Asociaciones de Cultura y Personalidad Con Motivos de Mcclelland

Group & Organization Management35(3) 329 367

The Author(s) 2010DOI: 10.1177/1059601110370782

http://gom.sagepub.com

Associations of Culture and Personality With McClellands Motives: A Cross-Cultural Study of Managers in 24 Countries

Hetty van Emmerik1, William L. Gardner2, Hein Wendt3, and Dawn Fischer2

Abstract

Using a cross-cultural sample of 17,538 managers from 24 countries, this study explores the interrelationships between McClellands motives and specific aggregate-level cultural dimensions and personality factors. The results reveal significant relationships between the Achievement, Affiliation, and Power Motives, and the cultural dimensions of Performance Orientation, Humane Orientation, and Power Distance, respectively. Support for posited relationships between the managers motives and aggregate-level personality, as measured by the Big Five factors, was also obtained. Finally, the results demonstrate that the relationships between McClellands motives and managers aggregate-level Big Five factors are moderated by the cultural dimensions of Performance Orientation, Humane Orientation, and Power Distance.

1Maastricht University School of Business and Economics, Maastricht, The Netherlands2Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA3Hay Group B.V., Zeist, The Netherlands

Corresponding Author:Hetty van Emmerik, Maastricht University School of Business and Economics, Department of Organization and Strategy, Tongersestraat 53, 6211 LM Maastricht, The NetherlandsEmail: [email protected]

at Maastricht University on August 24, 2010gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

330 Group & Organization Management 35(3)

Keywords

McClellands motives, Big Five personality factors, societal culture

Over the past three decades, there has been growing interest in whether motivation differs across cultures (e.g., Erez, 2008; Hofstede, 1980, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Sagie, Elizur, & Yamauchi, 1996). In the present study, we go beyond individual-level analyses of motives by examining the cultural embeddedness (at the societal or national level) and aggregate level personality differences underlying acquired motives. A study of this nature is important because in an increasingly global environment, it is helpful to examine how and under what circum-stances motives develop and are nurtured across cultures and become salient with organizations and teams (Erez, 2008; Erez & Gati, 2004). Fur-thermore, cross-cultural adjustment (Templer, Tay, & Chandrasekar, 2006) of employees in the global context may depend on the match between spe-cific individual motives on the one hand and personality profiles and cultural embeddedness in countries on the other. As a global working environment becomes the norm, cross-cultural studies of this type become increasingly important as such research may help to improve our understanding of the development of acquired motives.

A general framework for conceptualizing the reciprocal relationships between microlevel constructs such as acquired motives and macrolevel con-structs such as national culture as explored in this study is provided by Erez and Gatis (2004) dynamic, multilevel model of culture. Erez and Gatis mul-tilevel model reflects both structural and dynamic dimensions of culture. The structural dimension encompasses a hierarchy of nested levels where the most internal level involves cultural representation at the individual level that is nested within the successive levels of groups, organizations, nations, and the global culture. As a shared meaning system, culture can be formed at each of these levels. The dynamic dimension involves the interrelationships between the various levels of culture and the ways in which they impact one another. Erez and Gati (2004) assert that

[t]hrough top-down processes of socialization, individuals internalize the shared meaning system of the society to which they belong, and its values are represented in the individual self. Then, through bottom-up processes of aggregation and shared values, higher-level entities of culture are formed, at the group, organizational, and national levels. (p. 587)


van Emmerik et al. 331

Thus, the current study is in keeping with Erez and Gatis call for cross-level research to examine the congruence and interrelationships between two or more levels.

Additional support for the utility of exploring the interrelationships between aggregate levels of personality and culture and individual motives is pro-vided by McCrae and Costa (McCrae, 2000, 2001; McCrae & Costa, 1996, 2008) in advancing their Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality (also known as the Big Five). Specifically, these authors posit that biological bases (e.g., genes) and external influences (e.g., cultural norms) serve as funda-mental inputs to the personality system. Moreover, personality traits (along with other individual level attributes such as intelligence) such as the five factors of Neuroticism or Emotional Stability, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, are conceived as bio-logically based tendencies that influence the rest of the personality system, but are not determined by it. Together, these basic tendencies interact with the environment (including culture) to produce characteristic adaptations (e.g., culturally conditioned phenomena such as attitudes and personal strivings/motives) that in turn interact with the situation to create the output of the system, the individuals objective biography. For our purposes, the critical element of this model is the notion that personality and culture combine to elicit certain motives from individuals as characteristic adaptations.

In contemplating the relationships between trait psychology and culture and the utility of intercultural comparisons, McCrae (2001) makes an impor-tant distinction between transcultural and intercultural research. Specifically, the former focuses on human universals, such as the degree to which traits are similarly structured across cultures, whereas the later focuses on the extent to which cultures can be characterized in terms of mean levels of personality traits and their relationships with cultural variables. With respect to transcul-tural research, he presents extensive empirical evidence that the basic FFM factor structure has been repeatedly replicated across cultures, thereby dem-onstrating universality. Nevertheless, the consistency in the underlying struc-ture of traits makes it possible to conduct intercultural research to explore differences in the mean levels of traits. Thus, this line of reasoning and empir-ical evidence implies that national character could be described in terms of a mean personality profile (McCrae, 2001, p. 822). To this end, the current study reflects intercultural research designed to explore the relationships between aggregate levels of personality (or national character) and culture with managers motives.

A unique feature of the present study is the availability of assessment data regarding McClellands acquired motives as measured by the Thematic



Apperception Test (TAT; Hay Group, 2003; McClelland, 1961, 1985; Spangler, 1992; Tuerlinckx, De Boeck, & Lens, 2002; Vane, 1981). This test, devel-oped in the 1950s, is in use by one of the worlds largest global operating consultancy firms. This makes it possible to study the acquired motives of 17,358 managers in 24 countries. Using this worldwide sample of managers, we examined the relationships of McClellands Achievement, Affiliation, and Power Motives (McClelland, 1961, 1985), with aggregate-level measures of personality and cultural dimensions.

We develop the article as follows. We begin with a review of one of the most widely known theories on cross-cultural foundations of motivation by elaborating on McClellands (1961, 1985) theory of acquired motives. We then proceed to link these motives to specific cultural dimensions and aggregated personality factors. Next, we examine the links between cul-tural dimensions, aggregate personality, and acquired motives by formulat-ing hypotheses. Finally, we conclude with a discussion and suggestions for further research.

Theoretical Foundations: Acquired Motives, Culture, and Societal Level PersonalityMcClellands acquired motives have their roots in Murrays (1938) needs theory. The framework details three basic motives: the Achievement Motive, Affiliation Motive, and Power Motive (McClelland, 1961, 1985; McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). McClellands theory focuses on a set of clearly defined motives as they relate to workplace behaviors.1 In developing his theory of human motivation, McClelland (1985) made an important distinction between implicit (unconscious) and explicit (conscious) motives. Implicit motives involve learned pleasurable or emotional associations with a specific set of stimuli along with possible genetic influences. The TAT is a projective mea-sure designed to assess the implicit motives of individuals.

McClellands theory has been used extensively in management, leadership, and cross-cultural studies of motivation and many studies have been conducted within managerial, entrepreneurial, and leadership contexts that look at the importance of motives (Langan-Fox, 1995; Pillai, Williams, Lowe, & Jung, 2003; Rauch & Frese, 2007; Shane, Locke, & Collins, 2003; Shantz & Latham, 2009; Spangler & House, 1991). His work on acquired motives has also been used in various studies in a cross-cultural context (Boneva et al., 1998; Pang & Schultheiss, 2005; Salili, 1996). However, whereas these studies compare McClellands motives across a limited range of cultures, the current study pro-vides a more comprehensive assessment of the cross-cultural manifestation



of the motives by exploring their relationships to societal level cultural dimen-sions and personality using a sample of 24 countries.

Relationships of Acquired Motives With Societal Level Culture and PersonalityIt is important to stress that McClellands motives are based on the conceptu-alization of motives as being learned. Thus, they are posited to vary in strength among individuals as a function of their socialization and as being rooted in a specific culture. Culture shapes the values and norms of its members; these values are shared and transmitted from one generation to another through social learning processes of modeling and observation (Erez & Gati, 2004).

