International Journal of Management Vol. 28 No.

1 Part 1 Mar 2011 173

The Effect of Cultural Values on Pay Preferences:

A Comparative Study in Turkey and the United States
A.Banu Goktan
University of North Texas at Dallas
Ömür Y.Saatçıoğlu
Dokuz Eylul University, Turkey
We examined the relationships between cultural values and the individual’s pay
preference. Culture is conceptualized as defined by Geert Hofstede and pay preference is
defined in terms of variable versus fixed pay, individual versus group pay and seniority
based pay. Data was collected in Turkey and the United States by means of an online
questionnaire from a total of 162 respondents. We found significant positive relationships
between uncertainty avoidance values and preference for fixed pay, and collectivist values
and preference for group pay and seniority based pay. Our results suggest that cultural
values should be taken into consideration when designing pay systems.

Introduction
Pay has a significant influence on job attractiveness, and therefore, on job choice decisions
of potential employees (Cable & Judge, 1994; Rynes, 1987). It is also a managerial tool
that motivates employees to perform and contribute to organizational performance (Allen,
Helmes, Takeda, & White, 2004). Existing cross cultural research suggests a link between
value systems (i.e. cultures) and pay preferences of individuals (Cable & Judge, 1994;
Segalla, Rouzies, Besson, & Weitz, 2006; Westerman, Beekun, Daly, & Vanka, 2009). It
is necessary for managers to understand how national culture affects pay preferences of
potential and existing employees (Mathieu, 2009). The globalization trend in the business
world, together with increasing pressure on organizations to deliver products and services
at lower costs, requires organizations to devise effective pay designs in all countries they
operate in.
Despite cross-cultural studies in the field of compensation, a clear link has not been
established between national culture and pay preference. Existing studies have either
focused on one aspect of national culture (e.g. Brody, Lin, & Salter, 2006; Papamarcos,
Latshaw, & Watson, 2007) or they compared pay preferences across countries without
testing for national cultural differences (e.g. Allen, Helms, Takeda, & White, 2004; Rehu,
Lusk, & Wolff, 2005; Westerman, Beekun, Daly, & Vanka, 2009). The objective in this
study is to examine the effect of national culture on pay preference rather than to compare
pay preference among countries. Data was collected in two countries (i.e. Turkey and
United States) that have significant cultural differences based on both Hofstede’s
evaluation of national cultures (1980) and the Global Leadership and Organizational
Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) categorization of world cultures (House, Leadership,
Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004)
Most previous research on pay preference was conducted in the context of North American
cultures (Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004). While researchers recognize that further research
174 International Journal of Management Vol. 28 No. 1 Part 1 Mar 2011

should establish whether other groups of job seekers have widely different pay
preferences based on culture (e.g. Cable & Judge, 1994), not enough research has
been conducted to reach a conclusion about differences in pay preference across
national cultures. Taking the individual and organization-level perspectives further
and considering the national cultural-level perspective contributes to a more
integrated theory of compensation (Williams & Dreher, 1992).
Hofstede’s (1980) work represents the largest study attempting to classify nations based
on broad value differences including uncertainty avoidance, power distance, masculinity/
femininity, and individualism/collectivism and it is still widely used in research (Hofstede
& Hofstede, 2005, McCoy, Galletta, & King, 2005; Westerman et al., 2009). Power
distance is “a measure of the interpersonal power or influence between (a superior) and (a
subordinate) as perceived by the (subordinate)” (Hofstede, 1991, p.71). Power distance
scores inform us about dependence relationships in a country. In small-power-distance
countries, there is limited dependence of subordinates on bosses, and there is a preference
for consultation, in other words, independence between the boss and the subordinate. The
emotional distance between them is also relatively small, and therefore, subordinates
easily approach their bosses and disagree with them. Power distance can be defined as “the
extent to which the less powerful members of organizations within a country expect and
accept that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede & Hofstede,
2005, p. 46.)
Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties among members are loose. Individuals
are expected to look after themselves and their immediate families. Collectivism, the
opposite of individualism, pertains to societies in which people from birth onward are
integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups. These groups protect individuals throughout
their lifetimes in exchange for unquestioning loyalty (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). A
society is called masculine when emotional gender roles are clearly distinct where men are
supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success, whereas women are
supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. A society is
called feminine when emotional gender roles assigned to men and women overlap. Both
men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life
(Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Uncertainty avoidance can be defined as the extent to which
the members of a culture feel threatened by, and try to avoid, ambiguous or unknown
situations. People scoring high on this dimension have a need for predictability, and
therefore, need written and unwritten rules (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).
Hypotheses
In this section, dimensions of pay structure examined in this study (fixed pay vs.
contingent pay, seniority based pay and individual versus group-based pay) will be
discussed and hypotheses regarding the relationship between culture and pay structure
will be presented.
Contingent Pay versus Fixed Pay
Contingent pay systems (e.g. Gerhart & Milkovich, 1992), also referred to as merit
pay systems (e.g. Milkovich & Milkovich, 1992) or outcome based compensation
International Journal of Management Vol. 28 No. 1 Part 1 Mar 2011 175

