To prosper, organizational psychology
should. . . adopt a global perspective
MICHELE J. GELFAND
1
*
, LISA M. LESLIE
2
AND RYAN FEHR
1
1
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, U.S.A.
2
Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, U.S.A.
Summary We argue that for the ?eld of organizational psychology to prosper, it must adopt a global
perspective. In this article, we discuss three speci?c ideals for a more global organizational
psychology, our progress toward these ideals (or lack thereof), and potential solutions to move
toward a truly global science. First, we argue that a truly global organizational psychology
must incorporate global voices. Yet cross-cultural research in organizational psychology still
remains largely a U.S. export business wherein the very questions we ask are colored by
Western assumptions and values which are then explored to other cultures. To be a global
science, we must acknowledge that the questions we ask are value-laden, and we must ensure
that the questions we ask to have global relevance. Second, a truly global organizational
psychology must articulate with precision the level at which culture operates. Yet the level at
which culture is de?ned varies widely across studies and levels of analysis confusion abounds
in the literature. We discuss a number of conceptualizations and measures of culture and
suggest the conditions under which each may be warranted. Third, a truly global organiz-
ational psychology must advance an understanding of when culture matters. Despite abundant
evidence that behavior in organizations is in?uenced by multiple contextual factors (e.g., the
work team, organization, industry), we have little understanding of how national culture and
non-cultural factors jointly in?uence behavior in organizations. We discuss several promising
models to guide such efforts. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
The ?eld of organizational psychology (as well as allied ?elds such as human resources management
and organizational behavior) has experienced a global paradigm shift of unprecedented proportions.
Starting in the 1970s, scholars began to question the exclusive reliance on Western theories and samples
to capture global organizational realities. In their Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology chapter, Barrett and Bass (1976) provided the ?eld with a wake-up call, arguing that
restricting the ?eld to Western cultural contexts ‘‘puts constraints upon both our theories and our
practical solutions to organizational problems’’ (p. 1675). Since then, theories on dimensions of
cultural variation have proliferated (Hofstede, 1980; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta,
2004; Leung et al., 2002; Schwartz, 1994), methodological pitfalls and prospects for cross-cultural
Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 493–517 (2008)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.530
* Correspondence to: Michele J. Gelfand, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, U.S.A.
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
research have been clearly articulated (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997), and the volume of cross-cultural
research across all areas of organizational psychology has increased exponentially.
This global paradigm shift is occurring at the micro level, with culture being infused into theories and
research on work motivation (Erez &Earley, 1993), job attitudes (Van de Vliert &Janssens, 2002), justice
(Brockner et al., 2001), and work performance (Farh, Earley, & Lin, 1997); at the meso level with
increased attention to cultural in?uences on leadership (House et al., 2004), con?ict (Tinsley, 1998),
negotiation (Gelfand & Brett, 2004), and teams (Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997); and at the macro level, with
increased attention to the effect of national culture on organizational culture (Brodbeck, Hanges,
Dickson, Gupta, & Dorfman, 2004), human resource management practices (Aycan, Kanungo, & Sinha,
1999), and international joint ventures (Isobe, Makino, &Montgomery, 2000). This shift is also evident in
a number of less obvious ways, including increased representation of Non-Western scholars on editorial
boards (Rynes, 2005), increases in cross-cultural journals (International Journal of Cross-Cultural
Management, Management and Organizational Review), and special issues devoted to cross-cultural
topics in top tier journals. Perhaps not surprisingly, many scholars have expressed unbridled optimism
about this global shift, referring to it as ‘‘a new era’’ (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007) and ‘‘the golden
age’’ for the study of culture in the organizational sciences (Kirkman & Law, 2005).
Despite this rapid progress, the ?eld of organizational psychology is still far from reaching its global
ideals. In this article, we discuss three ideals for cross-cultural organizational psychology (CCOP), our
current progress toward these ideals (or lack thereof), and potential solutions for breaking more global
ground. First, we argue that a truly global organizational science must incorporate global voices. Yet as
we discuss below, CCOP still remains a US export business insomuch as the questions we ask are
largely colored by Western assumptions and values which are then exported to other cultures. To be
a global science, CCOP must acknowledge that the questions asked are often value-laden, and we
must ensure that the questions we ask have global relevance. Second, a truly global organizational
science must articulate with precision the level at which culture operates. Yet, the level at which
culture is de?ned varies widely across studies and levels of analysis confusion abounds in the
literature. CCOP needs to articulate a precise and multifaceted view of the level of culture, and the
conditions under which different conceptualizations and measures are warranted. Third, a truly
global organizational psychology must advance an understanding of when culture matters.