In this section, we first elaborate on societal-level cultural dimensions and personality and then link these two constructs with McClellands motives by formulating hypotheses.

Societal-level cultural dimensions. As Erez and Gatis (2004) model indicates, culture can be conceptualized at different levels (e.g., at the societal, organi-zational, and the team levels). This study will focus on societal culture. We use the definition of culture advanced by the Global Leadership and Organi-zational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) research program (House & Javidan, 2004): the shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and interpreta-tions or meanings of significant events that result from common experiences of members of collectives that are transmitted across generations (p. 14).

Two models dominate the field of cross-cultural studies on culture: Hofstedes (1980, 2001) work and the GLOBE project (Chokkar, Brodbeck, & House, 2007; House et al., 2004). The original work of Hofstede, involv-ing 116,000 questionnaires of industrial employees in 50 countries, distin-guished between four dimensions of culture (i.e., Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, and Uncertainty Avoidance). The GLOBE project offers a recent additional contribution to our understanding of societal culture. As Chokkar et al. (2007) note, the GLOBE societal dimensions reflect explicit values and motives when measured at the individual level because they are based on questionnaire responses. However, when these measures are aggregated to the societal level, the aggregated scores reflect norms of society, which serve to motivate, direct, and constrain behavior (p. 5). Nine cultural dimensions are identified, based on data collection in 64 countries: Uncertainty Avoidance, Power Distance, Institutional Collectivism, In-Group Collectivism, Gender Egalitarianism, Assertiveness, Future Orientation, Performance Orientation, and Humane Orientation. The current study focuses on the Performance Ori-entation, Humane Orientation, and Power Distance dimensions because they



are especially relevant to McClellands Achievement, Affiliation, and Power motives (as explained below under the discussion of the hypotheses).

Societal-level personality factors. In recent years, a great deal of research on personality characteristics has suggested that five basic personality factors account for most of the variance in personality (Allik & McCrae, 2004; Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; McCrae & Costa, 1997, 1999, 2008; Scott & Colquitt, 2007). The Big Five Factors are generally labeled Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability or Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa & McCrae, 1992b; McCrae & Costa, 2008). Extraversion is frequently asso-ciated with being sociable, gregarious, assertive, talkative, and active. Agree-ableness is associated with being courteous, flexible, trusting, good-natured, cooperative, forgiving, soft-hearted, and tolerant. Conscientiousness incor-porates volitional characteristics, such as hardworking, achievement-oriented, and persevering. Neuroticism is associated with being anxious, depressed, angry, embarrassed, emotional, worried, and insecure. Finally, Openness to Experience is associated with being imaginative, cultured, curious, original, broad-minded, intelligent, and artistically sensitive (Barrick & Mount, 1991; McCrae & Costa, 2008).

Although concerns about the number of factors, theoretical underpinnings, and empirical evidence supporting the FFM have been expressed by a number of scholars (Block, 1995; Carroll, 2002; Merenda, 2008), a general consen-sus has emerged that the FFM provides a useful framework for describing the emotional, interpersonal, experiential, and motivational styles of individuals (Allik & McCrae, 2004; Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa & McCrae, 1988; Goldberg & Saucier, 1995; McCrae & Costa, 1997, 1999, 2008; McCrae, Jang, Livesley, Riemann, & Angleitner, 2001; Scott & Colquitt, 2007). Moreover, as noted above, strong claims have been made about the univer-sality of personality traits and the FFM. McCrae and Costa (1997) argue that the personality structure of the FFM is a human universal that can be found in all cultures. Nonetheless, the way in which these characteristics are exp-ressed is shaped by culture and experience (McCrae, 2001, 2002; McCrae & Costa, 2008).

Initially, the use of aggregated FFM scores may seem somewhat peculiar. Yet previous research indicates that differences in the mean levels of person-ality scores across cultures demonstrate a systematic pattern of distribution. That is, mean-level personality scores have been predictably related to other culture-level indicators. As Hofstede and McCrae (2004) argue, constructs represented by the five factors are meaningful at the culture level. Allik and McCrae (2004) conducted secondary analyses with FFM data from 36



cultures and show that geographically proximate cultures often have similar personality profiles. They also found that European and American cultures clearly contrasted with Asian and African cultures and European and American cultures were higher in Extraversion and Openness to Experience and lower in Agreeableness. In addition, a study by Costa, Terracciano, and McCrae (2001) shows that gender differences in personality traits follow a geographically ordered pattern. That is, the smallest gender differences in personality were evident among Asian and African cultures and the largest gender differences in personality were found in Europe. These studies dem-onstrate that comparing mean levels of personality across cultures can be a legitimate and useful approach for understanding the important links between culture, personality, and motives (Schmitt, Allik, McCrae, & Benet-Martinez, 2007).

HypothesesTo examine the relationships between McClellands motives, cultural dimen-sions, and personality factors, we will elaborate on the development of three sets of matching hypotheses.

Matching Hypotheses Linking Motives and CultureThe first three hypotheses are based on an expected relationship between McClellands three motives and the specific cultural dimension that concep-tually matches the motive construct (e.g., Achievement Motive is matched with the cultural dimension of Performance Orientation).

The Achievement Motive, as originally defined by McClelland, focuses on a recurrent desire to excel (McClelland, 1961). Spangler and House (1991) emphasized that this need characterizes people who are motivated by per-sonal accomplishment. As McClelland (1965) argues, the manager scoring high on the Achievement Motive is more self-confident, enjoys taking care-fully calculated risks, researches his or her environment, and actively pursu-ing activities that involve initiating structure. Consistent with McClellands predictions, extensive empirical evidence has demonstrated that the Achieve-ment Motive is positively related to employee and managerial job perfor-mance (Amyx & Alford, 2005; Baruch, OCreevy, Hind, & Vigoda-Gadot, 2004; Shantz & Latham, 2009), organizational commitment and entrepre-neurial behavior/motivation/success (Diaz & Rodriguez, 2003; Rauch & Frese, 2007; Shane et al., 2003), prosocial/extra-role behavior (Baruch et al., 2004), and job involvement (Park, Lee, & Kabst, 2008). Together, these



findings provide empirical support for the notion that a drive to achieve pro-duces higher levels of job involvement, commitment, entrepreneurship, and intra- and extra-role performance at the individual level.

In The Achieving Society, McClelland (1961) extends the construct of the Achievement Motive from the individual to the societal level by arguing that some societies place a far greater emphasis on achievement than others. Fur-thermore, he asserts that societies characterized by high achievement motives enjoy higher levels of entrepreneurship and economic development. This thesis is grounded in Max Webers (1904/1998) classic analysis, The Protes-tant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, in which Weber argues thatin con-trast to the focus of Catholicism on good worksthe Protestant idea of work as a calling produced higher levels of achievement. Striving and eco-nomic development are noted among societies that embrace the Protestant ethic of hard work and worldly performance. Despite the intuitive appeal of Webers and McClellands arguments, Hofstede (1980, 2001) did not con-ceptualize or measure a corresponding cultural dimension in developing his model of cross-cultural work values. In recognition of this shortcoming, the GLOBE study included a measure, Performance Orientation, which is defined as the degree to which an organization or society encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence (House & Javidan, 2004, p. 13). Societies that score high as opposed to low on Performance Orientation tend to emphasize results more than people, reward performance, value assertiveness, competitiveness, and materialism, expect demanding targets, reward individual achievement, and have appraisal systems that emphasize results.

Given this conceptualization and its roots in McClellands notion of the Achievement Motive, the GLOBE study explores the extent to which these constructs are related using McClellands (1985) societal level measure of need for achievement and the GLOBE Performance Orientation Society Practices and Society Values scales (Javidan, 2004). Surprisingly, no signifi-cant relationships between these measures were identified, and the relation-ship between the Performance Orientation Society Practices scale and McClellands Society level scores for Need for Achievement were negative. One possible explanation for these null findings is provided by McClellands measure of societal need for achievement, which was derived by content ana-lyzing stories that elementary school students read in different countries. The construct validity of this measure has been challenged by several scholars (e.g., Beugelsdijk & Smeets, 2008; Rubin, 1963) who question the underly-ing assumption that this projective measure reflects societal-level motives.



