Cited by 786Global and Cross-Cultural ManagementEmployee Performance and ManagementHuman Resource and Talent Management

Impact of Culture on Human Resource Management Practices: A 10‐Country Comparison

Aycan, Zeynep, Kanungo, Rabindra, Mendonca, Manuel, Yu, Kaicheng, Deller, Jürgen, Stahl, Günter, Kurshid, Anwar·2000·Applied Psychology

Abstract

Le Mode`le de Culture Fit explique la manie`re dont l’environnement socio‐culturel influence la culture interne au travail et les pratiques de la direction des ressources humaines. Ce mode`le a e´te´ teste´ sur 2003 salarie´s d’entreprises prive´es dans 10 pays. Les participants ont rempli un questionnaire de 57 items, destine´ a` mesurer les perceptions de la direction sur 4 dimensions socio‐culturelles, 6 dimensions de culture interne au travail, et les pratiques HRM (Management des Ressources Humaines) dans 3 zones territoiriales. Une analyse ponde´re´e par re´gressions multiples, au niveau individuel, a montre´ que les directeurs qui caracte´risaient leurs environnement socio‐culturel de fac¸on fataliste, supposaient aussi que les employe´s n’e´taient pas malle´ables par nature. Ces directeurs ne pratiquaient pas l’enrichissement des postes et donnaient tout pouvoir au contrôle et a` la re´mune´ration en fonction des performances. Les directeurs qui appre´ciaient une grande loyaute´ des employe´s supposaient qu’ils remplissent entre eux des obligations re´ciproques et s’engagaient dans la voie donnant pouvoir aux pratiques HRM. Les directeurs qui percevaient le paternalisme et une forte distance de l’autorite´ dans leur environnement socio‐culturel, supposaient une re´activite´ des employe´s, et en outre ne pourvoyaient pas a` l’enrichissement des postes et a` la de´le´gation. Des mode`les spe´cifiques a` la culture qui mettent en relation ces 3 groupes de variables ainsi que les applications de ces recherches pour la psychologie industrielles trans‐culturellesont e´te´ de´battus.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1464-0597.00010

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • National differences in HRM are explained by cultural differences and institutional differences.

    “National differences are explained by cultural differences (Aycan et al., 2000) and institutional differences.”

    From Conceptualising the future of HRM and technology research (2016) · cites this paper as Aycan et al., 2000

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G., & Kurshid, A.
Affiliations
  • Koç University (TR)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • Dalian University of Technology (CN)
  • Daimler (Germany) (DE)
  • University of Bayreuth (DE)
  • Lahore University of Management Sciences (PK)
Venue
Applied Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-01
Volume
49
Issue
1
Pages
192-221
ISSN
  • 0269-994X (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0597
OpenAlex
W2158044215
Cited by
786
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 50 · 2013: 52 · 2012: 42
FWCI
43.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Global and Cross-Cultural Management
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Employee Performance and Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Human Resource and Talent Management
Keywords
human resource management practices, organizational culture, socio-cultural environment, HR managers' perceptions, job enrichment, performance-based pay, employee loyalty, paternalism, employee responsiveness, delegation, fatalism, cross-cultural comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review