Despite abundant evidence that behavior in organizations is in?uenced by multiple contextual
factors (e.g., the work team, organization, industry), we have little understanding of how national
culture interacts with other contextual factors to predict organizational phenomena. Instead, the
literature in CCOP tends to ignore these factors and presents a largely decontextualized view of
human behavior in organizations. Accordingly, CCOP must begin to model context into its theories in
order to understand how cultural and non-cultural factors simultaneously in?uence organizational
behavior phenomena. Although these need not be the only ideals for CCOP (see also Gelfand et al.,
2007; Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez, & Gibson, 2005), we argue that they re?ect fundamental (and
often implicit) neglected issues that if addressed will help organizational psychology truly reach its
global potential.
A Global Organizational Psychology Captures Global Voices:
Expanding the Questions Asked in Cross-Cultural
Organizational Psychology
How do organizational scholars come to decide what research questions do and do not need to be
asked? In their text, What to Sudy: Generating and Developing Research Questions, Campbell, Daft,
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 493–517 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
494 M. J. GELFAND ET AL.
and Hulin (1982) noted that the research questions we ask are not necessarily the ones that most need to
be asked. Rather, the questions scholars ask are based on a variety of factors (e.g., personal interest,
probability of publication, scholarly context) that do not necessarily re?ect the needs of the ?eld. In this
section, we draw inspiration from Campbell et al. to explore how one particular factor—the cultural
background of researchers—may lead to systematic disparities between what is asked and what needs
to be asked.
The idea that researchers’ backgrounds in?uence their work is not new. Indeed, philosophers of
science long have noted how social and historical contexts shape the research that scholars conduct.
Kuhn (1962), for instance, developed the paradigmatic model of scienti?c pursuit on the grounds that
science is not a linear, decontextualized progression of thought, but rather a shifting re?ection of social
and historical contexts. Under this more contextualized model, the values, moralities, and worldviews
of scholars shape the direction and nature of their research. To quote Lefkowitz (2003), it is possible to
come to the conclusion that, in fact, ‘‘all scienti?c research is often value-laden’’ (p. 211). Of course,
there are many aspects of researchers’ backgrounds that shape their scholarly paths. Culture, however,
is an especially potent factor to examine given that CCOP has developed within an almost entirely
monocultural context. For instance, among the 93 studies in Tsui, Nifadkar, and Ou’s (2007) recent
literature review of CCOP, a full 86 per cent of the studies’ ?rst authors are from Western countries.
Ten of the remaining 13 articles’ ?rst authors are from East Asia, leaving only three papers with ?rst
authors from Latin America, Africa, or the Middle East. Thus, even within a ?eld speci?cally
developed to combat the problems associated with Western hegemony, Western biases can still
exist.
Central to our argument is the idea that ‘‘modern science emerged within a particular sociohistorical
context [in which] the values of liberalism, individualism, capitalism, and male dominance were
primary’’ (Sampson, 1978, pp. 1334–1335). In other words, the social context within which
organizational psychology has developed is not agnostic, but laden with culture-speci?c sociopolitical
realities and values systems that in turn affect the questions scholars ask. If organizational psychology
as a ?eld seeks to become truly global, it must extricate itself from its Western roots and begin to ask
questions that re?ect the values, realities, and needs of the Nonwestern world.
