Culture

1/17

Standardization preferences: a function ofnational culture, work interdependence andlocal embeddedness

William Newburry andNevena Yakova

Department of Management & Global Business,Rutgers Business School Newark and New

Brunswick, Newark, NJ, USA

Correspondence: William Newburry,

Department of Management & Global

Business, Rutgers Business School Newark

and New Brunswick, Management

Education Center 319, 111 Washington

Street, Newark, NJ 07102, USA.

Tel: 1 973 353 5168;

Fax: 1 973 353 1664;

E-mail: [email protected]

Received: 7 May 2003

Revised: 7 December 2004

Accepted: 22 May 2005

Online publication date: 18 December 2005

Abstract

Both theoretical and empirical studies of professional service employeestandardization preferences are relatively scarce. Using responses from 398

employees of an international public relations firm, this study finds thatemployees from high power distance, high uncertainty avoidance and high-context cultures prefer greater standardization, whereas employees from highindividualism cultures prefer less standardization. Additionally, work inter-dependence is positively associated with standardization preferences, whereaslocal embeddedness is negatively associated with standardization preferences.

Journal of International Business Studies(2006), 37, 4460.doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400179

Keywords: national culture; interdependence; embeddedness; standardization

IntroductionThe nature of work has significantly changed as information and

communication technologies are moving service industries to thecenter stage (Castells, 1996). In developed economies as a whole,services account for approximately two-thirds of GDP and employ-ment (Tether et al., 2001), and professional and technicaloccupationsy employ more Americans than any other occupa-tional sector (Barley and Kunda, 2001, 76). Accompanying thisshift, major professional service firms have become increasinglyglobal, following their clients around the world (Dunning, 1989;Roberts, 1999). This growth in globality makes activity standardi-zation much more meaningful than when these firms wereprimarily local. However, theory development and empiricalstudies regarding professional service employee standardization

preferences are relatively scarce. This study partially addresses thisgap by examining the relationships of national culture, interofficework interdependence and local embeddedness with employeestandardization preferences in a major public relations (PR) firm.

This paper also builds upon previous international standardiza-tion studies by addressing the under-researched issue of activity (orwork practice) standardization rather than output standardization.We adopt Hellriegel et al.s (2002, 269) description of activitystandardization as a

process that involves developing uniform practices that employees are to follow

in doing their jobs. These practices are intended to develop a certain amount of

conformity and are expressed through written procedures, job descriptions,

Journal of International Business Studies (2006) 37, 4460& 2006 Academy of International Business All rights reserved 0047-2506 $30.00

www.jibs.net


2/17

instructions and rules relating to positions within the

organization, performance of various tasks and expected

employee behaviors.

This paper examines employee preferences foractivity standardization without aiming to analyze

other levels of job design, such as tasks, jobs andbehaviors (see, e.g., Gatewood and Feild, 2000). Asan activity is the smallest element that unifies thesejob levels, one could suggest that its analysis couldalso provide guidance with respect to these otherjob levels. The activities used herein to measurestandardization preferences are listed in the mea-surement section.

Examining factors that contribute to employeestandardization preferences is important, because itmay help managers in determining when standar-dization is most appropriate (and appreciated by

employees) and when it may be resisted. Althoughinternational marketing research has examinedfactors that lead to standardization (e.g., Larocheet al., 2001), the related issue of employee standar-dization preferences remains relatively unstudied.Thus, this study provides a useful complement toexisting theoretical and empirical literature. Thistype of understanding might also help managers tobetter promote standardization (when desirable) byadjusting employee assignments to make themmore interdependent and/or less locally embedded.

Examining standardization preferences in profes-sional services industries is also important becauseMNCs are becoming both more global and lesshierarchical in nature, taking on new organiza-tional forms that have been described as heterar-chies (Hedlund, 1986) and global networks (Mongeand Fulk, 1999). Within these new organizationalforms, traditional subsidiary control methods arebecoming less feasible, and standardization isbecoming increasingly difficult to achieve. Kimet al. (2003) found that, for marketing, information-based integration modes are most effective incoordinating and controlling business functionsworldwide. As issues such as cultural values, work

interdependence and local embeddedness mighteasily influence the flow of information in compa-nies, we suggest that a better understanding of theimpact of these variables on employee standardiza-tion preferences could supplement this previousstudy and provide further insights regarding theoptimal integration of global networks.

The following section describes our researchcontext, the professional service industry of PR.Next, we develop hypotheses predicting employeestandardization preferences based upon six

national culture dimensions. Additional hypoth-eses examine the impacts of work interdependenceand local embeddedness, and their interactionswith the cultural dimensions. Following thehypothesis development, we overview the research

setting. Results are then presented, followed by aDiscussion section.

The PR fieldThe trends of internationalization and globaliza-tion play a significant role in shaping the field ofpublic relations (Wu et al., 2001, 317). However,although several articles and case studies providenation-specific research on PR practices and activitystandardization in different countries (e.g., Srira-

mesh et al., 1999; Vasquez and Taylor, 1999), thereis a general lack of theoretical and empirical studiesregarding the impact of variables such as nationalculture, work interdependence and local embedd-edness on standardization in the PR industry inparticular and professional services in general.

Building upon 472 previous definitions, Harlow(1976, 35) defined PR as

a distinctive management function which helps establish

and maintain mutual lines of communication, understand-

ing, acceptance and cooperation between an organization

and its publics; involves the management of problems or

issues; helps management keep abreast of and effectively

utilize change, serving as an early warning system to help

anticipate trends; and uses research and sound and ethical

communication techniques as its principal tools.

Several scholars argue that PR needs academicappreciation and understanding. Definitions thatimply that public relations is only a methodologyfoster mistrust and have created the managementmyth that public relations can be achieved withoutadherence to proven principles (Sharpe, 2000,358). The lack of a strong theoretical foundationin the field may also deprive PR practitioners ofguiding principles in their work (Pavlik andSalmon, 1984; Cornelissen, 2000). These concernsare particularly relevant considering that PR globa-lization is gaining interest today, following similararguments in the related areas of marketing andadvertising. Perhaps, as Ovaitt (1988) suggested, PRmight learn from the globalization experience ofthese practices, especially regarding standardizationvs adaptation an unsettled, 30-year-old debate.For a review of the standardization vs adaptationliterature in international marketing, see Theodo-siou and Leonidou (2003).

Standardization preferences William Newburry and Nevena Yakova

45

Journal of International Business Studies


3/17

Theory and literature overviewInternational business presents many conflictsregarding standardization vs local adaptation ofactivities. This is particularly true in professionalservice firms, of which PR is a key component.

Standardization benefits may include significantcost savings, consistency with customers, improvedplanning and control, and easier exploitation ofgood ideas (Buzzel, 1968). Additionally, severalforces encourage standardization, including grow-ing convergence among countries in terms ofmarketing approaches and distribution channels,free cross-border capital movement, technologicalrestructuring, global competitors and accessibilityto more products by more consumers (Porter,1986).

Arguments that significant standardization can-

not be achieved emphasize PRs location-specificnature. Factors such as market conditions, legalrestrictions, competition, cultural diversity, com-munication differences and different technicalstandards are cited as obstacles. Standardizationmay cause a company to fail to respond to localcustomer needs and alienate itself from localmarkets particularly if standardization and adap-tation are viewed as opposing positions. However,decisions to standardize or adapt are not necessarilydichotomous. Rather, standardization could beregarded as a continuum, where degrees of stan-dardization exist and neither end makes muchsense1 (Buzzel, 1968; Jain, 1989; Baalbaki andMalhotra, 1993). Thus, for instance, Quelch andHoff (1986) described four different dimensions onwhich global marketing can be assessed for degreeof standardization: business functions, products,marketing mix and countries. To each of these fouraspects, five possible standardization levels areapplied: headquarters could adopt the approachesof informing, persuading, coordinating, approving,and directing country managers and their pro-grams. A logical question that follows from this is:if a matrix of this kind could be constructed toexamine global marketing, could the same levels ofstandardization be applied to the major elements ofa PR program (Ovaitt, 1988)?