(e.g. Banker, Lee, Potter, & Srinivasan, 1996) make rewards partly dependent upon
employee’s performance. The main objective of performance based compensation
system is to make individual efforts and compensation consistent (Kwon, Kim, Kang,
& Kim, 2008). Individuals are rewarded for achieving or exceeding expected levels of
performance (Milkovich & Milkovich, 1992). Fixed pay is predictable whereas
variable pay is contingent upon performance (Yeganeh & Su, 2008).
Contingent pay is expected to attract individuals who are risk oriented such as
entrepreneurial and innovative individuals (Cable & Judge, 1994). Entrepreneurial
individuals, for example, seek opportunities and look for potential for gain (Jackson and
Dutton 1988; Keh et al., 2002). The potential for greater gain associated with high
performance in contingent pay systems is expected to be attractive for them. All
individuals are not equally averse to the risk inherent in contingent pay systems (Cable
& Judge, 1994). Contingent pay, however, is not likely to attract risk averse individuals.
Gomez-Mejia and Balkin’s (1989) study revealed that low willingness of employees
to take risks accompanied withdrawal cognitions if they worked for a firm that utilizes
variable compensation.
People in high uncertainty avoidance cultures focus on stability and security, whereas
in low uncertainty avoidance cultures, people tend to demonstrate more risk taking,
and more tolerance towards unstructured, ambiguous situations. Members of high
uncertainty avoidance cultures feel threatened by unknown situations and they try to
avoid ambiguity. In these societies, change is often perceived as dangerous. Members
of uncertainty-avoiding societies appreciate structure in their lives and they prefer
predictability (Hofstede & Hofstede 2005; Steensma, Marino, Weaver, & Dickson,
2000). Therefore, in societies with high uncertainty avoidance norms, individuals are
likely to prefer fixed pay which eliminates uncertainty and increases structure in the
lives of individuals.
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between uncertainty avoidance values
and preference for fixed pay.
Material success and assertiveness are important aspects of masculine cultures (Hofstede
& Hofstede, 2005). Individuals from childhood on are encouraged to be assertive and
competitive in masculine societies. Advancement, material success and earnings are
valued (Cullen and Parboteeah 2008; Steensma et al., 2000). Research also suggests
that achievement-oriented and independent individuals are more likely to prefer
contingent pay (Lawler, 1983). Contingent-pay systems are based on the notion that
one should work hard to obtain a better life. In masculine societies, materialistic
values are expected to motivate individuals. The potential for high levels of pay
inherent in contingent pay systems are expected to be desirable for individuals in
masculine societies as means to achieve material success. In a fixed pay structure,
individuals have less control in determining their material success because regardless
of how much they work, their pay is fixed. Therefore:
Hypothesis 2: There is a negative relationship between masculinity values and
preference for fixed pay.
176 International Journal of Management Vol. 28 No. 1 Part 1 Mar 2011