In an effort to move toward a truly global organizational psychology, we describe three ways in
which Western values and socio-political realities may be affecting the scienti?c priorities in the ?eld of
CCOP. We ?rst discuss how the very questions asked in CCOP re?ect the Western assumption that
individuals are largely independent and have freedom of choice. We next turn to how the
postmaterialistic nature of Western society is re?ected in the questions asked in CCOP, with a priority
given to theories and research concerning self-actualization versus the ful?llment of basic needs. As
one more illustrative example of the way in which values affect scienti?c priorities in CCOP, we discuss
how the Western endorsement of a Protestant Relational Ideology (Sanchez-Burkes, 2005) and the
assumptions of highly distinct boundaries among spheres of life, leads to the neglect of research
questions that prioritize the overlap of family, friendship, and religion with organizational life as found
in Non-Western cultures. In all, in the tradition of Campbell et al. (1982), we hope that by
acknowledging that societal values, assumptions, and socio-political realities guide the questions we
ask, we can begin to expand the global relevance of our inquiries, and ask the ever-important question,
‘‘What questions should we be asking?’’
Research questions prioritize the cultural model of the independent self
Since the rise of Greek society, Western civilization has maintained a distinct culture of independence
and autonomy. The Greeks themselves displayed a strong sense of personal agency, and were ‘‘imbued
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 493–517 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
GLOBAL ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 495
with a sense of choice and an absence of social constraint that were unparalleled in the ancient world’’
(Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001, p. 292). Indeed, the history of Western civilization is rife
with assertions of independence, from the Protestant reformation’s ‘‘appeal to individualism’’
(Sampson, 1978, p. 1335) to the founding of the United States, with its distinct fondness for personal
freedom, autonomy, and individual rights (Tocqueville, 2003). The cultural model of the self—
reinforced through a variety of cultural institutions—dictates that it is a cultural imperative that
individuals de?ne their own internal attributes, become skilled in making choices for themselves, and
ful?ll their own needs and desires in the pursuit of happiness (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis,
1989).
In line with our thesis that cultural values in part dictate the questions that are prioritized in
organizational psychology, a perusal of the literature reveals that many questions asked re?ect the
cultural model of the independent self. The focus on the individual—and ways in which individuals
vary—is evident in the large research industry on individual differences. Nearly every research
program is examined through an individual differences perspective, including leadership (Zaccaro,
2007), performance (Judge, Thoresen, & Bono, 2001), job satisfaction (Judge, Heller & Mount, 2002),
aggression (Douglas & Martinko, 2001), organizational citizenship behaviors (Kamdar, McAllister, &
Turban, 2006), expatriation (Shaffer, Harrison, Gregersen, Black, & Ferzandi, 2006), and
entrepreneurship (Zhao & Seibert, 2006), among others. Put simply, research questions continue to
re?ect the prevailing concern with individual differences, driven in part by the assumption that
individual abilities and personality are primary causes of action.
Similarly, many research paradigms in organizational psychology have at their basis the idea that
people are free to choose what they do and when they do it. Theories of vocational choice presume that
individuals engage in a highly self-re?ective process, generally free from situational constraint
(Holland, 1959). Moreover, the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model similarly posits that
potential employees are attracted to a company and, since they are free to act as they wish, apply and
leave if they feel a lack of ?t (e.g., Schneider, 1987). This preoccupation with personal choice is
likewise re?ected in the Western conceptualization of PE ?t, which focuses on employees freely
choosing the best companies to work for and organizations freely choosing the best employees (e.g.,
Judge & Ostroff, 2007).
Finally, many models and research questions in organizational psychology assume that people will
use those freedoms to ful?ll their own personal needs in the pursuit of happiness. In other words, they
assume that people will inevitably ask the question, ‘‘What’s in it for me?’’ VIE theory and equity
theory, for instance, both highlight the Western assumption of and preoccupation with personal need
ful?llment. With VIE theory, it is assumed that employees are focused on what’s best for themselves,
and that employees will therefore work hard only if they think such work will lead them to more pay,
happiness, and other favorable individual outcomes (Vroom, 1964). Similarly, equity theory supposes
that people expect to receive personal rewards that are commensurate with their inputs (Adams, 1965).
The Western preoccupation with job satisfaction, referred to as ‘‘one of the best researched concepts in
work and organizational psychology,’’ provides further evidence that the pursuit of happiness is a
central research concern in the ?eld (Dormann & Zapf, 2001, p. 483). In all, the underlying assumption
is that people both have personal desires and are prone to use rational thought to obtain them,
as a means to ultimately increase their happiness. It is interesting to note that such self-
focused orientations appear not only to be assumed, but also to be value-laden, insomuch as people who
do not care about their personal wants and needs might be perceived as either unmotivated or
conformist.