Many variables could influence standardizationpreferences, but national culture is often men-tioned as being critical for PR (e.g., Vercic et al.,1996; Wu et al., 2001) because PR may be moreculture bound than other business services (Ovaitt,1988). However, a comprehensive framework ofcultures impacts on PR standardization decisions islacking, with the possible exceptions of: (1) Vasquez

and Taylors (1999) pilot study, which exploredthe quantitative relationships of Hofstedes culturaldimensions to Grunigs (1984) four PR modelsand (2) Sriramesh et al. (1992), Sriramesh andWhite (1992) and Sriramesh et al. (1999), which

explored the influences of organizational andnational cultures on PR practice.

The relationship between culture and workpractices in PR firms has been examined, however,through several ethnographic case studies thatfocus on a particular country. For example, Srir-amesh and White (1992) examined PR in India,concluding that Indian culture generates a manage-ment philosophy that is domineering, leading tolabor relations policies that are primarily adversar-ial and interactions that are predominantly con-frontational. Wu et al. (2001) investigated the

cultural values that influence Taiwanese PR practi-tioners and point to the significance of a rewardingand supportive work climate, collectivism and jointcontribution to the success of the organization,teamwork and cross-tasking. Our study builds uponthis country-based work by conducting an empiri-cal, cross-cultural examination of cultures effectson standardization preferences.

National cultural dimension hypothesesThe definition of national culture most cited insocial sciences research asserts: Culture is thecollective programming of the mind that distin-guishes members of one group from another(Hofstede, 2001, 1). Researchers have modelednational culture assuming that societies vary alongspecific cultural dimensions. Kluckhohn andStrodtbeck (1961), for example, classified culturesin terms of value orientation, based upon: thenature of people; a persons relation to nature; apersons relation to others; time orientation; doingvs being; and space orientation. Similarly, Trompe-naars (1994) identified universal problems that leadto corresponding cultural dimensions: universalismvs particularism; individualism vs communitarian-ism; specific vs diffuse; affective vs neutral; achieve-ment vs ascription; sequential vs synchronic; andinternal vs external control. Triandis (1994) arguedthat cultures differ in the kind of information theyreceive from the environment. His culture typesinclude: simple vs complex; tight vs loose; andindividualist vs collectivist.

The most widely used cultural dimensions, how-ever, are those of Hofstede (2001), whose model isgenerally accepted as the most comprehensive(Kogut and Singh, 1988) and cited (Chandy and


46



4/17

Williams, 1994) national culture framework, forwhich validity, reliability, stability and usefulnesshave been confirmed over time and in varioussettings. (Hofstede (2001) overviews many suchstudies.) Oyserman et al. (2002) pointed out that

their meta-analysis results suggest more stability inHofstedes individualism scores over the past 20years than even Hofstede himself would haveexpected. By choosing this framework, we canmore easily compare our results with prior research(e.g., Vasquez and Taylor, 1999; Wu et al., 2001). Asboth Hofstede and our paper use questionnairesfrom a single company operating in many coun-tries, Hofstedes model is also consistent with thisstudys research setting.

We also use the highly cited work of Hall (1976)on high- and low-context cultures as a comple-

mentary cultural framework because context can betheoretically related to standardization (seeHypothesis 6). While we expect the two frameworksto correlate highly, as they represent two methodsof measuring culture, we believe that their jointutilization will improve our understanding of therelation between culture and activity standardiza-tion preferences. The following subsections relateeach cultural dimension to our dependent variable.

Regarding our choice of cultural frameworks, weare also aware of the potential issue of ecologicalfallacy, which refers to applying aggregate-levelreasoning at the individual level (Hofstede, 2001,16; Robinson, 1950), and is recognized as asignificant problem in cross-cultural research.Within our logic, however, we do not assume thataggregate culture scores directly apply uniformly toindividuals from those cultures. Rather, we assumethat national cultures influence expectations ofindividuals from those cultures (regardless of thedegree to which their personal beliefs are consistentwith their respective overall cultures). Ecologicalvariables (such as national culture) can certainlyaffect individual preferences (Schwartz, 1994).Rousseau (1985, 14) referred to this type of relation-ship as Cross-Level Model 1, where contextualcharacteristics influence individuals. Cross-levelmodels occur most often when social settingsinfluence individuals, as opposed to individualsinfluencing social settings (Barker, 1968). As cross-level models tend to challenge disciplinary bound-aries, they are less frequently studied (Rousseau,1985).

In addition, we recognize that the effect ofnational culture described above may be revealedthrough several mediating variables that influence

the way individual standardization preferences areformed and exercised, as opposed to occurring asthe result of a direct relationship. Thus, therelationship between national culture and employ-ees individual preferences may be mediated by

variables such as institutional factors (e.g., DiMag-gio and Powell, 1983), company-specific adminis-trative heritage (e.g., Lubatkin et al., 1998) andorganizational cultures (e.g., Schein, 1985; Hof-stede, 2001). In terms of institutional practices suchas labor laws, for example, the uncertainty avoid-ance dimension of national culture is associatedwith a greater need for legislation, as laws are onemethod of reducing uncertainty (Hofstede, 2001).Increased numbers of laws and their associatedcontent might, in turn, influence employee percep-tions regarding activity standardization. In terms of

company administrative heritage and organiza-tional culture, Hofstede (2001, 375) noted thatpower distance is associated with concentration ofauthority (or centralization) and uncertaintyavoidance is associated with structuring of activ-ities (or formalization) in organizations. Again,these organizational-level factors may in turninfluence individual standardization preferences.Within our study, while we partially control fororganizational culture by examining a single MNC,we nonetheless recognize that office-level culturesmay vary, and that these variances may reflectdifferences between the national cultures wherethey operate. Moreover, these differences in officecultures may influence our respondents prefer-ences regarding activity standardization.

Additionally, the work of Oyserman et al. (2002)regarding differences between European Americansand other subgroups within the United States (e.g.,African Americans, Latinos, and various Asians) interms of individualismcollectivism suggests thatvariations in culture index scores occur betweensubgroups within a society. Oyserman et al.(2002) also noted that applying cultural indices(such as Hofstedes) makes three assumptionsabout the mean level scores used in the index: (1)that they are accurate across life domains, (2) thatthey are stable over time and (3) that they arerelevant to individual-level assessment. Althoughwe realize that these are potential limitations ofour research, we also note that the existenceof these limitations may make this a conservativetest: if national culture significantly influencesstandardization preferences despite these possibleareas of variance, then it must be an importantvariable.


47



5/17

High power distancePower distance (PDI) refers to the extent to which asociety accepts that power in institutions is dis-tributed unequally among individuals (Hofstede,2001). PDI is commonly found to influence MNC

strategies and decision making (e.g., Tse et al., 1988;Hennart and Larimo, 1998). Managers in high PDIcountries tend to be more autocratic and lesswilling to share their decision-making power withothers, especially subordinates. Organizationalstructures are centralized and hierarchical, and theneed for written rules and organizational unifor-mity is emphasized (Hofstede, 1983; Erramilli,1996). This need may manifest itself in preferencesfor activity standardization. Managers from low PDIcountries are more likely to delegate decision-making power and to consult with peers and

subordinates. Leadership is informal, egalitarianand loose (Kelley et al., 1987). Thus, employees inlow PDI countries do not have problems bypassingtheir superiors, if necessary, and are comfortableaccepting greater responsibility and autonomy.These employees may have less desire for activitiesto be standardized.

However, an alternate rationale may also exist.Standardization of procedures may render it unne-cessary for supervisors to intervene closely acharacteristic that is generally idiosyncratic to highPDI countries. Because of this, managers in highPDI countries may have less desire for activities tobe standardized. However, given that our sampleinvolves both managers and non-managerialemployees, and this alternate logic applies only toa subgroup within our sample, we propose Hypoth-esis 1 as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Higher country PDI scores will bepositively related with employee preferences foractivity standardization.

High uncertainty avoidanceUncertainty avoidance (UAI) indicates the extent towhich a society feels threatened by ambiguoussituations and tries to avoid them by providingparticular rules, regulations and religions (Hofstede,2001). Strong UAI countries typically exhibit higherstress, need for consensus, hard work and conflictavoidance. Weak UAI nations, by contrast, exhibitgreater willingness to take risks, fewer rules andacceptance of dissent. Uncertainty avoidance iscommonly examined in international businesscontexts (e.g., Taylor, 2000). In terms of laborrelations, high UAI cultures tend to rely on

comprehensive legal systems, more written rulesand compliance with expected institutional andsocial norms. Thus, it is suggested that employeesfrom high UAI cultures will have stronger prefer-ences for activity standardization. Accordingly,

Hypothesis 2 is proposed as follows:

Hypothesis 2: Higher country UAI scores will bepositively related with employee preferences foractivity standardization.