Group-Based Versus Individual Pay

In individual-based pay systems, individuals are rewarded for their individual
accomplishments and there is a direct link between personal efforts and outcomes
(Cable & Judge, 1994). In this system, job performance and subsequent rewards are
associated with individual contribution. Group-based pay systems, on the other hand,
measure group performance and reward individuals on the basis of how well the
group performs (Heneman & Von Hippel, 1995). In group based pay systems,
equality norms dominate and individuals are rewarded based on group achievement
rather than their individual performance. Group based pay systems are suitable when
there is emphasis on results produced through group interdependence and when
cooperative work effort is required.
Collectivist cultures view people largely in terms of the groups to which they belong.
In collectivist societies, one’s identity is based on group membership (Cullen, 2002)
and collective good, rather than individual rewards and achievement is valued.
Collectivism pertains to societies in which people from birth onward are integrated
into strong, cohesive in-groups (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). In collectivist societies,
such as Japan, there is a saying, “The Nail that Sticks Up will be hammered down.” In
other words, people like conformity and try to stay as similar to others as possible and
are afraid to attract attention from others. To the contrary, individualistic cultures
have norms, values, beliefs such as; people are responsible for themselves, and
individual achievement is ideal, people need not be emotionally dependent on
organizations or groups (Cable & Judge, 1994, Cullen, 2002). In individualistic
cultures, individuals are likely to prefer pay based on individual accomplishments
whereas in collectivist cultures, individuals are likely to prefer to be as similar to
others as possible and be paid based on group accomplishments. Therefore:
Hypothesis 3: There is a negative relationship between collectivistic values and
preference for pay based on individual accomplishments.
Seniority Based Pay
In a seniority based pay structure, benefits accumulate in terms of loyalty, retention,
and stability (Shaw, Gupta, & Delery, 2001). Under the seniority based pay system,
an individual’s pay is originally determined at the time of recruitment and continues
to increase with an annual raise given automatically for each year of service (Kwon et
al., 2008). Seniority based pay rewards loyalty to a firm and experience in the firm.
Loyalty is important for the organization because it enhances stability and reduces
uncertainty. Also, experience adds value to the organization through the learning
curve effects (Dean & Snell, 1991).
Seniority based pay encourages employees to develop strong social relationships and
collectivist norms. Loyalty and commitment to the organization and willingness to
cooperate are features that have been defined as advantages of the seniority based pay
system (Kwon et al., 2008). As discussed earlier, in collectivist cultures organizational
belonging, loyaly, commitment are emphasized and individuals’ identity is based on
International Journal of Management Vol. 28 No. 1 Part 1 Mar 2011 177

group membership. Individuals are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups from the day
they are born. Groups protect individuals in exchange for their loyalty to the group
(Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Collectivist values are expected to motivate individuals to
stay with the companies that they work for and individuals are likely to expect to be
rewarded for their loyalty to the organization that they work for. Therefore:
Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between collectivist values and
preference for seniority based pay.
Seniority based pay systems strengthen hierarchical and social status of elders. They are
respected because of the training and mentoring that they provide to young graduates in
their companies. They are also respected for their accumulated experience within the
company and for the paternalism they offered to young people (Lonien, 2007). As
discussed earlier, in high power distance cultures, elders have a higher place in society and
there is an expectancy to be obedient to the elders and those in power. There is emphasis
on compliance and trustworthiness (Hofstede, 1980). For example, many organizations in
Iran, which has a high power distance culture, consider seniority an important standard in
determining pay and promotion. This orientation is in conformity with their cultural values
of cherishing past experience and elderly people. They are regarded as savvy, experienced
and knowledgeable (Yeganeh & Su, 2008). In high power distance cultures where there is
respect for years of experience and knowledge, we expect that individuals will prefer the
pay system to be dependent on seniority. Therefore:
Hypothesis 5: There is a positive relationship between high power distance values and
preference for seniority based pay.
The implicit assumption and expectation in seniority based pay is lifetime
employment because organizations reward employees for staying with the
organization. Seniority wages and the implicit assumption of lifetime employment
reduce uncertainty and ambiguity for the employees (Lonien, 2007). As discussed
earlier, members of cultures that avoid uncertainty feel threatened by unknown
situations and they try to avoid ambiguity. The seniority based pay systems brings
structure to the lives of individuals and reduces uncertainty and ambiguity by assuring
them that they will be rewarded for their loyalty and commitment to the organization.
Employees know that their pay will increase proportionately with years spent at the
organization. This policy of rewarding loyalty also provides assurance to employees
that as long as they are loyal to the organization, they will have a job. Therefore:
Hypothesis 6: There is a positive relationship between uncertainty avoidance values
and preference for seniority based pay.
Method
Data and Sample
Subjects were business students at the undergraduate and graduate levels at a large public
university in western Turkey and a large public university in southwestern United States.
95 responses came from the US and 67 responses came from Turkey. A total of 238
(140/US, 98/Turkey) students in both countries were contacted and 162 responses were
178 International Journal of Management Vol. 28 No. 1 Part 1 Mar 2011