These questions and traditions, which re?ect the cultural model of the independent self, however,
may not be as relevant in other cultural contexts where models of interdependence are more
predominant. The cultural model of interdependence has an entirely different cultural mandate, namely
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 493–517 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
496 M. J. GELFAND ET AL.
that individuals are highly attentive to situational contexts and adjust their behavior to ?t their
surroundings, are motivated by the choices and opinions of others, and that duties and ful?lling
obligations are more important than individual choice and rights. Chinese culture, for instance, is
rooted in a strong history of group cooperation and harmony, wherein ‘‘the behavior of the individual
should be guided by the expectations of the group’’ (Nisbett et al., 2001, p. 292). For example, East
Asian children are strongly motivated by their parents’ opinions (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999). In the
Middle East and Africa, family, friends, and social expectations are likely to exert much more of a
powerful in?uence on employees as compared to Western contexts (e.g., Budhwar & Mellahi,
2006; Kamoche, Nyambegera, & Mulinge, 2004). Accordingly, research questions that re?ect these
realities are likely to differ from what is prioritized in Western contexts. For example, rather
than developing taxonomies of individual differences, research might ask the question, ‘‘What
are the dimensions of situations and contexts to which individuals must adapt?’’ Instead of a ?ve-
factor model of personality, a global organizational science might prioritize the development of a
?ve-factor model of situations or relationships. Likewise, whereas Western scholars are likely to
assume free choice, new paradigms might be developed that focus on contextual choice. Under a
paradigm of contextual choice, researchers might study how managers’ expectations affect employees’
decisions, how family perceptions of an employee’s job in?uence turnover decisions, how a
leader’s guanxi network affects follower attitudes, or how employees adjust to (rather than ?t with) an
organizational environment. Finally, instead of a focus on personal need ful?llment, questions and
paradigms might be developed regarding relational need ful?llment. Kim (1999) notes, for instance,
how indigenous Korean constructs such as Kye involve a strong focus on helping other people
achieve their goals and needs. Gupta (1999) similarly discusses Indians’ orientation toward the needs of
their families and castes. Thus, instead of studying personal satisfaction, new paradigms might be
developed to understand how the satisfaction of others (e.g., spouses, leaders, co-workers) serves as a
motivator of employees’ behavior. In all, given that extant cultural values and worldviews in?uence the
questions asked and paradigms developed, it is especially critical in CCOP to ask new questions rather
than export the questions that are tightly aligned with Western values and assumptions.
Research questions assume a postmaterialist worldview
Modern organizational psychology science has developed not only within a context of independence
and autonomy, but also within a context of wealth, industrialization, and social tranquility. Whereas a
signi?cant portion of the global community lives with the daily realities of poverty, con?ict, and
corruption, the world’s population of scientists and scholars is more shielded, generally living in only
the most wealthy and con?ict-free environments. As noted by Nobel Laureate Ahmed Zewail (2004),
‘‘70–80 per cent of the world’s population living largely in developing countries [has] contributed less
than 7 per cent of. . . [recent] scienti?c articles’’ (p. 1). We refer to the wealthy and industrialized
context of Western science as ‘‘postmaterialism,’’ a term derived from Inglehart’s (2000) discussion of
materialist versus postmaterialist values. Whereas materialist values emphasize ‘‘economic and
physical security,’’ postmaterialist values emphasize ‘‘self-expression, subjective well-being, and
quality of life’’ (p. 84).
There is little doubt that even the ?eld of CCOP, which seeks to capture global realities, is primarily
based within postmaterialist settings. We did a statistical analysis of Tsui et al.’s (2007) report of
authors of CCOP studies against the Human Development Index (HDI), which rank-orders nations in
an aggregate index of life expectancy, GDP, and literacy rates (Human Development Index rankings,
2008). Remarkably, a full 100 per cent of the 69 unique ?rst authors from Tsui et al. (2007) are from
countries characterized by the HDI as having ‘‘high human development.’’ Further, the number of
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 493–517 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
GLOBAL ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 497
authored articles per country is signi?cantly correlated with HDI rankings at p
should. . . adopt a global perspective
MICHELE J. GELFAND
1
*
, LISA M. LESLIE
2
AND RYAN FEHR
1
1
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, U.S.A.