Furthermore, in a reestimation of McClellands (1961) fundamental thesis that achievement imagery in school textbooks is positively related to subsequent levels of entrepreneurship and economic development, Beugelsdijk and Smeets (2008) found no support for this assertion.

Rather than testing McClellands thesis exclusively at the societal level, the current study employs a cross-level model to explore the relationship between societal-level Performance Orientation and individual-level Achievement Motives. Specifically, drawing on Erez and Gatis (2004) dynamic and mul-tilevel model of culture, we posit a reciprocal relationship between individual level Achievement Motives and Performance Orientation. That is, we argue that the level of Achievement Motives reflected by a societys members relates to the emphasis placed on performance achievements over time. At the same time, because McClellands theory focuses on motives that are acquired through learning, the emphasis that a society places on performance is pos-ited to shape the achievement needs of its members. Accordingly, we pro-pose the following:

Hypothesis 1: The relationship between the cultural dimension, Perfor-mance Orientation, and the Achievement Motive will be positive.

The Affiliation Motive is high for individuals who tend to be concerned with establishing, maintaining, and restoring close personal and emotional relationships with others (Heyns, Veroff, & Atkinson, 1958; Millon & Lerner, 2003). Characteristics associated with a high Affiliation Motive include spending more time interacting with others and learning social networks quickly (Schmidt & Frieze, 1997).

Humane Orientation is the degree to which individuals are encouraged and rewarded for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring, and kind to others (House & Javidan, 2004; House, Javidan, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002; Kabasakal & Bodur, 2004). Hence, we expect that scoring high on the Affili-ation Motive covaries with the cultural dimension of Humane Orientation. Indeed, House and Javidan (2004) note that the Humane Orientation has its roots in McClellands (1985) conceptualization of the affiliation motive (p. 13). Qualities associated with societies high in Humane Orientation include viewing others (i.e., family, friends, members of the community, strangers) as important, urging people to provide social support to one another, and protecting individuals through personal and family relationships. More-over, as Kabasakal and Bodur (2004) note, in high Humane Orientation soci-eties, the need for belongingness and affiliation, rather than self-fulfillment,



pleasure, material possessions, and power, are likely to be the dominant moti-vating bases (p. 565). Thus, we advance the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between the cultural dimension, Humane Orientation, and the Affiliation Motive will be positive.

The Power Motive invokes a desire to exert impact, control, or influence over another person, group, or the world at large (Winter, 1973). Schmidt and Frieze (1997) found that people with a high Power Motive do things to draw attention to themselves as they want to be noticed in an effort to influence others. People with a high Power Motive are more likely to seek positions of authority (House & Aditya, 1997), reflecting a preference for Power Distance.

Power Distance is defined as the degree to which people agree that power should be unequally shared (Carl, Gupta, & Javidan, 2004; House et al., 2002). Individuals socialized in high as opposed to low Power Distance cul-tures tend to learn to respect legitimate authority (Mannix, Neale, & Chen, 2006). The implication is that leaders with high Power Motives will be more likely to exhibit initiating structure and less likely to display consideration because of their concerns with the task and authority (Schriesheim, Cogliser, & Neider, 1995).

In recognition of what he called the most obvious hypothesis that Power Distance and McClellands Power Motive are positively related, Hofstede (1980, p. 194) examined the correlations between these constructs. Specifi-cally, he examined the correlation between his Power Distance Index and the Need for Power measure McClelland (1961) derived from content analysis of elementary school textbooks. Although a positive correlation of .20 was obtained, it was not significant. Here again, one potential explanation for these nonsupportive findings lies in the limitations of McClellands societal measure of the Power Motive (Beugelsdijk & Smeets, 2008; Rubin, 1963). Hence, the current study seeks to test this hypothesis using alternative, indi-vidual level measures of the Power Motive based on the assumption posited by Erez and Gatis (2004) that a dynamic, reciprocal relationship exists between individual level motives and societal values. In this case, we posit that societies composed of relatively large proportions of members with high Power Motives will come to view power differentials among members as legitimate and desir-able; such societal values, in turn, are posited to elicit higher Power Motives among members. The above reasoning suggests the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: The relationship between the cultural dimension, Power Distance, and the Power Motive will be positive.



Matching Hypotheses Linking Aggregate Personality and Motives

Next, based on the descriptions of the FFM dimensions and McClellands motives, we formulate three hypotheses that link societal level personality and motives. For instance, Conscientiousness (will do or motivational fac-tors) is expected to have a positive relationship with the Achievement Motive.

Because Extraversion is described as the extent to which people are asser-tive, dominant, and energetic (Costa & McCrae, 1992b; McCrae & Costa, 2008), it appears to be linked to the Achievement Motive. Support for this prediction is provided by Costa and McCraes (1988) finding that the asser-tiveness and activity facets of the NEO-PI Extraversion scale are significantly correlated with Murrays (1938) need for achievement as measured by the Personality Research Form (PRF; Jackson, 1984). The inclusion of achieve-ment, striving, and self-discipline as facets of Conscientiousness (McCrae & Costa, 2008) likewise suggests a positive relationship with the Achievement Motive. Consistent with this view, the meta-analysis of Hurtz and Donovan (2000) showed that Conscientiousness related more strongly with will do or motivational factors than to can do or ability factors. Furthermore, Extra-version and Openness to Experiences appeared to be related to achievement-oriented positions such as sales and managerial jobs. Agreeableness was more strongly related to the interpersonal facilitation component of contextual per-formance than to achievement-oriented task performance, suggesting a nega-tive relationship with Achievement Motives. Indeed, the desire of persons who score high on agreeableness to get along with others may at times be inconsistent with the competitive drive that characterizes high need achievers. Hart, Stasson, Mahoney, and Story (2007) found that Extraversion and Con-scientiousness were positively related to both intrinsic and extrinsic motiva-tion as measured by a multidimensional achievement motivation scale (Cassidy & Lynn, 1989), whereas Openness to Experience was positively related to intrinsic motivation, and Agreeableness negatively related to extrinsic moti-vation. Finally, the anxiety and insecurity embodied by Neuroticism appears to be inconsistent with Achievement Motives (Zhao & Seibert, 2006), suggest-ing a negative relationship. This assertion is supported by Costa and McCraes (1988) finding that Neuroticism correlates negatively with Murrays Need for Achievement as measured by the PRF.

Additional insight into the relationship between the Big Five dimensions and Achievement Motivation is provided by Komarraju, Karau, and Sch-meck (2009), who explore the relationships between the Five Factor Inven-tory (Costa & McCrae, 1992b) and intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation,



and motivation in educational settings as measured by the Academic Motiva-tion Scale (Vallerand et al., 1992). Their findings revealed that Extraversion and Conscientiousness correlated significantly with both intrinsic and extrin-sic motivation, and that together they accounted for 13% of the variance in extrinsic motivation. In addition, Openness to Experience correlates signifi-cantly with intrinsic motivation, and Conscientiousness and Openness com-bine to account for 17% of the variance in intrinsic motivation. Together, these results provide support for the notion that the discipline, accountability, and organization displayed by Conscientious individuals is driven in part by a desire to achieve, whereas Openness to Experience reflects a high level of intrinsic motivation (Costa & McCrae, 1988; McCrae & Costa, 1999, 2008). Drawing from the above theory and findings leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between the Achievement Motive and Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience will be positive, whereas the relationship between the Achievement Motive and Agreeableness and Neuroticism will be negative.

The description of Affiliation appears relevant to predict the relationship between each of the Big Five factors and the Affiliation Motive. One of the most obvious aspects of Extraversion is sociability (Judge & Cable, 1997). Just as Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience refer to interpersonal relationships that describe preferred social interactions (Judge & Cable, 1997), relevant facets of Agreeableness include altruism and tender-mindedness, and relevant facets of Openness to Experience include sensitivity to the feelings and values of oneself and others (McCrae & Costa, 2008; Scott & Colquitt, 2007). This may signify a positive relationship between Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience, and the Affiliation Motive. Because Neuroticism refers to moodiness, irritability, and emotionality and Conscientiousness involves a focus on things and tasks more than on people, a negative relationship with the Affiliation Motive is expected.