received (68% response rate) to the survey. The questionnaire was posted online and
respondents were asked to go to the link and participate in the survey. Confidentiality
of individuals’ responses was assured, and participation was voluntary.
Measures
Independent variables. The current study adopted Dorfman and Howell’s (1988)
measure of cultural dimensions. Only the power distance measure required
modification based on factor analysis results. Education level, age, and work
experience were included as control variables as suggested by studies to date (e.g.
Cable & Judge, 1994, Clugston et al., 2000; Stroh et al., 1996).
Dependent variables. Contingent versus fixed pay measures were borrowed from
Cable and Judge (1994). Respondents were asked how interested they would be in
interview with an organization which has these pay policies. Responses ranged from 1
(not interested at all) to 5 (very interested). Preference for fixed pay and preference
for variable pay is assumed to be measuring the same construct. Factor analysis
provided support for that assumption. Variable pay was reversed and the sum of the
two items was calculated. The higher the score, the greater the emphasis on fixed pay.
Individual pay versus group pay measure was borrowed from Cable and Judge (1994).
Respondents were asked to select the appropriate response pertaining to their opinion
about pay policies using a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree)
to 5 (completely agree). Preference for pay based on individual accomplishment and
preference for pay based on group accomplishment is assumed to be at two ends of
the spectrum, measuring the same construct. Factor analysis provided support for that
assumption. After recoding the item measuring group pay, the sum of the scores on
the two items was calculated. The higher the scores, the greater the emphasis on
individual pay.
Seniority based pay was measured using a single item scale developed by the authors.
Respondents were asked whether they agreed (5) or disagreed (1) with the following
question: “Pay increases in the organization should be based on seniority (years with the
company)”. Higher scores indicate a preference for seniority based pay. While single item
scales are not ideal in business research, it is not uncommon to see single item scales in
compensation research (e.g. Eisenhardt, 1988, Williams & Dreher, 1992).
Results
The primary statistical techniques used to analyze data in this study included
descriptive statistics, correlations, factor analysis, t-test and multivariate hierarchical
regression. Descriptive statistics include the means and standard deviations for all
measures (See Table 1). The correlation matrix provides bivariate correlations
(Pearson product moment correlations) between all control, independent, and
dependent variables in the study (See Table 1). Intercorrelations among the variables
in this study were in line with expectations. As presented in Table 2, there were
significant cultural differences between Turkey and the United states in terms of the
three out of four dimensions of national culture tested in this study.
International Journal of Management Vol. 28 No. 1 Part 1 Mar 2011 179

Cohen and Cohen (1983) recommend hierarchical regression as a means to address

multicollinearity. Using this approach, the researcher enters sets of variables into
regression analyses sequentially based on a predetermined order derived from theory
and empirical research. This approach allows for the partitioning of variance
accounted for in the dependent variable (R2) into components attributed to different
sets of independent variables. Results of bivariate relations revealed that only work
experience and education had a significant effect on individual pay. Therefore, to
examine the relationship between individual pay and collectivism, demographic
variables were entered into the regression first, independent variables were entered
second. Regression analyses were performed for other dependent variables. The
decision about whether the effect of the independent variable was significant or not
was based on the change in R2 as suggested by Hair et al. (1998). Results of the
regression analyses results were significant and in the expected direction for
Hypothesis 1 (p<0.01), Hypothesis 3 (p<0.001) and Hypothesis 4 (p<0.05) (See Table
3). Therefore, this study provided support for the relationship between uncertainty
avoidance values and preference for fixed pay, individualistic values and preference
for individual pay, and collectivist values and preference for seniority based pay.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations between Variables for the
Study (N=164)
Mean St.dev. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Education(1) 1
Age(2) 33.88 10.06 -.125 1
Experience(3) 13.12 10.70 -.225** .914** 1
Uncertainty
21.02 2.75 .000 .168* .167* 1
Avoidance(4)
Collectivism(5)I 19.29 4.69 .300** -.083 -.251** .091 1
Masculinity(6) 10.02 4.16 .097 -.125 -.143 -.069 .206* 1
Power
4.62 1.98 -.164* .083 .146 -.153 -.221** .146 1
Distance(7)
Seniority Pay(8) 2.53 1.20 -.035 .000 -.079 -.001 .175 .164* -.008 1
Individual/
7.14 1.78 -.253** .117 .207* -.046 -.402** -.136 .158 -.059 1
Group Pay(9)
Fixed/Variable
5.86 2.03 .025 .049 .055 .231** .055 -.023 .016 .184* -.104 1
Pay(10)
* p < .05. ** p < .01. (2-tailed)