High masculinityMasculine (MAS) cultural values tend towardsaggressiveness, assertiveness and self-achievement.Feminine values foster care, sympathy and intui-tion (Hofstede, 2001). In terms of work relation-ships, feminine societies are more associated withconsensus seeking and cooperation, emphasis on

solidarity, equality and quality of work life, betterworking conditions and employment security.Therefore, feminine societies may encourage stan-dardization as it may allow consensus and stabilityto be more easily achieved. By contrast, masculinesocieties are more associated with quick advance-ment and challenge, recognition and greater earn-ings, performance and competition amongcolleagues. Thus, masculine societies may preferless standardization, which would allow employeesto compete, overcome challenges and find quicksolutions to tasks. Accordingly, Hypothesis 3 is

proposed as follows:

Hypothesis 3: Higher country MAS scores will benegatively associated with employee preferencesfor activity standardization.

High individualismIn individualistic (IDV) nations, independence ishighly valued and personal task accomplishment isput before group interest. By contrast, in collectivistcultures, qualities such as loyalty, solidarity, inter-dependence, conflict avoidance and identificationwith the group are strongly emphasized (Hofstede,2001). Therefore, because collectivist societiesemphasize avoiding conflict and group identifica-tion, it is anticipated that highly collectivistsocieties will be more supportive of activity stan-dardization. Using similar logic, individualisticsocieties, by their emphasis on individual achieve-ment, creativity and innovativeness, may tend todiscourage activity standardization.

It is recognized that an alternate rationale mayalso exist, because standardized procedures mayenable employees to focus on tasks that are more


48



6/17

reflective of their interests. However, in an envir-onment where standardized procedures are preva-lent, these tasks may not be directly related to apersons job or appreciated by his/her superiors.Thus, we believe this argument may be less

influential. This suggestion is also consistent with ademonstrated negative relationship between indivi-dualism and power distance (Hofstede, 2001).Accordingly, Hypothesis 4 is proposed as follows:

Hypothesis 4: Higher country IDV scores will benegatively associated with employee preferencesfor activity standardization.

High long-term orientationLong-term orientation (LTO) aims to identify asocietys time orientation (Hofstede and Bond,

1988). Opposing rationales exist regarding thisdimensions impact on activity standardizationpreferences. On the one hand, societies with highLTO are future oriented, with a longer-term per-spective, and value persistence, respect for statusand thrift (Hofstede and Bond, 1988). Countriesexhibiting low LTO are tradition oriented, with ashorter-term perspective (towards the present andpast), and value personal steadiness, face savingand reciprocation of favors (Robertson, 2000). Asmanagement practices associated with longer-term-oriented cultures suggest solving problems for thelong term rather than making quick fixes (New-man and Nollen, 1996, 759), these cultures mayperceive it as unnecessary to adapt quickly to short-term phenomena. Accordingly, employees fromthese countries may have more supportive beliefsregarding standardization.

On the other hand, societies that are high in LTOare also said to be more dynamic, whereas societiesthat are low in LTO are more static. Thus, ascultures with a high LTO score are also moredynamic, this would imply that standardizationwould be considered restraining.

This internal conflict regarding LTO is partiallyalleviated by Hofstede and Bond (1988), who founda positive relationship between LTO and powerdistance, and Yeh and Lawrence (1995) and Robert-son (2000), who found negative relationshipsbetween LTO and individualism. Additionally,Robertson (2000) found that a high LTO score isstrongly positively associated with uncertaintyavoidance. Thus, considering the above discussion,the rationales leading to the proposed positiverelationships of power distance and uncertaintyavoidance with activity standardization, and the

proposed negative relationship of individualismwith activity standardization, we suggest that therelationship between LTO and activity standardiza-tion could be as follows:

Hypothesis 5. Higher LTO values will be posi-tively associated with employee preferences foractivity standardization.

High-context culturesAccording to Hall (1976), communication is con-textually bound, depending on how much empha-sis is put on context vs content. High-contextcultures (e.g., Japan) emphasize harmony withnature, acceptance of fate, orientation to the pastand present, relationships, indirectness and coop-eration. Low-context cultures (e.g., Germany), bycontrast, emphasize mastery over nature, personalcontrol, change, future orientation, time scarcity,communication directness and competition. Inhigh-context cultures, where the focus is onrelationships and indirect communication, stan-dardization may be appreciated because it providesa common background for meanings to be under-stood and for the development of relationships. Inlow-context cultures, standardization may be lessdesired, because it opposes values oriented towardsthe future and change. Accordingly, Hypothesis 6 isproposed as follows:

Hypothesis 6: High context cultural character-istics will be positively associated with employeepreferences for activity standardization.

Taken together, Hypotheses 5 and 6 could bemisleading, because we suggest that low context(future orientation) relates negatively to standardi-zation preferences, whereas high LTO relates posi-tively. However, for LTO, future orientation impliesthat employment, solutions, processes and proce-dures are created with an eye towards durabilityand consistency over a longer period. For context,

future orientation implies orientation towardsconstant change (looking forward to change),innovation, modifications and replacements ofproducts and processes. Thus, the two hypothesesdo not necessarily conflict.

Interdependence, embeddedness andinteraction hypotheses

Interoffice work interdependenceWork (or task) interdependence refers to the extentto which people rely on each other to perform their


49



7/17

jobs (Van de Ven et al., 1976; Jehn et al., 1999). This issimilar to Robinsons (1995, 192) definition of struc-tural interdependence as the extent to which workprocesses are interrelated so that changes in the stateof one element affect the state of the others. Within

this study, it is also highly rooted in Thompsons(1967, 55) concept of reciprocal interdependence,where the outputs of each become inputs for others.Herein, work interdependence concerns the degree towhich an employees clients are shared with otheroffices, implying that PR activities must be coordi-nated and that a task cannot be optimally completedby employees from a single office.

Attention theory argues that behavior is theresult of how firms channel and distribute theattention of their decision-makers. Attentiondepends upon how the firms rules, resources,

and social relationships regulate and control thedistribution and allocation of issues, answers, anddecision-makers into specific activities, communi-cations, and procedures (Ocasio, 1997, 188; seealso Gardner et al., 1987). In PR firms, workinterdependencies may involve multiple dimen-sions. First, when clients are shared between offices,coordination is generally needed between theseoffices to ensure that PR campaigns maintain adegree of consistency from market to market(though some local adaptations may also occur).Second, work interdependencies may occur asemployees communicate across offices regardingspecific activities that they perform related to bothservicing clients and general operations. Third, asclients become more multinational (as opposed tolocally based companies), this may focus employeeattention on interconnections, as MNCs inherentlyoperate in multiple locations. In all these cases,work interdependence may focus the attention ofemployees towards other offices and the need tomaintain consistent standards between offices.Accordingly, Hypothesis 7 follows:

Hypothesis 7: The greater the degree to which anemployees work activities are interconnectedwith those of other offices (as evidenced byshared clients, interoffice communication regard-ing activities and client multinationality), thegreater the degree to which the employee willfavor activity standardization.

Interdependencenational culture interactionsAn employees degree of interoffice work interde-pendence may interact with the cultural dimen-

sions addressed in Hypotheses 16. When therelationship between a cultural dimension and anemployee activity standardization preference ispositive, an interaction with work interdependencemay cause the relationship to strengthen as the two

pressures reinforce each other. With respect tonegative cultural impacts, the opposite may occur,with the two pressures counterbalancing eachother, causing negative cultural impacts to losesignificance. Accordingly, Hypothesis 8 is proposedas follows:

Hypothesis 8: There will be an interactionbetween an employees work interdependenceand an employees cultural background such that(a) positive cultural impacts on standardizationpreferences will become stronger with stronger

work interdependence and (b) negative culturalimpacts will become weaker.