2
Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, U.S.A.
Summary We argue that for the ?eld of organizational psychology to prosper, it must adopt a global
perspective. In this article, we discuss three speci?c ideals for a more global organizational
psychology, our progress toward these ideals (or lack thereof), and potential solutions to move
toward a truly global science. First, we argue that a truly global organizational psychology
must incorporate global voices. Yet cross-cultural research in organizational psychology still
remains largely a U.S. export business wherein the very questions we ask are colored by
Western assumptions and values which are then explored to other cultures. To be a global
science, we must acknowledge that the questions we ask are value-laden, and we must ensure
that the questions we ask to have global relevance. Second, a truly global organizational
psychology must articulate with precision the level at which culture operates. Yet the level at
which culture is de?ned varies widely across studies and levels of analysis confusion abounds
in the literature. We discuss a number of conceptualizations and measures of culture and
suggest the conditions under which each may be warranted. Third, a truly global organiz-
ational psychology must advance an understanding of when culture matters. Despite abundant
evidence that behavior in organizations is in?uenced by multiple contextual factors (e.g., the
work team, organization, industry), we have little understanding of how national culture and
non-cultural factors jointly in?uence behavior in organizations. We discuss several promising
models to guide such efforts. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
The ?eld of organizational psychology (as well as allied ?elds such as human resources management
and organizational behavior) has experienced a global paradigm shift of unprecedented proportions.
Starting in the 1970s, scholars began to question the exclusive reliance on Western theories and samples
to capture global organizational realities. In their Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology chapter, Barrett and Bass (1976) provided the ?eld with a wake-up call, arguing that
restricting the ?eld to Western cultural contexts ‘‘puts constraints upon both our theories and our
practical solutions to organizational problems’’ (p. 1675). Since then, theories on dimensions of
cultural variation have proliferated (Hofstede, 1980; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta,
2004; Leung et al., 2002; Schwartz, 1994), methodological pitfalls and prospects for cross-cultural
Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 493–517 (2008)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.530
* Correspondence to: Michele J. Gelfand, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, U.S.A.
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
research have been clearly articulated (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997), and the volume of cross-cultural
research across all areas of organizational psychology has increased exponentially.
This global paradigm shift is occurring at the micro level, with culture being infused into theories and
research on work motivation (Erez &Earley, 1993), job attitudes (Van de Vliert &Janssens, 2002), justice
(Brockner et al., 2001), and work performance (Farh, Earley, & Lin, 1997); at the meso level with
increased attention to cultural in?uences on leadership (House et al., 2004), con?ict (Tinsley, 1998),
negotiation (Gelfand & Brett, 2004), and teams (Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997); and at the macro level, with
increased attention to the effect of national culture on organizational culture (Brodbeck, Hanges,
Dickson, Gupta, & Dorfman, 2004), human resource management practices (Aycan, Kanungo, & Sinha,
1999), and international joint ventures (Isobe, Makino, &Montgomery, 2000). This shift is also evident in
a number of less obvious ways, including increased representation of Non-Western scholars on editorial
boards (Rynes, 2005), increases in cross-cultural journals (International Journal of Cross-Cultural
Management, Management and Organizational Review), and special issues devoted to cross-cultural
topics in top tier journals. Perhaps not surprisingly, many scholars have expressed unbridled optimism
about this global shift, referring to it as ‘‘a new era’’ (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007) and ‘‘the golden
age’’ for the study of culture in the organizational sciences (Kirkman & Law, 2005).
Despite this rapid progress, the ?eld of organizational psychology is still far from reaching its global
ideals. In this article, we discuss three ideals for cross-cultural organizational psychology (CCOP), our
current progress toward these ideals (or lack thereof), and potential solutions for breaking more global
ground. First, we argue that a truly global organizational science must incorporate global voices. Yet as
we discuss below, CCOP still remains a US export business insomuch as the questions we ask are
largely colored by Western assumptions and values which are then exported to other cultures. To be
a global science, CCOP must acknowledge that the questions asked are often value-laden, and we
must ensure that the questions we ask have global relevance. Second, a truly global organizational
science must articulate with precision the level at which culture operates. Yet, the level at which
culture is de?ned varies widely across studies and levels of analysis confusion abounds in the
literature. CCOP needs to articulate a precise and multifaceted view of the level of culture, and the
conditions under which different conceptualizations and measures are warranted. Third, a truly
global organizational psychology must advance an understanding of when culture matters.