Table 2. Analysis of Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture with Respect to

Countries N=158
USA Turkey
Mean Std.Dev. Mean Std.Dev. t p
Uncertainity 4.21 .54 4.15 .55 .725 .467
Collectivism 2.89 .71 3.7 .60 7.55 .000
Masculinity 1.72 .75 2.31 .79 4.597 .000
Power Distance 2.27 .79 2.64 .91 2.552 .009
180 International Journal of Management Vol. 28 No. 1 Part 1 Mar 2011

Conclusions
This study contributes to existing research by carrying existing individual and
organizational level compensation studies a step further and examining the topic within
the context of national cultures. Globalization of the business world, increasing
outsourcing activities of organizations, pressures on organizations to cut costs are among
challenges that managers face when designing pay structures. Results of this study reveal
that cultural differences have an impact on pay preferences of individuals.
Results of this study revealed significant differences among the Turkish and
American cultures in terms of power distance, individualism/collectivism and
masculinity/femininity. These results suggest that there is still merit in Hofstede’s
(1980) conceptualization of national cultures. Despite the globalization trend, some
aspects of culture still remain unchanged and pervasive. However, results also suggest
that taking Hofstede’s (1980) country scores and ranking of countries for granted and
conducting cross national studies without actually measuring cultural dimensions may
lead to incorrect results. Based on the results of this study, there wasn’t a significant
difference between Turkey and the United States in terms of uncertainty avoidance.
Table 3. Results of Regression Analysis for Each Dependent Variable
Fixed/ Seniority
Individual/Group Pay
Variable Pay based Pay
(H3)
(H1, H2) (H4, H5, H6)
Model 1
Variables Model 2 Model 1 Model 1
(Controls Only)
Controls
Education -.19* -.10
Work experience .16+ .10
Independent
variables
Collectivism -.36*** .19*
Masculinity .00
Power Distance -.00
Uncertainty
Avoidance .23** -.03

F 5.76** 10.47*** 3.96* 1.69

R2 .08 .19 .05 .04
Adjusted R2 .06 .17 .04 .01
Change in R2 .08 .11 .05 .04
Number of
observations 139 139 142 141
Standardized coefficients are shown.
Significance levels: + p <.1. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
International Journal of Management Vol. 28 No. 1 Part 1 Mar 2011 181

An interesting finding of this study was that, while there was no significant difference
among cultures in terms of uncertainty avoidance, results revealed a significant
positive relationship between uncertainty avoidance values and preference for fixed
pay versus variable pay. This means there was enough variance in the data collected
for this study to reveal this significant relationship. However, this variance did not
stem from the difference among the cultures but from the difference within the
cultures. Therefore, assuming homogeneity within cultures is incorrect when it comes
to uncertainty avoidance based on the results of this study. While Hofstede’s (1991)
country scores provide useful information regarding cultural differences, researchers
need to test whether cultural differences are significant as was done in this study.
One possible explanation for why there was not a significant difference between the
two cultures in terms of uncertainty avoidance is that, uncertainty may be less
overarching or encompassing than other dimensions of national culture. In other
words, uncertainty avoidance values may stem from individual or organizational
factors rather than national cultures. Family income, accumulated wealth of the
individual, and culture of the organization are among factors that need to be examined
in relation to uncertainty avoidance. For example, an individual who can maintain his
or her living standard in the absence of income coming from his or her work may be
less hesitant to take risks and may be better able to tolerate ambiguity. Similarly, in
organizations with cultures where there is tolerance for mistakes, individuals may be
more tolerant to ambiguity. Therefore, uncertainty avoidance may be an individual
level variable rather than a national level variable.
There was support for a significant positive relationship between individualistic
values and preference for pay based on individual accomplishments as well. This
means, employees in individualistic cultures, such as the culture in the United States,
prefer their pay to be based on their individual accomplishments whereas individuals
in collectivist cultures, such as the culture in Turkey, prefer their pay to be based on
group achievement. Similarly, there was a significant relationship between collectivist
values and seniority based pay. This is useful information for global companies
because these findings suggest that global pay policies, in other words implementing
the same pay structure in all countries, may not be the most effective pay structure.
This study has a number of limitations that should be acknowledged. First, data was
collected from undergraduate and graduate level students and people with lower
levels of education were not represented in the study. Pay preference and expectations
of individuals planning to graduate from college and pay preference and expectations
of individuals who don’t have the opportunity for higher education may be different.
A second limitation of the study is that this study was conducted in two countries and,
therefore, it is not representative of all cultures. Future research should examine other
cultures, especially the ones that are affected by globalization more than the others.
For example India and China are among countries that many global organizations
outsource their functions to. Understanding the pay preferences in these cultures will
help organizations design more effective pays structures.
182 International Journal of Management Vol. 28 No. 1 Part 1 Mar 2011