Local embeddednessEconomic activities of firms are embedded inongoing economic relationships and social struc-tures that affect and are affected by the decision ofthe firm (Granovetter, 1985, 481). In other words,economic activities cannot be explained by indi-vidual motives alone, but are embedded inongoing networks of personal relations (Granovet-ter, 1992, 4); that is, economic goals and non-economic goals are intertwined. The concept ofembeddedness has been classified in many ways,including social, structural, cognitive, political,technological and cultural (Zuckin and DiMaggio,1990; Eisenhardt and Brown, 1996; Uzzi, 1997;Dacin et al., 1999). Within this manuscript, in amanner consistent with previous internationalbusiness scholars (e.g., Dunning, 1995; Zaheer andMosakowski, 1997; Andersson et al., 2001), weconceptualize embeddedness in terms of the degreeto which an employee has developed local environ-mental ties as opposed to organizational ties to anMNC network. These ties develop because ofassociations with local stakeholders based uponinterdependent work practices and common cul-ture, which lead employees to concentrate theirattention locally. While different in focus, thisvariable also relates to Laroche et al.s (2001, 253)concept of subsidiary decision power, which refersto the skills or abilities of the subsidiary in terms ofadvertising strategy implementation and the extentto which decision making is delegated to thesubsidiary. In their model, this variable was


50



8/17

negatively related to MNC control (as a mediatingvariable) and ultimately to advertising standardiza-tion.

Employees who are more embedded in their localenvironments might be more attentive to the

specific conditions necessary to succeed there. Thisembeddedness may occur in multiple ways. First, asemployees work more years in a local environment,they may develop location-specific skills particu-larly suited for that environment (Newburry, 2001).Consistent with this suggestion, Sanford (2002)found that superstar manager experience in adver-tising is exploited better by domestic agencies thanby MNCs. Second, employees from offices thatjoined an MNC through acquisition (a commonoccurrence in PR firms) may have establishedactivity procedures that differ from acquiring firm

procedures (Rosenzweig and Nohria, 1994). Third,employees who service clients that are primarilylocal companies (as opposed to MNCs) may developskills particular to those clients. In an organizationthat operates in diverse locations, the conditionsnecessary for success may differ across theseenvironments (Newburry and Zeira, 1999). In theabove three examples, greater local embeddednessmay cause employees to not favor activity standar-dization as this may limit their abilities to adaptpractices to local tastes. Accordingly, Hypothesis 9is proposed as follows:

Hypothesis 9: The greater the degree to which anemployee is embedded in his/her local environ-ment (as evidenced by local service years,whether an employee works for an acquiredoffice and the degree to which clients are local),the lesser the degree to which the employee willfavor activity standardization.

Embeddednessnational culture interactionsAn interaction may exist between an employeesdegree of local embeddedness and the culturaldimensions proposed in Hypotheses 16. Whenthe relationship between a cultural dimension andan employee preference for activity standardizationis positive, an interaction with local embeddednessmay result in the two pressures counterbalancingeach other, causing the positive cultural impact tolose strength. When the relationship between acultural dimension and an employee standardiza-tion preference is negative, an interaction withlocal embeddedness may cause the relationship toincrease in strength as the two pressures reinforce

each other. Accordingly, Hypothesis 10 is proposedas follows:

Hypothesis 10: There will be an intera-ction between an employees local embeddedness

and an employees cultural background suchthat stronger local embeddedness will cause(a) negative cultural impacts on standardi-zation preferences to become stronger and(b) positive cultural impacts to becomeweaker.

Empirical settingHypotheses were tested using data from a global PRfirm headquartered in the United Kingdom,referred to here as Tiger International (a pseudo-

nym). The company maintains a geographic report-ing structure, with regional CEOs in charge ofEurope, North America and Asia. Within theconfines of the formal reporting structure, however,Tiger operates much like a heterarchical organiza-tion, because offices and employee teams oftenjointly maintain responsibility for accounts thatcross-geographic boundaries. Tiger has manyadvantages for examining PR industry standardiza-tion. First, using a single firm helps control fororganizational structure and corporate culture.Second, Tigers service industry nature ensures thatoffices will be affected by local factors, thusproviding an appropriate setting to examine stan-dardization preferences, interoffice interdepen-dence and local embeddedness. Third, becauseTiger operates across three geographic regions,substantial opportunities exist to examine multiplecultures.

Beginning in January 1999, questionnaires weredistributed through assigned contacts in each studyoffice and returned directly to the research teamthrough these same contacts. An endorsementletter accompanied the questionnaires from eachoffices respective regional CEO. Of the 54 officescontacted, 46 (85%) responded, with a total of 477completed questionnaires, of which 398 were fullyusable for this analysis. Responses represented 19North American offices (247 individuals), 18 Eur-opean offices (159 individuals) and nine Asia-Pacific offices (71 individuals). The vast majority(more than 95%) of the respondents nationalitiesmatched those of their offices host countries. Inall, 28% of Tigers total employee base completedthe questionnaire. Responding offices represented96% of the employee base.


51



9/17

Measurement

Dependent variable (activity standardization)Standardization preference is measured using thefollowing items, asked for 15 activities:

(1) Tiger should standardize this activity across alloffices worldwide.

(2) Tiger should standardize this activity across mygeographic region.

(3) Tiger should allow each office to do this activitydifferently.

The activities list was generated from secondaryTiger materials and refined during discussions withTiger personnel. Responses were coded as 3 ifworldwide standardization was preferred, 2 ifregional standardization was preferred and 1 if theemployee opted for each office to do an activitydifferently. A factor analysis of the 15 activitiesresulted in two factors. Nine items loaded on onefactor, referred to as Standardization Factor, with aneigenvalue of 3.83 that explained 42.50% ofvariance. This factor consisted of: Media/Presenta-tion Training, Client Templates (e.g., Press Releases,Correspondence), Client Expectations Agreements,Client Contracts, New Business Presentations,Employee Communications, Case Histories, BestPractices and Information Services (e.g., Back-ground/Market Research). The remaining six itemsloaded on a second factor, referred to as Local

Adaptation Factor, with an eigenvalue of 2.75 thatexplained 45.85% of variance. This factor consistedof: Billing Rates, Hiring, Employee Benefits, MediaRelations Tools, Personnel Evaluation and GeneralTraining. Study analyses use both factors.

Independent variablesHofstedes Cultural Dimensions represent the respon-dents national culture, as measured by Hofstedes(2001) indexes. Halls High- (vs Low-) ContextCultures is a dichotomous variable. Denmark, Nor-way, UK, US, Germany, Canada, New Zealand,

Australia and Ireland were coded as low context(0). Thailand, China, Singapore, Taiwan, HongKong, Malaysia, Spain, Italy, Belgium, France andMexico were coded as high context (1).

Shared Clients computes the percentage of anemployees client-related communication thatoccurred with clients that are shared with otheroffices, using items that asked:

(1) Please list the three main clients you service.(2) Is this account shared with other offices?

(3) How often do you communicate with thisclient? (Choices were: hourly, daily, 23 timesa week, weekly and monthly.)

For each client, a communication score wasgenerated based on the question 3 responses, wherehourly5, daily4, etc. These scores were added toproduce a respondent-level total client communi-cation score. The percentage of this score thatrelated to shared clients (question 2) was used as ashared client communication score.

Activity Talk measures the percentage of the 15previously discussed activities that employees talkto other offices about, based on the item: I talk toother offices about this activity. Local Servicerepresents the number of years an employee hadworked at an office. Acquired measures whether anoffice joined Tiger through acquisition or greenfield

investment. Local Clients measures the extent towhich a respondents client base consists of localcompanies. Each of the clients from the sharedclient variable was classified as either 1 for a localcompany or 0 for an MNC. Each respondentsclient scores were averaged to create a respondent-level variable.

Control variablesRespondent Age is based on five categories rangingfrom under 25 to above 60. Older respondentsmay have more established methods of operation,

which may lead to stronger standardization prefer-ences. Education is based on the following cate-gories: High School, Vocational School, SomeCollege, Bachelors Degree, Masters Degree andDoctorate. Higher education may alert respondentsto more options regarding an activity, which maynegatively influence standardization preferences.

Level is based upon the following employmentcategories: Senior Management, Middle Manage-ment, Lower Management and Administration.Standardization may inhibit and/or aid manage-ment efforts of higher-level employees. Office Size

measures an offices total employees. Employees oflarger offices may perceive greater benefits fromstandardization because of the need to coordinateand control more people.

For the 15 activities discussed above, we alsoasked whether:

(1) Tiger has worldwide or regional standard pro-cedures for this activity.

(2) I have received Tiger training for this activity.(3) Our office performs this activity well.