Despite abundant evidence that behavior in organizations is in?uenced by multiple contextual
factors (e.g., the work team, organization, industry), we have little understanding of how national
culture interacts with other contextual factors to predict organizational phenomena. Instead, the
literature in CCOP tends to ignore these factors and presents a largely decontextualized view of
human behavior in organizations. Accordingly, CCOP must begin to model context into its theories in
order to understand how cultural and non-cultural factors simultaneously in?uence organizational
behavior phenomena. Although these need not be the only ideals for CCOP (see also Gelfand et al.,
2007; Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez, & Gibson, 2005), we argue that they re?ect fundamental (and
often implicit) neglected issues that if addressed will help organizational psychology truly reach its
global potential.
A Global Organizational Psychology Captures Global Voices:
Expanding the Questions Asked in Cross-Cultural
Organizational Psychology
How do organizational scholars come to decide what research questions do and do not need to be
asked? In their text, What to Sudy: Generating and Developing Research Questions, Campbell, Daft,
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 493–517 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
494 M. J. GELFAND ET AL.
and Hulin (1982) noted that the research questions we ask are not necessarily the ones that most need to
be asked. Rather, the questions scholars ask are based on a variety of factors (e.g., personal interest,
probability of publication, scholarly context) that do not necessarily re?ect the needs of the ?eld. In this
section, we draw inspiration from Campbell et al. to explore how one particular factor—the cultural
background of researchers—may lead to systematic disparities between what is asked and what needs
to be asked.
The idea that researchers’ backgrounds in?uence their work is not new. Indeed, philosophers of
science long have noted how social and historical contexts shape the research that scholars conduct.
Kuhn (1962), for instance, developed the paradigmatic model of scienti?c pursuit on the grounds that
science is not a linear, decontextualized progression of thought, but rather a shifting re?ection of social
and historical contexts. Under this more contextualized model, the values, moralities, and worldviews
of scholars shape the direction and nature of their research. To quote Lefkowitz (2003), it is possible to
come to the conclusion that, in fact, ‘‘all scienti?c research is often value-laden’’ (p. 211). Of course,
there are many aspects of researchers’ backgrounds that shape their scholarly paths. Culture, however,
is an especially potent factor to examine given that CCOP has developed within an almost entirely
monocultural context. For instance, among the 93 studies in Tsui, Nifadkar, and Ou’s (2007) recent
literature review of CCOP, a full 86 per cent of the studies’ ?rst authors are from Western countries.
Ten of the remaining 13 articles’ ?rst authors are from East Asia, leaving only three papers with ?rst
authors from Latin America, Africa, or the Middle East. Thus, even within a ?eld speci?cally
developed to combat the problems associated with Western hegemony, Western biases can still
exist.
Central to our argument is the idea that ‘‘modern science emerged within a particular sociohistorical
context [in which] the values of liberalism, individualism, capitalism, and male dominance were
primary’’ (Sampson, 1978, pp. 1334–1335). In other words, the social context within which
organizational psychology has developed is not agnostic, but laden with culture-speci?c sociopolitical
realities and values systems that in turn affect the questions scholars ask. If organizational psychology
as a ?eld seeks to become truly global, it must extricate itself from its Western roots and begin to ask
questions that re?ect the values, realities, and needs of the Nonwestern world.