Consistent with this reasoning, Costa and McCrae (1988) identified sig-nificant and positive correlations between Murrays need for affiliation as measured by the PRF and Extraversion and Aggreeableness, as well as a negative relationship with Neuroticism. Similarly, Sanz, Gil, Garcia-Vera, and Barrasa (2008) found the: (1) need to belong to groups, (2) social harmo-nizer, and (3) need to relate closely from the scales of the Personality and Preference InventoryNormative (PAPI-N; Cubiks, 1996) correlate



positively with the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992a) Extraversion and Agreeableness scales, and negatively with the Neuroticism scale. Together, the available theory and research discussed above suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: The relationship between the Affiliation Motive and Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience will be positive, whereas the relationship between the Affiliation Motive and Neuroticism and Conscientiousness will be negative.

Individuals who have a high Need for Power tend to be extraverted (Thomas, Dickson, & Bliese, 2001), as suggested by the facet scales of assertiveness and activity (McCrae & Costa, 2008). When people are low in Agreeableness, they often use power as a way of resolving conflict more than those scoring higher in Agreeableness (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996), suggesting a negative relationship between the Power Motive and Agreeableness. High Conscientiousness tends to go with high discipline, and respect for authority (Saad & Sackett, 2002), suggesting a positive relationship to the Power Motive. Furthermore, the anxiety and insecurity embodied by Neuroticism suggests a negative relationship with the Power Motive. Finally, the receptivity to action, ideas, and creativity that characterizes Openness to Experience suggests a positive relationship with the Power Motive. Con-sistent with this reasoning, Costa and McCrae (1988) found that Extraversion, Openness to Experience, and Conscientiousness correlated significantly and positively with Murrays need for dominance, whereas Neuroticism and Agreeableness correlates negatively. Sanz et al. (2008) similarly found that the need to control others scale of the PAPI-N scale correlates significantly negatively with Neuroticism and Agreeableness as measured by the NEO-FFI, and positively with Extraversion. Overall, the available theory and empirical research suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6: The relationship between the Power Motive and Extra-version, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience will be positive, whereas the relationship with the Power Motive and Agreeableness and Neuroticism will be negative.

Hypotheses Concerning the Moderating Role of CultureFinally, we formulate three moderating hypotheses based on the expectation that motives that are consistent with cultural values will be more acceptable



and more likely to occur than motivated behavior that clashes with cultural values (Zhao & Seibert, 2006). Note that this reasoning is consistent with Erez and Gatis (2004) dynamic, multilevel model of culture that serves as the overarching framework for this study. Specifically, it reflects the central thesis that cultural level values play a role in shaping acquired motives and manifestations of personality, which likewise combine in successive aggre-gations to the group and societal levels to influence dominant social values.

Essentially, we are proposing a cultural-level adaptation of Mischels (1977) notion of situational strength and its role in shaping the influence of personality on motives and behavior. That is, we expect the relationship between personality and motives to be stronger in cultures for which the manifestation of such motives is consistent with dominant values, reasoning that such values foster strong situations that elicit motives and behaviors that reflect and reinforce these values. Accordingly, we advance the follow-ing hypotheses:

Hypothesis 7: The cultural dimension, Performance Orientation, will moderate the relationships between personality and the Achievement Motive; in cultures scoring high on Performance Orientation, the rela-tionship will be stronger than in cultures scoring low on Performance Orientation.

Hypothesis 8: The cultural dimension, Humane Orientation, will mod-erate the relation between personality and the Affiliation Motive; in cultures scoring high on Humane Orientation, the relationship will be stronger than in cultures scoring low on Humane Orientation.

Hypothesis 9: The cultural dimension, Power Distance, will moderate the relation between personality and the Power Motives such that cultures scoring high on Power Distance will have a stronger rela-tionship than in cultures scoring low on Power Distance.

MethodSample

This study employs a database developed by a worldwide operating consult-ing firm (Hay Group). The original dataset contains multi-actor data of managers and their subordinates within 473 organizations from a wide range of industries and services, both public and private. Data collection was con-ducted as part of the assessment of the management training programs within each of the organizations. This guaranteed a response rate of approximately



100%. For the present study, we selected only those countries that were used in the GLOBE project and the Schmitt et al. (2007) study. We excluded all respondents with missing scores for the TAT. After these requirements were met, the information concerning the TAT scores resulted in the selec-tion of data for 17,358 managers in 24 countries, including 35% women and 65% men.

MeasuresMcClellands motives and TAT. Typically, McClellands work on assessing

motives has employed the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) or Picture Story Exercise (PSE). The PSE, a refinement of the TAT, was developed by McClelland and his colleagues at McBer and Company, Inc. to assess indi-vidual differences in human motivation (Hay Group, 2003). The TAT/PSE has been used at length in many cross-cultural studies and Spanglers (1992) meta-analysis suggests that the TAT measures of motives have utility for understanding and predicting human behavior. The TAT presents a set of pic-tures and a set of questions to guide the respondent in writing a short story. The stories are then coded and the implicit motives are assessed (Spangler, 1992). Although the TAT has received criticism and is time consuming to both administer and score (Vane, 1981), McClelland and colleagues argued convincingly that when the TAT is properly administered, the scores have adequate testretest reliability (as discussed in Spangler, 1992).

The respondents were presented six standard TAT cards that were indivi-du ally administered. The following pictures were used: an architect at a desk, women in a lab, ship captain, a couple by a river, trapeze artists, and nightclub scene. All TAT stories were scored for Achievement, Affili-ation, and Power Motive imagery by trained scorers with materials precoded by experts (see Winter, John, Stewart, & Klohnen, 1998). McClellands motives were scored according to the TAT protocol. The TAT protocol is the tool used to interpret the motives revealed via the stories to the respondent (Campus, 1976). We summed the scores for each of the three motives for the six pictures and divided by six.

Big Five personality characteristics. We used the reported aggregate measures (mean scores) of the study of Schmitt et al. (2007). They administered the Big Five Inventory (BFI) to 17,837 individuals from 56 nations to assess Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Open-ness. Self-report ratings are made on a scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly) for each of the 44 items. The five-dimensional structure appeared to be robust across major regions of the world. The researchers used the BFI because of its ease of administration, brevity, and proven usefulness



for cross-language and cross-cultural research. A detailed description of these measurements can be found in the Schmitt et al. study (2007) study.

Cultural dimensions. We used the reported aggregate measures (mean val-ues scores) of three of the cultural dimensions of the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004): (a) Performance Orientationthe degree to which organization members are encouraged for performance; (b) Humane Orientationthe degree to which the organization encourages members to be nurturing, sensi-tive, and so on; and (c) Power Distancethe degree to which organization members accept an unequal distribution of power, influence, and perquisites. House et al. (2004) provide detailed descriptions of these measures.

Gender. Gender differences in mean TAT (Schultheiss & Brunstein, 2001) and Big Five scores across cultures (Costa et al., 2001) are reported in protocol; accordingly, we controlled for gender (1 = female, 0 = male).

AnalysisTo test our hypotheses, multilevel analyses are most appropriate given the two levels of analysis (Han & Williams, 2009): the individual level for man-agers and the country level for the aggregate Big Five personality and cultural dimensions. At the individual level, McClellands needs were measured. At the country level, the reported measures of the Schmitt et al. (2007) study and three of the GLOBE cultural dimensions (House et al., 2004) were used.

ResultsTable 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations for the individual- and country-level variables.