52



10/17

Each respondents average response for the activ-ities was used for the variables Standard Procedures,

Activity Training and Activity Performance. Knowl-edge about existing standard procedures may biasan employee regarding whether they are appro-

priate. Employees with greater training may believethey are more qualified to perform activities with-out the need for standardization. Employees whowork for offices that perform relatively well maybelieve that less standardization is necessary toachieve their goals.

Asia is a dichotomous variable indicating whethera respondent is from Asia. Similarly, Europe indi-cates European respondents. As Tiger is organizedregionally, standardization preferences might varyby region.

Additional controls were considered based upon

country-level variables such as GDPpc, Transpar-ency Internationals Corruption Perception Indexand Institutional Investor Country Ratings. How-ever, these variables were highly correlated witheach other and with our cultural dimensions (above0.60 for multiple dimensions), and created multi-collinearity problems when entered together. Whileincluding GDPpc alone did not significantly influ-ence our results (as evidenced by low varianceinflation factors (VIFs) and no difference inhypothesized results when GDPpc is removed),GDPpc itself was not significant. We thus chose to

not include it.

ResultsTable 1 reports descriptive statistics and correlationcoefficients for the study variables. Six correlationsexceeded 0.6. Five involved Hofstedes culturaldimensions and/or Halls context variable. Thesixth involved the Asia variable with LTO. Table 2presents the regressions using the standardizationfactor to measure activity standardization prefer-ences. Regressions were also run with the alternatelocal adaptation factor. These are discussed sepa-rately, and reported in Table 3. Because of thesignificant correlations noted above, each culturehypothesis was tested in a separate regression.Additionally, VIFs were computed to check formulticollinearity problems. With the culture vari-ables separated, VIFs for the reported regressionvariables were all under 2.3 well below thegenerally accepted cutoff value of 10.0 (Netteret al., 1996). For the interaction regressions (dis-cussed below, but not reported in detail), VIFs weremuch higher sometimes exceeding the suggested10.0 cutoff.

Overall, the Table 2 models were all highlystatistically significant (Po0.001), with R2 rangingfrom 0.161 to 0.192. In all models, the addition ofthe hypothesized variables over a control model(not shown) produced a significant R2 increase

(Po0.01 for three models, and Po0.001 for threemodels). The R2 increases for the models rangedfrom 0.037 to 0.068. These significance levels areconsistent with other culture studies in top journals(e.g., Cable et al., 2000; Pothukuchi et al., 2002).

Cultural dimension resultsConsistent with Hypothesis 1, Power Distanceshowed a highly significant positive influence(Po0.01) on activity standardization preferences(Table 2, Model 1). Similarly, higher Uncertainty

Avoidance scores were positively related to activity

standardization preferences (Po

0.05), thus sup-porting Hypothesis 2 (Model 2). In Hypothesis 3,we proposed that higher Masculinity scores will benegatively related to activity standardization pre-ferences. This hypothesis was not supported inModel 3.

Hypothesis 4, which suggested a negative rela-tionship between high Individualism scores andactivity standardization preferences, was supportedin Model 4 (Po0.05). A hypothesized positiverelationship between high LTO values (Hypothesis5) and activity standardization preferences was notsupported in Model 5. Hypothesis 6, which sug-gested that High-Context Cultures would be posi-tively associated with standardization preferences,was strongly supported in Model 6 (Po0.001).

Work interdependenceHypothesis 7 suggested a positive relationshipbetween interoffice work interdependence andactivity standardization preferences. Looking atthe specific work interdependence measures, SharedClients was not significant in any of the regressions.However, it was significantly correlated with thestandardization preference factor, and it becomessignificant when the other interdependence vari-ables are removed. Activity Talk was significant in allmodels (Po0.05 or o0.01), thus supporting thehypothesis. Local Clients is an embeddedness vari-able, but its inverse ( MNC Clients) could also beconsidered an indicator of interdependence. Thisvariable is significant in all six study models(Po0.05 or o0.01). Taken together, the aboveresults provide general support for Hypothesis 7.

Hypothesis 8, which predicted moderating effectsof interdependence on the relationships between


53



11/17

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix

Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1

1 Standardization

Factor

0.02 0.99

2 Local Adapt

Factor

0.04 0.99 0.52**

3 PDI 43.98 12.14 0.22** 0.05

4 UAI 49.31 17.50 0.08 0.02 0.20**

5 MAS 59.23 8.370. 03 0 .07 0.38**0.38**

6 IDV 77.93 21.430.20** 0.01 0.86**0.10* 0.51**

7 LTO 32.30 1 8.58 0.14** 0.02 0.66**0.24** 0.10 0.65**

8 CNTXT 0.24 0.43 0 .25** 0 .05 0.88** 0 .48**0.44**0.82** 0.45**

9 Shared

Clients

0.32 0.34 0.11* 0.04 0.17**0.18**0.05 0.19** 0.24** 0.03

10 Activity

Talk

0. 12 0 .20 0. 05 0 .01 0.13**0.09 0.09 0.12* 0.06 0.16** 0.18**

11 Local

Service

0.53 0.300.01 0 .10 * 0.0 3 0. 12* 0.10 0.01 0. 05 0 .07 0.0 1 0 .11*

12 Local

Clients

0.57 0.390.15**0.11* 0.1 9** 0 .07 0.0 5 0. 16**0.19**0.10 0.24**0.03 0.08

13 Acquire 0.81 0.400.07 0.01 0.08 0.19**0.18** 0.15**0.43** 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.11* 0.17**

14 Age 2.36 1.27 0.02 0.03 0.0 2 0. 05 0.0 4 0. 04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.29** 0.03 0.03

15 E ducation 3.95 1.07 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.0 1 0 .07 0.14** 0.00 0.05 0.06

16 Level 2.74 0.930.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.22** 0 .30** 0 .01 0.09 0.43** 0 .15

17 Office Size 1. 53 0. 360.05 0.08 0.17**0.05 0.04 0.31**0.24**0.23**0.17**0.07 0.02 0.14** 0.09 0.04 0.090.

18 StandardProcedures

0.15 0.24 0.10 0.12* 0.01 0.17** 0.07 0. 03 0. 06 0 .03 0.1 2* 0.06 0.00 0. 07 0. 05 0.08 0.030.

19 Activity

Training

0.11 0.170.11* 0.01 0.15**0.11* 0.12* 0.18**0.07 0.19**0.01 0.26** 0.08 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.

20 Activity

Performance

0.26 0.280.30**0.21**0.15**0.04 0.02 0.13**0.03 0.17**0.01 0.08 0.14** 0 .05 0.05 0.16** 0.01 0

21 Asia 0.15 0.36 0.06 0.10* 0.43**0.26**0.13**0.57** 0.63** 0.33** 0.23**0.03 0.00 0.16**0.37**0.02 0.070.

22 Europe 0.32 0.47 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.42**0.00 0.11* 0.20** 0.37**0.14**0.06 0.02 0.10* 0.04 0.03 0.06 0

**Po0.01 level (two-tailed); *Po0.05 (two-tailed); n398.

JournalofInternationalBusinessStudies


12/17

culture and activity standardization preferences,was generally not supported. Because of thenumber of interactions involved, space limitationsand potential multicollinearity issues that limitinterpretation, these results are not shown.