A third limitation of this study was having a few items on some of the measures. All
the measures, except for seniority based pay, were borrowed from existing research
and single item measures is common in compensation research (e.g. Cable & Judge,
1994, Eisenhardt, 1988, Williams and Dreher, 1992). Research has shown that there is
a tradeoff between questionnaire length and response rate (Dillman, Sinclair, Clark,
1993). While these measures help limit questionnaire length, their reliability may be
questioned. A suggestion for future research is to develop more comprehensive,
multiple item measures of pay preference.
Future research should also examine the effect of national economic or legal factors
on pay preference. In countries where there is a strong social security system, where
everyone if offered health insurance by government, where there is a good welfare
system, pay preferences may be different. When people feel protected by the
government, they may be more tolerant to ambiguity. Similarly, for example, in
countries where there are no equal employment opportunity laws, people may choose
job security over any other pay attribute.
References
Allen, R.S., White, C.S., Takeda, M.B., & Helmes, M.M. (2004). Rewards and
organizational performance in Japan and the United States: A comparison.
Compensation and Benefits Review, 36(1), 1-8.
Banker, R.D., Lee, S.-Y., Potter, G., & Srinivasan, D. (1996). Contextual analysis of
performance impacts of outcome-based incentive compensation. Academy of
Management Journal, 39(4), 920-948.
Brody, R.G., Lin, S., & Salter, S.B. (2006). Merit pay, responsibility, and national values:
A US Taiwan comparison. Journal of International Accounting Research, 5(2), 63-79.
Cable, D.M., & Judge, T.A. (1994). Pay preference and job search decisions: A
person-organization fit perspective. Personnel Psychology, 47(2), 317-347.
Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization
predict multiple bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Management, 26, 5–30.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlational analysis for
the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cullen, J.B. (2002). Multinational management: A strategic approach (2nd ed.). Ohio:
South-Western.
Dean, J.W. & Snell, S.A. (1991). Integrated manufacturing and job design: Moderating
effects of organizational inertia. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 776-804.
Dillman, D.A., Sinclair, M.D. & Clark, J.R. (1993). Effects of questionnaire length,
respondent friendly design, and a difficult question on response rates for occupant
addressed census mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(3), 289-304.
Dorfman, P.W. & Howell, J.P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective
leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative
Management, 3, 127-150.
International Journal of Management Vol. 28 No. 1 Part 1 Mar 2011 183

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1988). Agency-and institutional-theory explanations: The case of