Most variables are significantly correlated, which is not surprising giving the large sample. The Achievement Motive is positively related to the Affili-ation Motive (r = .16, p < .01) and to the Power Motive (r = .03, p < .01). The Affiliation and Power Motive are negative correlated (r = -.05, p < .01). The positive relationship between the Achievement Motive and the Affiliation Motive seems somewhat counterintuitive. Surprisingly, an extensive search within previous studies does not reveal any published comparable correla-tions of the TAT scores; thus, the intercorrelations presented here cannot be compared with findings from prior studies. However, studies that use related measures also show a positive relationship between the Achievement and the Affiliation Motive (e.g., Fagenson, 1992). Furthermore, some of the Big Five factors show high intercorrelations (i.e., Conscientiousness and Agreeableness) making it difficult to discern the factors and increasing the chance of


345

Table 1. M

eans, Standard Deviatio

ns, and Correlatio

ns fo

r Individual-Level (N = 17,358 Managers) and

Cou

ntry-Level Variables (N = 24 Cou

ntries)

Mean

SD

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

Individual level

1. Gender

0.35

0.48

2. A

chievement Motive

1.73

0.85

.02**

3. A

ffiliatio

n Motive

1.29

0.60

.02*

.16**

4. Po

wer M

otive

1.03

0.74

.00

.03**

-.05**

Cou

ntry level

5. Performance O

rientatio

n 4.24

0.24

6. Hum

ane Orientatio

n 4.08

0.26

.65**

7. Po

wer D

istance

4.29

0.30

.49*

.36

8. Extraversion

48.72

1.78

.06

.09

.14

9. A

greeableness

47.02

2.66

-.32

-.13

-.20

.35

10. Con

scientiousness

46.28

3.28

-.40

-.38

-.07

.51*

.63**

11. Neuroticism

51.35

2.46

-.03

-.07

-.35

-.60** -.63** -.63**

12. Openness

48.45

2.88

-.50*

-.20

-.24

.55**

.62** .62** -

.70**

*p < .05. **p < .01.



multicollinearity. Multicollinearity was checked by inspecting variance inflation factors (VIFs). According to Kleinbaum, Kupper, and Mueller (1998), VIF values greater than 10 may indicate the presence of multicol-linearity. After centering the Level 2 variables, none of the VIF values were greater than this limit.

Table 2 shows the mean scores for the three motives by country.The results of multilevel analyses are given in Table 3 (Achievement

Motive), Table 4 (Affiliation Motive), and Table 5 (Power Motive).

Table 2. Mean Scores on Achievement, Affiliation, and Power Motive by Country (17,358 Managers in 24 Countries)

Achievement Affiliation Motive Motive Power Motive

Country Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Argentina 1.57 0.57 1.49 0.52 1.07 0.60Australia 1.78 0.89 1.32 0.62 1.07 0.73Brazil 1.64 0.78 1.23 0.58 1.09 0.79Canada 1.60 0.80 1.14 0.56 .87 0.71France 1.79 0.65 1.28 0.60 1.24 0.69Germany 1.69 0.76 1.15 0.55 1.23 0.72Greece 2.14 0.78 1.38 0.58 1.06 0.69Hong Kong 1.54 0.88 1.20 0.62 1.05 0.79India 1.74 0.78 1.37 0.66 1.08 0.78Indonesia 1.70 0.75 1.13 0.52 1.06 0.75Italy 1.85 0.79 1.36 0.50 .98 0.63Japan 1.94 0.80 1.40 0.58 1.19 0.71Malaysia 1.78 0.89 1.26 0.57 1.00 0.69Mexico 1.52 0.84 1.21 0.56 .84 0.71Netherlands 1.78 0.76 1.23 0.55 1.14 0.67Nordic countries 1.45 0.62 1.28 0.60 1.17 0.74Philippines 1.75 0.82 1.83 0.36 1.42 0.67South Africa 1.85 0.81 1.21 0.54 1.28 0.98South Korea 2.07 0.75 1.55 0.53 1.25 0.60Spain 1.47 0.84 1.30 0.59 .82 0.70Taiwan 1.56 0.89 1.54 0.54 .96 0.76Turkey 1.64 0.80 1.24 0.61 .74 0.57United Kingdom 1.77 0.85 1.28 0.61 1.11 0.75United States 1.74 0.84 1.29 0.59 1.02 0.75Total 1.73 0.85 1.29 0.60 1.03 0.74



Testing the Matching Hypotheses Linking Motives and Culture

From Table 3, Step 1, it can be seen that Performance Orientation is indeed positively related to the Achievement Motive (g = .07, p < .05), showing sup-port for Hypothesis 1. From Table 4, Step 1, it can be seen that Humane Orientation is indeed positively related with the Affiliation Motive (g = .12, p < .01), providing support for Hypothesis 2. Although from Table 5, Step 1, it can be seen there is no such relationship, in Step 2 there is a negative rela-tionship shown between Power Distance and Power Motive (g = -.081, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 7 is not supported.

Testing the Matching Hypotheses Linking Aggregate Personality and MotivesFrom Table 3, Step 2, Agreeableness is positively related to the Achievement Motive (g = .04, p < .01), and Conscientiousness (g = -.04, p < .01) and

Table 3. Results of Mixed-Effects Restricted Maximum Likelihood Regression for the Relationship Between the Big Five Factors and Performance Orientation for McClellands Achievement Motive (17,358 Managers in 24 Countries)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

g SE g SE g SE

Gender .021** .008 .023** .008 .023** .008Performance Orientation (PO) .073* .036 .018 .041 .175** .060Extraversion .004 .007 .042** .010Agreeableness .040** .007 .052** .008Conscientiousness -.038** .004 -.034** .006Neuroticism .008 .005 .015** .005Openness -.011** .003 -.008** .003PO Extraversion .155** .039PO Agreeableness .051 .029PO Conscientiousness -.081** .024PO Neuroticism -.021 .029PO Openness -.108** .027Log restricted-likelihood -12920.722 -129230.653 -12917.003Wald c2 11.05** 51.40** 92.45**

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported with three decimals because multilevel parameters are very small. The variables were entered in three steps. First, gender and the specific culture dimension were entered. Second, the Big Five factors were included. Next, the interactions of the culture dimension with the Big Five factors were added.*p < .05. **p < .01.



Openness to Experience (g = -.01, p < .01) are negatively related. Because none of these relationships are in the expected direction, Hypothesis 4 is not supported. As can been seen from Table 4, Step 2, Agreeableness (g = .01, p < .01) and Neuroticism (g = .02, p < .01) are positively related with the Affili-ation Motive, whereas the other Big Five factors are unrelated. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 received limited support. As can be seen from Table 5, Step 2, Extraversion (g = -.02, p < .01) and Openness to Experience (g = -.01, p < .01) are negatively related with Power Motive, whereas the other Big Five factors are unrelated. Thus, no support for Hypothesis 8 is obtained.

Testing the Hypotheses Concerning the Moderating Role of CultureTable 3, Step 3, reveals three significant interaction effects with regard to the moderating role of Performance Orientation. Graphical presentations of the interactions are displayed in Figure 1.

Table 4. Results of Mixed-Effects Restricted Maximum Likelihood Regression for the Relationship Between the Big Five Factors and Humane Orientation for McClellands Affiliation Motive (17,358 Managers in 24 Countries)


g SE g SE g SE

Gender .012* .060 .014* .006 .014* .006Humane Orientation (HO) .122** .028 .124** .030 .171** .034Extraversion .002 .005 .015* .006Agreeableness .014** .005 .021** .005Conscientiousness -.006 .003 -.012** .004Neuroticism .016** .004 .022** .004Openness .003 .002 .089 .002HO Extraversion .054** .022HO Agreeableness .032** .024HO Conscientiousness .063 .018HO Neuroticism -.069* .025HO Openness .766 .023Log restricted-likelihood -6766.81 -6779.27 -6780.94Wald c2 24.32** 49.31** 75.88**

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported with three decimals because multilevel parameters are very small. The variables were entered in three steps. First, gender and the specific culture dimension were entered. Second, the Big Five factors were included. Next, the interactions of the culture dimension with the Big Five factors were added.*p < .05. **p < .01.