In an effort to move toward a truly global organizational psychology, we describe three ways in
which Western values and socio-political realities may be affecting the scienti?c priorities in the ?eld of
CCOP. We ?rst discuss how the very questions asked in CCOP re?ect the Western assumption that
individuals are largely independent and have freedom of choice. We next turn to how the
postmaterialistic nature of Western society is re?ected in the questions asked in CCOP, with a priority
given to theories and research concerning self-actualization versus the ful?llment of basic needs. As
one more illustrative example of the way in which values affect scienti?c priorities in CCOP, we discuss
how the Western endorsement of a Protestant Relational Ideology (Sanchez-Burkes, 2005) and the
assumptions of highly distinct boundaries among spheres of life, leads to the neglect of research
questions that prioritize the overlap of family, friendship, and religion with organizational life as found
in Non-Western cultures. In all, in the tradition of Campbell et al. (1982), we hope that by
acknowledging that societal values, assumptions, and socio-political realities guide the questions we
ask, we can begin to expand the global relevance of our inquiries, and ask the ever-important question,
‘‘What questions should we be asking?’’
Research questions prioritize the cultural model of the independent self
Since the rise of Greek society, Western civilization has maintained a distinct culture of independence
and autonomy. The Greeks themselves displayed a strong sense of personal agency, and were ‘‘imbued
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 493–517 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
GLOBAL ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 495
with a sense of choice and an absence of social constraint that were unparalleled in the ancient world’’
(Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001, p. 292). Indeed, the history of Western civilization is rife
with assertions of independence, from the Protestant reformation’s ‘‘appeal to individualism’’
(Sampson, 1978, p. 1335) to the founding of the United States, with its distinct fondness for personal
freedom, autonomy, and individual rights (Tocqueville, 2003). The cultural model of the self—
reinforced through a variety of cultural institutions—dictates that it is a cultural imperative that
individuals de?ne their own internal attributes, become skilled in making choices for themselves, and
ful?ll their own needs and desires in the pursuit of happiness (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis,
1989).
In line with our thesis that cultural values in part dictate the questions that are prioritized in
organizational psychology, a perusal of the literature reveals that many questions asked re?ect the
cultural model of the independent self. The focus on the individual—and ways in which individuals
vary—is evident in the large research industry on individual differences. Nearly every research
program is examined through an individual differences perspective, including leadership (Zaccaro,
2007), performance (Judge, Thoresen, & Bono, 2001), job satisfaction (Judge, Heller & Mount, 2002),
aggression (Douglas & Martinko, 2001), organizational citizenship behaviors (Kamdar, McAllister, &
Turban, 2006), expatriation (Shaffer, Harrison, Gregersen, Black, & Ferzandi, 2006), and
entrepreneurship (Zhao & Seibert, 2006), among others. Put simply, research questions continue to
re?ect the prevailing concern with individual differences, driven in part by the assumption that
individual abilities and personality are primary causes of action.
Similarly, many research paradigms in organizational psychology have at their basis the idea that
people are free to choose what they do and when they do it. Theories of vocational choice presume that
individuals engage in a highly self-re?ective process, generally free from situational constraint
(Holland, 1959). Moreover, the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model similarly posits that
potential employees are attracted to a company and, since they are free to act as they wish, apply and
leave if they feel a lack of ?t (e.g., Schneider, 1987). This preoccupation with personal choice is
likewise re?ected in the Western conceptualization of PE ?t, which focuses on employees freely
choosing the best companies to work for and organizations freely choosing the best employees (e.g.,
Judge & Ostroff, 2007).
Finally, many models and research questions in organizational psychology assume that people will
use those freedoms to ful?ll their own personal needs in the pursuit of happiness. In other words, they
assume that people will inevitably ask the question, ‘‘What’s in it for me?’’ VIE theory and equity
theory, for instance, both highlight the Western assumption of and preoccupation with personal need
ful?llment. With VIE theory, it is assumed that employees are focused on what’s best for themselves,
and that employees will therefore work hard only if they think such work will lead them to more pay,
happiness, and other favorable individual outcomes (Vroom, 1964). Similarly, equity theory supposes
that people expect to receive personal rewards that are commensurate with their inputs (Adams, 1965).
The Western preoccupation with job satisfaction, referred to as ‘‘one of the best researched concepts in
work and organizational psychology,’’ provides further evidence that the pursuit of happiness is a
central research concern in the ?eld (Dormann & Zapf, 2001, p. 483). In all, the underlying assumption
is that people both have personal desires and are prone to use rational thought to obtain them,
as a means to ultimately increase their happiness. It is interesting to note that such self-
focused orientations appear not only to be assumed, but also to be value-laden, insomuch as people who
do not care about their personal wants and needs might be perceived as either unmotivated or
conformist.