Local embeddednessHypothesis 9 suggested a negative relationshipbetween an employees local embeddedness andactivity standardization preferences. This hypoth-esis was not supported by the Local Service embedd-

Table 2 Hierarchical regression analyses. Dependent variable: standardization factor

(1) PDI (2) UAI (3) MAS (4) IDV (5) LTO (6) CNTXT

Hypothesized variables

Culture Dimensions (H1H6) 0.14 (0.01)** 0.12 (0.00)* 0.02 (0.01) 0.12 (0.00)* 0.08 (0.00) 0.24 (0.14)***

Shared Clients (H7) 0.03 (0.15) 0.05 (0.15) 0.04 (0.15) 0.04 (0.15) 0.04 (0.15) 0.05 (0.15)

Activity Talk (H7) 0.12 (0.26)** 0.12 (0.26)* 0.11 (0.26)* 0.12 (0.26)* 0.11 (0.26)* 0.13 (0.25)**

Local Clients (H7/H9) 0.12 (0.13)* 0.13 (0.13)** 0.13 (0.13)** 0.12 (0.13)** 0.13 (0.13)** 0.10 (0.13)*

Local Service (H9) 0.05 (0.19) 0.05 (0.19) 0.05 (0.19) 0.05 (0.19) 0.05 (0.19) 0.04 (0.18)

Acquire (H9) 0.07 (0.13)+ 0.07 (0.13)+ 0.05 (0.14) 0.07 (0.13)+ 0.03 (0.14) 0.10 (0.14)*

Control variables

Age 0.05 (0.08) 0.08 (0.07) 0.06 (0.08) 0.05 (0.08) 0.06 (0.08) 0.05 (0.07)

Education 0.09 (0.05)* 0.09 (0.05)* 0.10 (0.05)* 0.09 (0.05)* 0.09 (0.05)* 0.09 (0.05)*

Level 0.09 (0.06)+ 0.11 (0.06)* 0.10 (0.06)* 0.09 (0.06)* 0.10 (0.06)* 0.09 (0.06)*

Office size 0.00 (0.14) 0.01 (0.14) 0.01 (0.14) 0.01 (0.15) 0.00 (0.15) 0.01 (0.14)

Standardized procedures 0.09 (0.20)* 0.10 (0.21)* 0.08 (0.21)* 0.08 (0.20)* 0.08 (0.20)+ 0.09 (0.20)*

Activity training 0.09 (0.31)* 0.08 (0.31)+ 0.09 (0.31)* 0.09 (0.31)* 0.09 (0.31)* 0.08 (0.30)+

Activity performance 0.27 (0.18)*** 0.29 (0.18)*** 0.29 (0.18)*** 0.27 (0.18)*** 0.28 (0.18)*** 0.26 (0.18)***

Asia 0.01 (0.18) 0.08 (0.16)+

0.06 (0.16) 0.02 (0.20) 0.03 (0.18) 0.06 (0.18)Europe 0.06 (0.11) 0.04 (0.12) 0.08 (0.11)+ 0.05 (0.12) 0.09 (0.11)* 0.03 (0.13)

R2 0.173 0.171 0.161 0.168 0.164 0.192

Adj. R2 0.141 0.138 0.128 0.136 0.131 0.160

R2 D over control model 0.049*** 0.047*** 0.037** 0.044** 0.039** 0.068***

Model F 5.342*** 5.252*** 4.886*** 5.163*** 4.986*** 6.051***

*Po0.05; **Po0.01; ***Po0.001; +Po0.1; one-tailed; n398.Regressions present standardized beta coefficients with standard errors in parentheses.

Table 3 Hierarchical regression analyses. Dependent variable: local adaptation factor

Hypothesized variables (7) PDI (8) UAI (9) MAS (10) IDV (11) LTO (12) CNTXT

Culture Dimensions (H1H6) 0.11* 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.10+ 0.16**

Shared Clients (H7) 0.08+ 0.08+ 0.08+ 0.08+ 0.08+ 0.08+

Activity Talk (H7) 0.07+ 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08+

Local Clients (H7/H9) 0.09* 0.11* 0.11* 0.10* 0.10* 0.09*

Local Service (H9) 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06

Acquire (H9) 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.08+

R2 0.103 0.095 0.096 0.098 0.100 0.109

Adj. R2 0.068 0.060 0.061 0.062 0.065 0.074

R2 D over control model 0.027* 0.019 0.020+ 0.021+ 0.024+ 0.033*

Model F 2.933*** 2.690*** 2.723*** 2.759*** 2.843*** 3.113***

*Po0.05; **Po0.01; ***Po0.001; +Po0.1; one-tailed; n398.Regressions present standardized beta coefficients. Control variables not shown.


55



13/17

edness measure. It was supported, however, for the Local Clients measure in all models (Po0.01 oro0.05). It was also somewhat supported for themeasure based upon whether a respondent workedin an Acquired Office (Po0.05 for one model and

Po0.10 for three models). Thus, the hypothesis wasat least partially supported for two of the threeembeddedness measures. Hypothesis 10, whichpredicted moderating effects of local embeddednesson the relationships between culture and activitystandardization preferences, was generally notsupported.

Local adaptation factor modelsTable 3 presents regression analyses using ouralternate dependent variable, local adaptationfactor, in abbreviated form. Since this factor con-

sists of activities commonly associated with localadaptation, it is not surprising that R2 were lower inthese regressions (between 0.095 and 0.109),although all models remained significant at the0.001 level. Within these models, two of ourhypothesized culture variables remained signifi-cant: Power Distance (Po0.05) and Context(Po0.01). Additionally, LTO was marginally signif-icant (Po0.10). Of our interdependence/embedd-edness variables, only Local Company Clients wassignificant (Po0.05) across models, and SharedClients was marginally significant (Po0.10).

DiscussionThis study investigated the relationships ofnational culture, interoffice work interdependenceand local embeddedness with activity standardiza-tion preferences in a multinational PR firm. Theresults indicated that power distance, uncertaintyavoidance and context had significant positiverelationships with standardization preferences(measured by our standardization factor), whereasindividualism had a significant negative relation-ship. Thus, four of our six cultural-influencehypotheses received support. Additionally, two ofour three indicators of work interdependence weresignificant as well as two of our three measures oflocal embeddedness. However, hypotheses predict-ing interactions between the cultural dimensionsand either the work interdependence or the localembeddedness variables were not supported. Usingan alternate dependent variable (local adaptationfactor), power distance, LTO and context weresignificant. Additionally, the percentage of clientsthat were local was also significant.

The contrast between the alternate dependentvariables is interesting. As the standardizationfactor included activities that might have morelogical benefits from standardization (e.g., clienttemplates, client contracts, new business presenta-

tions and best practices), it is not surprising that theculture dimensions and work interdependencewere much stronger predictors of this factor. Theseare our study activities where conflicts betweencultures may be most likely to manifest themselves.By contrast, the local adaptation factor includedactivities more commonly associated with adaptingto local expectations (e.g., billing rates, employeebenefits and personnel evaluation). Thus, theweaker relationships to the cultural variables mightbe reasonably expected, as these activities mightmore likely be performed within the confines of a

single culture.A large proportion of US nationals (and WesternEuropeans, who tend towards similar culturalvalues) among our respondents could have biasedour results. Out of scholarly curiosity, we examinedthis supposition by splitting our sample by region,and performing hierarchical multiple regressionsfor each subsample (not presented in table form forspace considerations). Upon examination, the

Asian sample results have the greatest explanatorypower, exceeding 45% in all models. Of ourhypothesized variables, the shared clients variablewas the most significant (Po0.05 or o0.10) acrossthe models. The activity communication variablewas also marginally significant (Po0.10). Ourcultural variables were not significant. However,strong correlations with other study variables seemto be influencing these results. Thus, our Asianresults should be interpreted with caution.

The European sample exhibited R2 ranging from0.20 to 0.28, and is the subsample where ourhypothesized predictors made the greatest contri-bution. Four cultural variables were significant(power distance, Po0.01; uncertainty avoidance,

Po0.01; individualism, Po0.10; and context,Po0.001). Moreover, both our activity communica-tion and our local service variables were significantor marginally significant (Po0.01, Po0.10, respec-tively). For North America, R2 ranged from 0.15 to0.17. The only significant hypothesized variablewas local company clients (Po0.05). Additionally,the masculinity variable was marginally significant(Po0.10). However, it is difficult to evaluatecultural effects within this subsample owing tothe very limited cultural variance compared withEurope and Asia.


56



14/17

Regarding work interdependence and localembeddedness, it is interesting that differentmeasures were significant in each region. In Asia,shared clients seemed to have the strongest effect.In Europe, activity communication and local

service were the strongest predictors. In NorthAmerica, whether clients were local vs multina-tional was most influential. Thus, our intuitivesupposition that the overall sample results might bebiased by a large number of American andEuropean respondents appears to be correct.Although, arguably, globalization might lead to aworldwide convergence of work practices, thisprocess appears quite uneven at present. This allowstraditional values to persist in many countries andto influence business decisions and practices to agreater extent (Tse et al., 1988).

Of course, we do not exclude the possibility thatin the aggregate, culture may not be as critical of aperformance determinant as popular theory sug-gests (Gomez-Mejia and Palich, 1997, 327). Firmsmay quickly adapt to cultural diversities, absorbingthem into their corporate cultures, and to culturaldisadvantages, thus making them short lived(Barkema et al., 1996; Gomez-Mejia and Palich,1997). This potential explanation deserves furtherinvestigation.