Table 5. Results of Mixed-Effects Restricted Maximum Likelihood Regression for the Relationship between the Big Five Factors and Power Distance for McClellands Power Motive (17,358 Managers in 24 Countries)


g SE g SE g SE

Gender -.006 .007 -.006 .007 -.006 .007Power Distance (PD) -.043 .032 -.081* .036 -.237** .078Extraversion -.017** .006 .020* .009Agreeableness .010 .006 .028** .007Conscientiousness -.002 .004 -.020** .005Neuroticism -.003 .005 .006 .050Openness -.013** .003 -.014** .030PD Extraversion -.171** .044PD Agreeableness -.107** .036PD Conscientiousness .062* .030PD Neuroticism -.044 .041PD Openness .046 .031Log restricted-likelihood -10627.32 -10629.99 -10625.80Wald c2 2.48 44.70** 80.39**

Note. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported with three decimals because multilevel parameters are very small. The variables were entered in three steps. First, gender and the specific culture dimension were entered. Second, the Big Five factors were included. Next, the interactions of the culture dimension with the Big Five factors were added.*p < .05. ** p < .01.

The simple regression lines of the first interaction in Figure 1, Panel A indicate that in case of high Performance Orientation, the positive relation-ship between Extraversion and Achievement is stronger than it is under the condition of low Performance Orientation. The second interaction depicted in Figure 1, Panel B indicates that in case of low Performance Orientation, Conscientiousness is negatively related with the Achievement Motive. That is, for societies scoring high as opposed to low in Performance Orientation, higher levels of Conscientiousness are related with lower levels of Achieve-ment Motivation. Under the condition of high Performance Orientation, level of Conscientiousness is not related to Achievement Motive. Finally, the third interaction depicted in Figure 1, Panel C indicates that for low Performance Orientation societies, Openness to Experience is negatively related to the Achievement Motive. Openness to Experience is unrelated to the Achieve-ment Motive within high Performance Orientation cultures. Thus, contrary to the prediction of Hypothesis 7 that the relationship between personality and the Achievement Motive will be greater in high Performance Orientation



Figure 1. Moderating role of Performance Orientation on the relationship between (A) Extraversion and Achievement Motive, (B) Conscientiousness and Achievement Motive, and (C) Openness and Achievement Motive



cultures, the relationships for Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience were stronger in low Performance Orientation cultures. Moreover, only one of these relationships was consistent with the predictions of Hypothesis 4, with a positive relationship between Extraversion and the Achievement Motive emerging; the others were in the opposite direction from that posited. These findings suggest that rather than a high Performance Orientation cul-ture consistently enhancing the predicted relationships, a low Performance Orientation culture may serve to partially reverse them.

Table 4 reveals three significant interaction effects with respect to Hypothesis 8. The simple regression lines of the first two interactions in Figure 2 (Panels A and B) indicate that, consistent with expectations, in the case of high Humane Orientation, the relationship of Extraversion and Agree-ableness with the Affiliation Motive is positive, as posited by Hypothesis 5. In contrast, this relationship is negative for low Humane Orientation cultures. Similarly, the third interaction (see Figure 2, Panel C) indicates that in the case of high Humane Orientation, high Neuroticism is negatively related with the Achi evement Motive, as posited by Hypothesis 5. However, for low Humane Orientation societies, Neuroticism is positively related to the Achieve-ment Motive. Hypothesis 8 thereby received mixed support. Moreover, the interaction results may help to explain the mixed support obtained for Hypothesis 5, as discussed below.

Table 5 presents three significant interaction effects with respect to Hypothesis 9. For all three interactions, the simple regression lines (see Fig-ure 3) indicate that, consistent with expectations, the relationship of Extraver-sion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness with the Power Motive are stronger for high as opposed to low Power Distance cultures, lending support for Hypothesis 9. Indeed, personality and the Power Motive were unrelated within low Power Distance societies. However, a closer look at these interac-tion effects reveals that only the negative relationship of Neuroticism and the Power Motive (see Figure 3, Panel B) found in high Power Distance cultures is consistent with the relationships between the Big Five and the Power Motive posited by Hypothesis 6. In contrast, the negative relationships for Extraver-sion and Conscientiousness (see Figure 3, Panels A and C) obtained for high Power Distance cultures are in the opposite direction from that anticipated. We consider potential explanations for this complex pattern of results below.

DiscussionThe present study investigates the direct relationships between cultural dimensions and societal level Big Five personality factors with three types of acquired motives, along with the moderating effect of culture on the posited personality-acquired



Figure 2. Moderating role of Humane Orientation on the relationship between (A) Extraversion and Affiliation Motive, (B) Agreeableness and Affiliation Motive, and (C) Neuroticism and Affiliation Motive



Figure 3. Moderating role of Power Distance on the relationship between (A) Extraversion and Power Motive, (B) Agreeableness and Power Motive, and (C) Conscientiousness and Power Motive



motive relationships. We summarize the findings obtained for each of our three sets of hypotheses below.

Culture and Acquired MotivesWith respect to the direct effects of culture, we posited positive relationships based on conceptual and empirical links between the cultural dimensions of Performance Orientation, Human Orientation, and Power Distance with the Achievement, Affiliation, and Power motives, respectively. Consistent with expectations, we obtained evidence that managers from cultures that place a high emphasis on performance have relatively high Achievement Motives. Moreover, this finding suggests that the failure to obtain support for this relationship in the GLOBE study may stem from limitations of McClellands (1961) measure of the societal level Achievement Motive that have been discussed by other scholars (e.g., Beugelsdijk & Smeets, 2008, Rubin, 1963). Hence, our study demonstrates the methodological utility of examining this relationship using a cross-level model.

We also obtained support for Hypothesis 2, which predicted a positive relationship between Humane Orientation and the Affiliation Motive. This finding implies that managers from cultures characterized by a high as opposed to low Humane Orientationwhere individuals are encouraged and rewarded for being fair, altruistic, generous, caring, friendly, and kind to otherspossess higher levels of Affiliation Motives. Contrary to Hypothesis 3, which predicted a positive relationship between Power Distance and the Power Motive, a significant negative relationship was revealed. Here it is noteworthy that although Hofstede (1980, p. 194) described this as the most obvious hypothesis, he did not find support for such a relationship, suggest-ing that the posited relationship may be more complicated than it initially appears. The results of the current study suggest that societies with a rela-tively large proportion of managers with high Power Motives tend to score comparatively low on Power Distance.

One possible explanation for this finding is that while the Power Motive is widely distributed within a High Power Distance society, power is more likely to be shared, thereby reducing the hierarchical distance between occu-pants of positions at the upper and lower organizational levels. Such an explanation suggests that a promising avenue for future research would be to explore the extent to which shared leadership (Pearce & Conger, 2002) is more prevalent in cultures where managers have relatively high Power Motives. Another possible explanation is that that while managers scoring high on the Power Motive seek to have an impact on other people, they do not



necessarily rely on the organizational hierarchy, as used in high Power Dis-tance cultures, to do so.

Societal-Level Personality and Acquired MotivesOur expectations regarding the relationships of the FFM with each of the acquired motives received very limited support. Specifically, no support was obtained for the predications of Hypotheses 4 and 6 and instead, the Achieve-ment Motive was positively related to Agreeableness and negatively related to Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience, whereas the Affiliation Motive was negatively related to both Extraversion and Openness to Experi-ence. For Hypothesis 5, only the predicted positive relationship of the Affiliation Motive and Agreeableness was obtained. Contrary to expectations, Neuroti-cism was also positively related the Affiliation Motive, whereas the remaining Big Five factors were unrelated. The point of departure for the posited rela-tionships between country level scores on the Big Five and acquired motives was that people within certain cultures possess more or less dispositional dif-ferences, which can be conceptualized as a sort of national character (see Allik & McCrae, 2004; Schmitt et al., 2007). Although we obtained evidence of relationships between societal level personality and acquired motives worldwide, these relationships were not always as straightforward as we hypothesized. Moreover, the results summarized below suggest that the mod-erating effects of culture must be taken into consideration when examining these relationships.