These questions and traditions, which re?ect the cultural model of the independent self, however,
may not be as relevant in other cultural contexts where models of interdependence are more
predominant. The cultural model of interdependence has an entirely different cultural mandate, namely
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 493–517 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
496 M. J. GELFAND ET AL.
that individuals are highly attentive to situational contexts and adjust their behavior to ?t their
surroundings, are motivated by the choices and opinions of others, and that duties and ful?lling
obligations are more important than individual choice and rights. Chinese culture, for instance, is
rooted in a strong history of group cooperation and harmony, wherein ‘‘the behavior of the individual
should be guided by the expectations of the group’’ (Nisbett et al., 2001, p. 292). For example, East
Asian children are strongly motivated by their parents’ opinions (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999). In the
Middle East and Africa, family, friends, and social expectations are likely to exert much more of a
powerful in?uence on employees as compared to Western contexts (e.g., Budhwar & Mellahi,
2006; Kamoche, Nyambegera, & Mulinge, 2004). Accordingly, research questions that re?ect these
realities are likely to differ from what is prioritized in Western contexts. For example, rather
than developing taxonomies of individual differences, research might ask the question, ‘‘What
are the dimensions of situations and contexts to which individuals must adapt?’’ Instead of a ?ve-
factor model of personality, a global organizational science might prioritize the development of a
?ve-factor model of situations or relationships. Likewise, whereas Western scholars are likely to
assume free choice, new paradigms might be developed that focus on contextual choice. Under a
paradigm of contextual choice, researchers might study how managers’ expectations affect employees’
decisions, how family perceptions of an employee’s job in?uence turnover decisions, how a
leader’s guanxi network affects follower attitudes, or how employees adjust to (rather than ?t with) an
organizational environment. Finally, instead of a focus on personal need ful?llment, questions and
paradigms might be developed regarding relational need ful?llment. Kim (1999) notes, for instance,
how indigenous Korean constructs such as Kye involve a strong focus on helping other people
achieve their goals and needs. Gupta (1999) similarly discusses Indians’ orientation toward the needs of
their families and castes. Thus, instead of studying personal satisfaction, new paradigms might be
developed to understand how the satisfaction of others (e.g., spouses, leaders, co-workers) serves as a
motivator of employees’ behavior. In all, given that extant cultural values and worldviews in?uence the
questions asked and paradigms developed, it is especially critical in CCOP to ask new questions rather
than export the questions that are tightly aligned with Western values and assumptions.
Research questions assume a postmaterialist worldview
Modern organizational psychology science has developed not only within a context of independence
and autonomy, but also within a context of wealth, industrialization, and social tranquility. Whereas a
signi?cant portion of the global community lives with the daily realities of poverty, con?ict, and
corruption, the world’s population of scientists and scholars is more shielded, generally living in only
the most wealthy and con?ict-free environments. As noted by Nobel Laureate Ahmed Zewail (2004),
‘‘70–80 per cent of the world’s population living largely in developing countries [has] contributed less
than 7 per cent of. . . [recent] scienti?c articles’’ (p. 1). We refer to the wealthy and industrialized
context of Western science as ‘‘postmaterialism,’’ a term derived from Inglehart’s (2000) discussion of
materialist versus postmaterialist values. Whereas materialist values emphasize ‘‘economic and
physical security,’’ postmaterialist values emphasize ‘‘self-expression, subjective well-being, and
quality of life’’ (p. 84).
There is little doubt that even the ?eld of CCOP, which seeks to capture global realities, is primarily
based within postmaterialist settings. We did a statistical analysis of Tsui et al.’s (2007) report of
authors of CCOP studies against the Human Development Index (HDI), which rank-orders nations in
an aggregate index of life expectancy, GDP, and literacy rates (Human Development Index rankings,
2008). Remarkably, a full 100 per cent of the 69 unique ?rst authors from Tsui et al. (2007) are from
countries characterized by the HDI as having ‘‘high human development.’’ Further, the number of
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 29, 493–517 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/job
GLOBAL ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 497
authored articles per country is signi?cantly correlated with HDI rankings at p