With reference to the level of analysis (orecological fallacy) issue (Hofstede, 2001) addressedearlier, it is worth discussing its implications interms of the interpretation of our results. Oysermanet al. (2002) concluded as a result of their meta-analysis of individualism/collectivism studies thatit is impossible at this time to determine the extentto which different cultural research methods (e.g.,direct assessment of individuals, applying Hofstedeindices or using experimental manipulations) pro-duce similar effects. They also concluded that theinterface between societal values and individualperceptions is highly complex in the workplace. Asour measures captured only national culture influ-ences, they do not represent effects related topersonality differences stemming from similarindividual-level concepts. Future studies couldaddress this issue in multiple ways, potentially bydeveloping a multi-level model, as discussed withinRousseau (1985). First, researchers could collectindividual-level data on psychological dimensionsrelated to culture. These measures would notrepresent actual culture (as culture is by definitiona group phenomenon), but capturing them wouldallow for comparisons between individual andcultural effects. Second, researchers could aggregate

individual-level data to the national culturelevel and conduct analyses at a national level.For this approach to succeed, it would be importantto ensure that demographic characteristics ofthe individuals in each country sample are repre-

sentative of those in the nation, and are compar-able across nations (see, e.g., Hofstede, 2001).Third, another approach would be to aggregateindividual-level data to the office level. However,this still might create level of analysis problems,because the demographic breakdown of anoffice is not necessarily consistent with that of anation.

Another future research avenue is to examineother possible moderating variables that couldweaken or reinforce the relationship betweenculture and activity standardization preferences.

Such moderators could be found on individual,office and country levels. For example, Hofstede(2001) showed that higher-status occupations tendto produce low PDI values. Therefore, higherposition in a company hierarchy may weaken thepositive direct relationship between PDI and stan-dardization preferences. Additionally, He et al.(2004) recently found a distinction between hor-izontal and vertical collectivism in terms of pre-dicting rewards-allocation preferences in China.Refinements of the Hofstede measures such as thisone and those contained within House et al. (2004)might enrich future standardization studies. Futurestudies might also examine the impact of cultureon standardization preferences in other service andmanufacturing contexts.

The previously discussed limitations notwith-standing, it is suggested that this study makesmultiple contributions to academic literature, themajor ones of which are highlighted as follows.First, the study builds upon previous country-basedPR work (Sriramesh and White, 1992; Vercic et al.,1996; Vasquez and Taylor, 1999; Wu et al., 2001) byconducting an empirical, cross-cultural examina-tion of the effects of culture on PR activities.Second, this study also supplements standardiza-tion research (e.g., Laroche et al., 2001) by examin-ing the related issue of employee standardizationpreferences as well as the under-researched issue ofactivity standardization (as opposed to outputstandardization). Moreover, by examining a widerange of 15 activities, the study is able to distin-guish between two sets of activities those mostcommonly associated with standardization andthose that seem more prone to local adaptation.Third, as one of our most significant results


57



15/17

involves activity-related communication betweenoffices, our study supplements Kim et al.s (2003)finding regarding information-based integrationmodes and global integration effectiveness. Fourth,several scholars have supported the belief that a

stronger theoretical foundation is needed in the PRfield (e.g., Pavlik and Salmon, 1984; Cornelissen,2000). By simultaneously examining the effects ofculture, work interdependence and local embedd-edness on standardization preferences, this studyhelps to partially fill this research gap by suggestingsome of the initial pieces that might be used todevelop an overall theory and model of PR industrystandardization, while also informing the broaderfield of professional services.

AcknowledgementsWe wish to thank Tiger International for their supportof this research. We also thank JIBS DepartmentalEditor Professor Nicolai Juul Foss, along with CharlesFombrun, Myles Shaver, Scott Marshall, Doug San-

ford, Ramdas Chandra, Qiang Xu, Naomi Gardbergand three anonymous JIBS reviewers for commentsand advice on previous versions of this manuscript.This research was supported in part by New YorkUniversity and Rutgers Business School Newark andNew Brunswick.

Notes1The space between the two extremes is sometimes

referred to as glocalization (Robertson, 1995).

ReferencesAndersson, U., Forsgren, M. and Pedersen, T. (2001) Subsidiary

performance in multinational corporations: the importance oftechnology embeddedness, International Business Review10(1): 323.

Baalbaki, I. and Malhotra, N. (1993) Marketing managementbases for international market segmentation, InternationalMarketing Review 10(1): 1944.

Barkema, H., Bell, J. and Pennings, J. (1996) Foreign entry,cultural barriers and learning, Strategic Management Journal17(2): 151166.

Barker, R.G. (1968) Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methodsof Studying the Environment of Human Behavior, StanfordUniversity: Stanford, CA.

Barley, S. and Kunda, G. (2001) Bringing work back in,

Organization Science 12(1): 7695.Buzzel, R. (1968) Can you standardize multinational market-

ing? Harvard Business Review 46 (NovemberDecember):102113.

Cable, D., Aiman-Smith, L. and Edwards, J. (2000) The sourcesand accuracy of job applicants beliefs about organizationalculture, Academy of Management Journal 43(6): 544566.

Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell:London.

Chandy, P. and Williams, T. (1994) The impact of journals andauthors on international business research: a citational analysisof JIBS articles, Journal of International Business Studies 25(4):715728.

Cornelissen, J.P. (2000) Toward an understanding of the use ofacademic theories in public relations practice, Public RelationsReview 26(3): 315326.

Dacin, M.T., Beal, B.D. and Ventresca, M.J. (1999) Theembeddedness of organizations: dialogue and directions, Journal of Management25(3): 317356.

DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983) The iron cage revisited:institutional isomorphism and collective rationality inorganizational fields, American Sociological Review 48(2):147160.

Dunning, J. (1989) Multinational enterprises and the growth ofservices, The Service Industries Journal 9(1): 539.

Dunning, J. (1995) Reappraising the eclectic paradigm in anage of alliance capitalism, Journal of International BusinessStudies 26(3): 461491.

Eisenhardt, K. and Brown, S. (1996) Environmental embedded-ness and the constancy of corporate strategy, Advances inStrategic Management 13: 187214.

Erramilli, M. (1996) Nationality and subsidiary ownershippatterns in multinational corporations, Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies 26(2): 225248.

Gardner, D., Dunham, R., Cummings, L. and Pierce, J. (1987)Employee focus of attention and reactions to organiza-tional change, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 23(3):351370.

Gatewood, R. and Feild, H. (2000) Human Resource Selection(5th edn). South-Western College: Mason, OH.

Gomez-Mejia, L. and Palich, L. (1997) Cultural diversity and theperformance of multinational firms, Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies 28(2): 783798.

Granovetter, M. (1985) Economic action and social structure:the problem of embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology

91(3): 481510.Granovetter, M. (1992) Economic institutions as social con-

structions: a framework for analysis, Acta Sociologica35(3): 311.

Grunig, J. (1984) Organizations, environments, and models ofpublic relations, Public Relations Research and Education 1(1):629.

Hall, E. (1976) Beyond Culture, Anchor: New York.Harlow, F. (1976) Building a public relations definition, Public

Relations Review 2(4): 3441.He, W., Chen, C.C. and Zhang, L. (2004) Rewards-allocation

preferences of Chinese employees in the new millennium: theeffects of ownership reform, collectivism, and goal priority,Organization Science 15(2): 221231.

Hedlund, G. (1986) The hypermodern MNC: a heterarchy?Human Resource Management 25(1): 936.

Hellriegel, D., Jackson, S. and Slocum Jr, J. (2002) Management:A Competency Based Approach (9th edn). South-WesternCollege: Cincinnati, OH.

Hennart, J.-F. and Larimo, J. (1998) The impact of culture on thestrategy of multinational enterprises, Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies 29(3): 515538.

Hofstede, G. (1983) The cultural relativity of organizationalpractices and theories, Journal of International Business Studies14(2): 7589.

Hofstede, G. (2001) Cultures Consequences, Sage: Beverly Hills.Hofstede, G. and Bond, M. (1988) The Confucius connection,

Organization Dynamics 16(4): 421.House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorman, P.W. and Gupta,

V. (2004) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBEStudy of 62 Societies, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.