The Moderating Effects of CultureConsistent with Hypothesis 7, the anticipated positive relationship between Extraversion and the Achievement Motive was stronger in high as opposed to low Performance Orientation cultures. However, contrary to expectations, negative relationships between Conscientiousness and Openness to Experi-ence emerged for low Performance Orientation cultures only; these personality factors were unrelated to Achievement Motives in high Performance Orien-tation cultures. Only the positive relationship between Extraversion and the Achievement Motive is consistent with the unmoderated relationships between societal level personality and acquired motives posited (but not sup-ported) by Hypothesis 4. Here, it is noteworthy that societies that score lower on Performance Orientation tend to: emphasize loyalty and belongingness; view assertiveness as socially unacceptable; value who you are more than what you do; have a low sense of urgency; view feedback and appraisal as



judgmental and discomforting; emphasize seniority and control; and associ-ate competition with defeat and punishment (Javidan, 2004; Tjsovold & Yu, 2007). Given these values, perhaps it is not surprising that, within such cul-tures, relatively high levels of conscientiousness among members are related to lower levels of Achievement Motives. Indeed, to be conscientious in abid-ing by cultural norms one would be expected to deemphasize the quest for achievement in favor of other, less competitive values. Similarly, within such cultures, high levels of openness to experience may nonetheless be directed toward culturally valued experiences that are less achievement oriented. Together, these findings suggest that while high levels of a complementary cultural dimension may in some cases enhance the relationship between a particular personality factor (e.g., Extraversion) and an acquired motive (e.g., Achievement), in other cases, low levels of that cultural dimension may serve to invert the anticipated relationship (e.g., Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience are negatively related to the Achievement Motive in low Per-formance Orientation cultures).

The results obtained for Hypothesis 8 offer further support for this inter-pretation, while providing additional insight as to why only limited support for the direct relationships between the FFM personality dimensions and the Affiliation Motive posited by Hypothesis 5 was obtained. Hypothesis 8 pre-dicted that the relationship between societal level personality and the Affili-ation Motive would be stronger in high as opposed to low Humane Orientation cultures. However, the results depicted in Figure 2 suggest more complex relationships. Specifically, they reveal that, consistent with Hypothesis 5, the Affiliation Motive is positively related to Extraversion and Agreeableness, and negatively related to Neuroticism, within high Humane Orientation cul-tures. However, the exact opposite pattern of relationships arises within low Humane Orientation cultures, where Extraversion and Agreeableness are negatively related to the Affiliation Motive, while Neuroticism is positively related. Here, it is useful to consider that low Humane Orientation societies are characterized by a focus on self-interests and self-enhancement; a lack of support for others; values of pleasure, comfort, and self-enjoyment; and an expectation that people will solve their own problems. Given these values, societies scoring relatively high on Extraversion and Agreeableness may channel these traits toward motives that are more consonant with societal values than the Affiliation Motive. Similarly, given these values, perhaps it is not surprising that higher levels of nonconsistent Affiliation Motives are related to relatively high levels of Neuroticism.

Hypothesis 9 posited that the relationship between personality (either positive or negative) and the Power Motive would be stronger for high as



opposed to low Power Distance cultures. The results supported this predic-tion, as negative relationships between the Power Motive and the Big Five factors of Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness were revealed for high Power Distance cultures only; no relationships between societal level personality and the Power Motive were found for low Power Distance cultures. Nevertheless, only the negative relationship between Agreeableness and the Power Motive is consistent with the direct relationships between per-sonality and the Power Motive anticipated by Hypothesis 6. Thus, within high Power Distance cultures, high levels of agreeableness (which reflect relatively low levels of competitiveness) were related to relatively low Power Motives, as expected. The negative relationships within high Power Distance cultures between the Power Motive and societal level Extraversion and Con-scientiousness are more difficult to explain. If, however, as we speculated earlier, relatively high Power Motives are related to greater power sharing within a society, and hence lower Power Distance, it is less surprising to find that the relationship between the Power Motive and societal level Extraver-sion and Conscientiousness is weaker in high Power Distance cultures. Perhaps, because managers in high Power Distance cultures rely on the organizational hierarchy more than managers in low power distance cultures, they experi-ence less room for the expression of their personality, suggesting a sort of pinching off effect of Power Distance. Here again, these results demonstrate the critical importance of considering the cultural context when attempting to tease out the relationships between societal level personality and acquired motives.

Overall, the results obtained regarding the moderating effects of culture on the relationships between societal-level personality and acquired motives suggest that these relationships are more complicated than our hypotheses posit. Indeed, contrary to our predictions that these relationships would be stronger for high versus low levels of complementary cultural dimensions, the results revealed that these relationships were at times stronger for high levels and at other times stronger for low levels of the cultural dimension. Moreover, whereas the expected relationships between Extraversion (posi-tive), Agreeableness (positive), and Neuroticism (negative) and the Affilia-tion Motive were obtained for high Humane Orientation cultures, the exact opposite pattern emerged for low Humane Orientation cultures. In hindsight, these results are not surprising, because cultures that score low on particular cultural dimensions nevertheless have strong societal norms that are just as likely to moderate the focal relationships as those that are found in cultures that score high on these dimensions. Indeed, by taking a closer look at the norms and values found in cultures that score low on the Performance Orientation,



Humane Orientation, and Power Distance dimensions, we were able to iden-tify some tentative explanations for the moderating effects observed for such cultures. Hence, future research should take into account both the potential facilitating effects of high levels of complimentary cultural values, as well as potential inhibiting or reverse effects that low levels of these values may exert, when making predictions regarding the moderating role of culture on the focal relationships between societal level personality and acquired motives.

LimitationsIt is possible that the cultural differences measured by the GLOBE study and by personality instruments at the societal level do not reflect peoples dispositions to think, feel, and behave in certain ways, but are instead cultur-ally endorsed styles of responding to surveys. However, an alternative explanation, as suggested by Schmitt et al. (2007), is that response styles play a role in self-reported personality but are largely confounded with true Big Five personality factors. Furthermore, we only use individual and country characteristics. From a contingency perspective, it is also necessary to explore other characteristics that are important to understand acquired motives in different cultures. Thus, although culture does matter, there are likely to be certain circumstances where it matters more, and others where it matters less (Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez, & Gibson, 2005)suggesting a need for research to identify those circumstances.

Our results can be especially useful for global operating organizations and organizations considering the decision to transfer management practices from one cultural setting to another. One of the strengths of this article is the use of information from 17,358 managers from 24 countries. Resource con-straints often prevent researchers from performing studies encompassing many cultures (Sivakumar & Nakata, 2001). However, there are limitations of the use of an existing database. For instance, there is a lack of demo-graphic data, which makes it impossible to control for important variables as hierarchical position, age, and education. In addition, future studies might include individual level personality factors (Ng & Sorenson, 2008).

There is also an underrepresentation of Eastern European and African countries in this sample, as has been the case in most cross-cultural databases (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; House et al., 2004). Because the participating organi-zations and respondents are clients of the consultant firm that collected the data, they tend to have either an international or Western orientation. Poten-tially, this could produce a response bias, in the sense that these companies may underrepresent the actual national culture of which they are a part. As



Sternberg and Grigorenko (2006, p. 37) argue, people from Western coun-tries have shown a certain kind of arrogance in assuming that concepts/results obtained in one culture apply anywhere. This study also ignores differences in corporate culture. As such, differences in corporate cultures that may be impor-tant to cross-border acquisitions are not considered. With the increase of multinational organizations, we recommend future studies that include the organizational culture in the analysis (see also Slangen, 2006). Finally, because the data were collected by a Western cultureoriented consultant firm, res-pondents with an international or even Western orientation may have been overrepresented.