retail sales compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 488-511.
Gerhart, B. & Milkovich, G.T. (1992). Employee compensation: Research and
practice. In Dunnette M.D., Hough, L.M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (2nd ed.). Vol. 3, pp. 481-569. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Gomez-Mejia, L.R., & Balkin, D.B. (1989). Effectiveness of individual and aggregate
compensation strategies. Industrial Relations, 28(3), 431-445.
Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate
data analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Heneman, R.L., & von Hippel, C. (1995). Balancing group and individual rewards:
Rewarding individual contributions to the team. Compensation and Benefits Review.
July-August, 63-68.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related
Values. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.
Hofstede G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
House, R. J., Leadership, G., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V.
(2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies.
Sage Publications.
Kwon, S., Kim, M.S., Kang, S.C., & Kim, M.U. (2008). Employee reactions to gain
sharing under seniority pay systems: The mediating effect of distributive, procedural,
and interactional justice. Human Resource Management, Vol. 47( 4), 757–775.
Lawler, E.E., III. (1983). Pay and organization development. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Lonien, C. (2003). The Japanese Economic and Social System: From a Rocky Past to
an Uncertain Future, Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Mathieu, D. (2009). Benefit programs for global workforce. Canadian Benefits and
Compensation Digest. December, 15.
McCoy, S., Galletta, D.F. & King, W.R. (2005). Integrating national cultures into IS
research: The need for current individual-level measures. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 15, 211-224.
Milkovich, G. & Milkovich, C. (1992). Strengthening the pay-performance relationship:
The research. Compensation & Benefits Review, November-December, 53-62
Papamarcos, S.D., Latshaw, C. , & Watson, G.W. (2007). Individualism–Collectivism
and Incentive System Design as Predictive of Productivity in a Simulated Cellular
Manufacturing Environment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,
7(2), 253–265.
184 International Journal of Management Vol. 28 No. 1 Part 1 Mar 2011

Rehu, M., Lusk, E., & Wolff, B. (2005). Incentive preferences of employees in
Germany and the USA: An empirical investigation. Management Revue, 16(1), 81-98.
Rynes S.L. (1987). Compensation strategies for recruiting. Topics in Total
Compensation, 2, 185-196.
Segalla, M., Rouzies, D., Besson, M., & Weitz, B.A. (2006). A cross-national
investigation of incentive sales compensation. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 23, 419-433.
Shaw, J.D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J.E. (2001). Congruence between technology and
compensation systems: Implications for strategy implementation. Strategic
Management Journal, 22, 379-386.
Steensma, K., Marino, L., & Weaver, K. (2000). Attitudes toward cooperative
strategies: a cross-cultural analysis of entrepreneurs. Journal of International
Business Studies, 31(4), 591-609.
Stroh, L.K., Brett, J.M, Baumann, J.P. & Reilly, A.H. (1996). Agency theory and variable
pay compensation strategies. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 751-767.
Tosi, H.L., & Greckhamer, T. (2004). Culture and CEO compensation. Organization
Science, 15(6), 657-670.
Westerman, J.W., Beekun, R.I., Daly, J., & Vanka, S. (2009). Personality and national
culture: Predictors of compensation strategy preferences in the United States of
America and India. Management Research News, 32(8), 767-781.
Williams, M.L., & Dreher, G.F. (1992). Compensation system attributes and applicant
pool characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 571-595.
Yeganeh, H. & Su, Z. (2007). An examination of human resource management
practices in Iranian public sector. Personnel Review, 37(2), 203-221.

Contact email addresses: Banu.goktan@unt.edu yasar.saatci@deu.edu.tr

International Journal of Management Vol. 28 No. 1 Part 1 Mar 2011 199

Sami Boulos Filho Andrew Braunstein

School of Business Jeffry Haber
Mackenzie Presbyterian University George Mangiero
Av. das Nações Unidas, 14.171 - Iona College
15º 04794-000 São Paulo Brasil. New Rochelle
NY 10801 USA

Md. Humayun Kabir Chowdhury A.Banu Goktan

Ms. Kohinoor Biswas School of Business
Department of Business Administration University of North Texas at Dallas
East West University Dallas
Dhaka 1212 Texas 75241 USA
Bangladesh
Ömür Y.Saatçıoğlu
Ya-Yueh Shih School of Business
Department of Management Information Dokuz Eylul
Systems University Buca-
National Chiayi University IZMIR 35160 Turkey
Chiayi City 600
Taiwan Simon J Pervan
Graduate College of Management
Anil Chandrakumara Southern Cross University
Business School Tweed Heads
University of Wollongong NSW 2485 Australia
NSW 2522 Australia
Liliana L Bove
Anura De Zoysa Melbourne Business School
Athula Manawaduge University of Melbourne
School of Accounting and Finance Parkville
University of Wollongong VIC 3010 Australia
NSW 2522 Australia
Lester W Johnson
Chen-Kuo Lee Melbourne Business School
Institution of International Business University of Melbourne
LingTung University Carlton
Taichung VIC 3053 Australia
Taiwan
Chih-Huang Lin
Yeong-Bin Lee School of Management
Accounting and Information Technology University of Bath
Ling Ting University Bath
Taichung BA2 7AY
Taiwan United Kingdom
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.