58



16/17

Jain, S. (1989) Standardization of international marketingstrategy, Journal of Marketing 53(January): 7079.

Jehn, K., Northcraft, G. and Neale, M. (1999) Why differencesmake a difference, Administrative Science Quarterly 44(4):741763.

Kelley, L., Whatley, A. and Worthley, R. (1987) Assessing theeffects of culture on managerial attitudes: a three-culture test,

Journal of International Business Studies18(2): 1731.Kim, K., Park, J.-H. and Prescott, J.E. (2003) The global

integration of business functions: a study of multinationalbusinesses in integrated global industries, Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies 34(4): 327344.

Kogut, B. and Singh, H. (1988) The effect of national culture onthe choice of entry mode, Journal of International BusinessStudies 19(3): 411432.

Kluckhohn, F. and Strodtbeck, F. (1961) Variations in ValueOrientations, Row, Peterson: Evanston, IL.

Laroche, M., Kirpalani, V., Pons, F. and Zhou, L. (2001) A modelof advertising standardization in multinational corporations,

Journal of International Business Studies32(2): 249266.Lubatkin, M., Calori, R., Very, P. and Veiga, J.F. (1998)

Managing mergers across borders: a two-nation explorationof a nationally bound administrative heritage, OrganizationScience9(6): 670684.

Monge, P. and Fulk, J. (1999) Communication Technology forGlobal Network Organizations, in G. DeSanctis and J. Fulk(eds.) Shaping Organizational Form, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA,pp: 71100.

Netter, J., Wasserman, W. and Kutner, M. (1996) Applied LinearStatistical Models (4th edn). Irwin: Homewood, IL.

Newburry, W. (2001) Structural interdependence and localembeddedness influences on perceptions of career benefitsfrom global integration, Journal of International BusinessStudies 32(3): 497507.

Newburry, W. and Zeira, Y. (1999) Autonomy and effectivenessof equity international joint ventures (EIJVs): an analysis basedon EIJVs in Hungary and Britain, Journal of ManagementStudies 36(2): 263285.

Newman, K. and Nollen, S. (1996) Culture and congruence:the fit between management practices and national

culture, Journal of International Business Studies 27(4):753779.Ocasio, W. (1997) Towards an attention-based view of

the firm, Strategic Management Journal 18(Summer Special):187206.

Ovaitt Jr, F. (1988) PR without boundaries: is globalization anoption? Public Relations Quarterly 33(1): 59.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M. and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002)Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation oftheoretical assumptions and meta-analyses, PsychologicalBulletin 128(1): 372.

Pavlik, J. and Salmon, C. (1984) Theoretic approaches in publicrelations research, Public Relations Research and Education1(2): 3949.

Porter, M. (1986) Competition in Global Industries, HarvardBusiness School Press: Boston, MA.

Pothukuchi, V., Damanpour, F., Choi, J., Chen, C. and Park, S.(2002) National and organizational culture differences andinternational joint venture performance, Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies 33(1): 243265.

Quelch, J. and Hoff, E. (1986) Customizing global marketing,Harvard Business Review 64(May/June): 5968.

Roberts, J. (1999) The internationalization of business servicefirms, Service Industries Journal 19(4): 6888.

Robertson, C. (2000) The global dispersion of Chinese values: athree-country study of Confucian dynamism, ManagementInternational Review 40(3): 253268.

Robertson, R. (1995) Globalization: TimeSpace and Homo-geneityHeterogeneity in: M. Featherstone, S. Lash andR. Robertson (eds.) Global Modernities, Sage: London,pp: 2544.

Robinson, P. (1995) Structural interdependence and practiceconformity: an empirical examination of American MNEs andtheir subsidiaries in Japan, Academy of Management Best PaperProceedings, Vancouver, Canada, pp: 192196.

Robinson, W.S. (1950) Ecological correlations and the behaviorof individuals, American Sociological Review 15(3): 351357.

Rosenzweig, P.M. and Nohria, N. (1994) Influences on human

resource management practices in multinational corpora-tions, Journal of International Business Studies 25(2): 229251.

Rousseau, D.M. (1985) Issues of level in organizational research:multi-level and cross-level perspectives, Research in Organiza-tional Behavior 7: 137.

Sanford Jr, D. (2002) Developing and retaining superstarmanagers: social power and domestic firms in the advertisingindustry, AAA Conference Presentation Paper, Jacksonville,March.

Schein, E. (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Schwartz, S. (1994) The fallacy of the ecological fallacy: thepotential misuse of a concept and the consequences,American Journal of Public Health 84(5): 819824.

Sharpe, M. (2000) Developing a behavioral paradigm for theperformance of public relations, Public Relations Review26(3):345361.

Sriramesh, K., Grunig, J. and Buffington, J. (1992) CorporateCulture and Public Relations, in J.E. Grunig et al. (eds.)Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management,Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, pp: 577595.

Sriramesh, K., Kim, Y. and Takasaki, M. (1999) Public relationsin three Asian cultures: an analysis, Journal of Public RelationsResearch 11(4): 271292.

Sriramesh, K. and White, J. (1992) Societal Culture andPublic Relations, in J.E. Grunig et al. (eds.) Excellence inPublic Relations and Communication Management, LawrenceErlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, pp: 597614.

Taylor, M. (2000) Cultural variance as a challenge to globalpublic relations: a case study of the Coca-Cola scare inEurope, Public Relations Review 26(3): 277293.

Tether, B., Hipp, C. and Miles, I. (2001) Standardization andparticularization in services: evidence from Germany, Research

Policy 30(7): 11151138.Theodosiou, M. and Leonidou, L. (2003) Standardization versusadaptation of international marketing strategy: an integrativeassessment of the empirical research, International BusinessReview 12(2): 141171.

Thompson, J.D. (1967) Organizations in Action, McGraw-Hill:New York.

Triandis, H. (1994) Culture and Social Behavior, McGraw-Hill:New York.

Trompenaars, F. (1994) Riding the Waves of Culture: Under-standing Cultural Diversity in Business, Irwin: London.

Tse, D., Lee, K., Vertinsky, I. and Wehrun, D. (1988) Doesculture matter? A cross-cultural study of executives choice,decisiveness, and risk adjustment in international marketing,

Journal of Marketing52(October): 8195.Uzzi, B. (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm

networks: the paradox of embeddedness, AdministrativeScience Quarterly 42(1): 3567.

Van de Ven, A., Delbecq, A. and Koenig, R. (1976) Determi-nants of coordination modes within organizations, AmericanSociological Review 41(2): 322338.

Vasquez, G. and Taylor, M. (1999) What cultural valuesinfluence American public relations practitioners? PublicRelations Review 25(4): 433449.

Vercic, D., Grunig, L. and Grunig, J. (1996) Global and SpecificPrinciples of Public Relations: Evidence from Slovenia, in H.Culberston and N. Chen (eds.) International Public Relations: AComparative Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, pp: 3166.

Wu, M.-Y., Taylor, M. and Chen, M.-J. (2001) Exploring societaland cultural influences on Taiwanese public relations, PublicRelations Review 27(3): 317336.


59



17/17

Yeh, R. and Lawrence, J. (1995) Individualism and Confuciandynamism: a note on Hofstedes cultural root to economicgrowth, Journal of International Business Studies26(3): 655669.

Zaheer, S. and Mosakowski, E. (1997) The dynamics of theliability of foreignness: a global study of survival in financialservices, Strategic Management Journal 18(6): 439464.

Zuckin, S. and DiMaggio, P. (1990) Structures of Capital: The

Social Organization of the Economy, Cambridge UniversityPress: New York.

About the authorsWilliam Newburry (Ph.D., NYU, 2000) is anAssistant Professor of Management and GlobalBusiness at Rutgers Business School Newark andNew Brunswick. His research focuses on managing

international subsidiaries, and is published in JIBS,Management International Review, International Busi-ness Review, the Journal of World Business andmultiple other journals.

Nevena Yakova graduated with her Ph.D. inManagement, majoring in International Business,from Rutgers Business School in May 2004. She alsocompleted undergraduate and graduate studies inEconomics at Sofia University, Bulgaria. Herresearch focuses on the practices of multinationals,foreign direct investment, economic developmentand transition economies.

Accepted by Nicolai Juul Foss, Former Departmental Editor, 22 May 2005. This paper has been with the authors for two revisions.


60

standard is at ion and culture

Documents