ConclusionsToday, mergers across borders, collaborations, and relocation decisions are becoming common experiences for many employees, creating challenges to employee integration within the organization as well as knowledge transfer (Mir & Mir, 2009; Zaidman & Brock, 2009). But, from a group and organiza-tion perspective, people are still attracted to work environments that are compatible with their personality characteristics and that match their own norms and values (Schneider, 1987; Sturges, Conway, & Liefooghe, 2010). Big Five characteristics, acquired motives, cultural embeddedness, and the interactions among them, are important considerations to take into account when designing global selection and assessment practices. The results of the present study show that McClellands motives can be a useful part of per-sonnel selection within a global context. Given the relationships of acquired motives to a variety of behavioral and social outcomes (Amyx & Alford, 2005; Baruch et al., 2004; Diaz & Rodriguez, 2003; Park et al., 2008; Rauch & Frese, 2007; Shane et al., 2003), the assessment of motives may be particu-larly useful in assessing reactions to different situations, thus providing a way for organizations to identify potential areas of conflict or concern (see also Pang & Schultheiss, 2005). More work is welcome on the unexplored relationships between these universal motives and their associations with effectiveness in the work situation. Moreover, given the evidence we obtained of complex interactions between personality and the manifestation of these motives across cultural contexts, additional research into the moderating effects of cultural is especially important.

Our results have implications for the role of personality and cultural embe-ddedness in preferences for work and work outcomes. For example, person-ality and personal motives are increasingly used to predict job performance, but they may also be applied in assessments about whether candidates will fit



an organizations culture. From a HRM perspective, it is important to note that people are attracted to work environments that are compatible with their personality and that match their own norms and values (Judge & Cable, 1997; Schneider, 1987). From the results of the present study, it is suggested that Big Five characteristics, acquired motives, and the cultural context, should all be considered when designing global selection and assessment practices. Finally, our findings suggest that, yes, there is a sort of national character (see Allik & McCrae, 2004; Schmitt et al., 2007) that may interact with culture to shape the manifestation of acquired needs in work settings. We encourage management scholars to broaden this stream of research to consider other characteristics that may account for the emergence and influ-ence of acquired motives in different cultures. Thus, although culture does matter, there are likely to be certain circumstances where it matters more and others where it matters less (Leung et al., 2005). By considering the interac-tive effects of individual (e.g., acquired motives) and societal-level (e.g., cul-tural dimensions, societal-level personality) variables, as recommended by Erez and Gati (2004), our results provide some insight into how and when, along with some tentative explanations as to why, work motives vary across cultural contexts.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Note

1. Although the terms Achievement/Power/Affiliation Motive versus need for Achievement/Power/Affiliation are often used interchangeably, they are not equivalent. For instance, the Power Motive is considered a universal human attri-bute. Need for Power, on the other hand, actually refers towards the self-expressive modalities of assertive power and should therefore be seen as only one expression of the Power Motive (see Nell & Strumpfer, 1978). In the present study, we focus on (acquired) motives.

References

Allik, J., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Toward a geography of personality traits: Patterns of profiles across 36 cultures Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 13-28.



Amyx, D., & Alford, B. L. (2005). The effects of salesperson need for achievement and sales manager leader reward behavior. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25, 345-359.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Baruch, Y., OCreevy, M. F., Hind, P., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2004). Prosocial behav-ior and job performance: Does the need for control and the need for achievement make a difference? Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 399-412.

Beugelsdijk, S., & Smeets, R. (2008). Entrepreneurial culture and economic growth: Revisiting McClellands thesis. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 67, 915-939.

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the Five-Factor approach to pesonality descrip-tion. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215.

Boneva, B., Frieze, I. H., Ferligoj, A., Jarosova, E., Pauknerova, D., & Orgocka, A. (1998). Achievement, power, and affiliation motives as clues to (e)migration desires: A four-countries comparison. European Psychologist, 3, 247-254.

Campus, N. (1976). A measure of needs to assess the stimulus characteristics of TAT cards. Journal of Personality Assessment, 40, 248-258.

Carl, D., Gupta, W., & Javidan, M. (2004). Power distance. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & W. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and orga-nizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 513-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Carroll, J. B. (2002). The Five-Factor Personality Model: How complete and sat-isfactory is it? In H. I. Braum, D. N. Jackson & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 97-126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cassidy, T., & Lynn, R. (1989). A multifactorial approach to achievement motiva-tion: The development of a comprehensive measure. Journal of Occupational Psy-chology, 62, 301-312.

Chokkar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C., & House, R. J. (2007). Introduction. In J. S. Chokkar, F. C. Brodbeck, & R. J. House (Eds.), Culture and leadership across the world: The GLBOE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies (pp. 1-15). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murrays needs and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258-265.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). NEO-P-R: Professional manual: Revised NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5-13.



Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 81, 322-331.

Cubiks. (1996). Personality and preference inventory. London, England: Author.Diaz, F., & Rodriguez, A. (2003). Locus of control, nAch, and values of community

entrepreneurs. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 739-748.Erez, M. (2008). Social-cultural influences on work motivation. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen,

& R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 501-538). New York, NY: Routledge.

Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 583-598.

Fagenson, E. A. (1992). MentoringWho needs it? A comparison of protgs and nonprotgs needs for power, achievement, affiliation, and autonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41, 48-60.

Goldberg, L. R., & Saucier, G. (1995). What do you propose we use instead? A reply to Block. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 221-225.

Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interper-sonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 820-835.

Han, T. Y., & Williams, K. J. (2009). Multilevel investigation of adaptive perfor-mance: Individual and team-level relationships. Group & Organization Manage-ment, 33, 657-684.

Hart, J. W., Stasson, M. F., Mahoney, J. M., & Story, P. (2007). The Big Five and achievement motivation: Exploring the relationship between personality and a two-factor model of motivation. Individual Differences Research, 5, 267-274.

Hay Group. (2003). Picture Story Exercise (PSE): Technical manual. Boston, MA: The McClelland Center for Research and Innovation, Hay Group.

Heyns, R. W., Veroff, J., & Atkinson, J. W. (1958). A scoring manual for the affiliation motive. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and society (pp. 205-218). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institu-tions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 52-88.

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409-473.



House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. London, England: SAGE.

House, R. J., & Javidan, M. (2004). Overview of GLOBE. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & W. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organi-zations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 3-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

House, R. J., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cul-tures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37, 3-10.

Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879.

Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality Research Form manual (3rd ed.). Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.

Javidan, M. (2004). Performance orientation. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & W. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 239-281). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359-394.

Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M. (2004). Humane orientation in societies, organizations, and leader attributes. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & W. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 564-601). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., & Mueller, K. E. (1998). Applied regression analy-sis and other multivariable methods. Boston, MA: PWS-KENT.

Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., & Schmeck, R. R. (2009). Role of Big Five personal-ity traits in predicting college students academic motivation and achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 47-52.

Langan-Fox, J. (1995). Achievement motivation and female entrepreneurs. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 68, 209-218.

Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N. R., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B. (2005). Cul-ture and international business: Recent advances and their implications for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 357-378.

Mannix, B., Neale, M., & Chen, Y. (2006). Research on managing groups and teams: National culture and groups. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Norstrand.McClelland, D. C. (1965). Achievement motivation can be developed. Harvard Busi-

ness Review, 43(6), 6-25.McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.



McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737-743.

McCrae, R. R. (2000). Trait psychology and the revival of personality and culture studies. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 10-31.

McCrae, R. R. (2001). Trait psychology and culture: Exploring intercultural compari-sons. Journal of Personality, 69, 819-846.

McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R data from 36 countries: Further intercultural com-parisons. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The Five-Factor Model of Personality across cultures (pp. 105-125). New York, NY: Kluwer.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the Five-Factor Model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51-87). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human uni-versal. The American Psychologist, 52, 509-516.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A Five-Factor Theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139-153). New York: Guilford Press.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the Five-Factor Model of personality traits. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 1. Person-ality theories and models (pp. 273-294). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

McCrae, R. R., Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., Riemann, R., & Angleitner, A. (2001). Sources of structure: Genetic, environmental, and artifactual influences on the covariation of personality traits. Journal of Personality, 69, 511-535.

Merenda, P. (2008). Update on the debate about the existence and utility of the Big Five: A ten-year follow-up on Carrolls The Five-Factor Personality Model: How complete and satisfactory is it? Psychological Reports, 103, 931-942.

Millon, T., & Lerner, M. J. (2003). Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Mir, R., & Mir, A. (2009). From the colony to the corporati

Date post:	03-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ortegaricky7071
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Asociaciones de Cultura y Personalidad Con Motivos de Mcclelland

Documents