Asociaciones de Cultura y Personalidad Con Motivos de Mcclelland

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

35(3) 329367
The Author(s) 2010
DOI: 10.1177/1059601110370782
http://gom.sagepub.com
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.
1
Maastricht University School of Business and Economics, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA
3
Hay Group B.V., Zeist, The Netherlands
2
Corresponding Author:
Hetty van Emmerik, Maastricht University School of Business and Economics, Department of
Organization and Strategy, Tongersestraat 53, 6211 LM Maastricht, The Netherlands
Email: H.vanEmmerik@MaastrichtUniversity.nl
Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at Maastricht University on August 24, 2010
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 circumstances motives develop and are nurtured across cultures and become
salient with organizations and teams (Erez, 2008; Erez & Gati, 2004). Furthermore, cross-cultural adjustment (Templer, Tay, & Chandrasekar, 2006)
of employees in the global context may depend on the match between specific 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 constructs such as national culture as explored in this study is provided by Erez
and Gatis (2004) dynamic, multilevel model of culture. Erez and Gatis multilevel 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 provided 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 fundamental 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 biologically 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 important 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 transcultural research, he presents extensive empirical evidence that the basic FFM
factor structure has been repeatedly replicated across cultures, thereby demonstrating universality. Nevertheless, the consistency in the underlying structure of traits makes it possible to conduct intercultural research to explore
differences in the mean levels of traits. Thus, this line of reasoning and empirical 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
332
Apperception Test (TAT; Hay Group, 2003; McClelland, 1961, 1985; Spangler,
1992; Tuerlinckx, De Boeck, & Lens, 2002; Vane, 1981). This test, developed 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 cultural dimensions, aggregate personality, and acquired motives by formulating hypotheses. Finally, we conclude with a discussion and suggestions for
further research.
Theoretical Foundations: Acquired Motives,

Culture, and Societal Level Personality
McClellands 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 measure 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 provides a more comprehensive assessment of the cross-cultural manifestation
van Emmerik et al.
333
of the motives by exploring their relationships to societal level cultural dimensions and personality using a sample of 24 countries.
Relationships of Acquired Motives With Societal

Level Culture and Personality
It is important to stress that McClellands motives are based on the conceptualization 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, organizational, and the team levels). This study will focus on societal culture. We
use the definition of culture advanced by the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) research program (House &
Javidan, 2004): the shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and interpretations 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, involving 116,000 questionnaires of industrial employees in 50 countries, distinguished 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 Orientation, Humane Orientation, and Power Distance dimensions because they
334
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 associated with being sociable, gregarious, assertive, talkative, and active. Agreeableness is associated with being courteous, flexible, trusting, good-natured,
cooperative, forgiving, soft-hearted, and tolerant. Conscientiousness incorporates 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 consensus 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 universality 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 personality 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
van Emmerik et al.
335
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 demonstrate 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).
Hypotheses
To examine the relationships between McClellands motives, cultural dimensions, and personality factors, we will elaborate on the development of three
sets of matching hypotheses.
Matching Hypotheses Linking Motives and Culture

The first three hypotheses are based on an expected relationship between
McClellands three motives and the specific cultural dimension that conceptually 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 personal accomplishment. As McClelland (1965) argues, the manager scoring
high on the Achievement Motive is more self-confident, enjoys taking carefully calculated risks, researches his or her environment, and actively pursuing activities that involve initiating structure. Consistent with McClellands
predictions, extensive empirical evidence has demonstrated that the Achievement Motive is positively related to employee and managerial job performance (Amyx & Alford, 2005; Baruch, OCreevy, Hind, & Vigoda-Gadot,
2004; Shantz & Latham, 2009), organizational commitment and entrepreneurial 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
336
findings provide empirical support for the notion that a drive to achieve produces 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. Furthermore, 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 Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, in which Weber argues thatin contrast to the focus of Catholicism on good worksthe Protestant idea of
work as a calling produced higher levels of achievement. Striving and economic 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 conceptualize 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 significant relationships between these measures were identified, and the relationship 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 analyzing 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 underlying assumption that this projective measure reflects societal-level motives.
van Emmerik et al.
337
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 multilevel 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 posited to shape the achievement needs of its members. Accordingly, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 1: The relationship between the cultural dimension, Performance 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 Affiliation 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. Moreover, as Kabasakal and Bodur (2004) note, in high Humane Orientation societies, the need for belongingness and affiliation, rather than self-fulfillment,
338
pleasure, material possessions, and power, are likely to be the dominant motivating 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 cultures 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. Specifically, 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, individual 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 desirable; 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.
van Emmerik et al.
339
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 factors) is expected to have a positive relationship with the Achievement Motive.
Because Extraversion is described as the extent to which people are assertive, 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 assertiveness 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 achievement, 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, Extraversion and Openness to Experiences appeared to be related to achievementoriented positions such as sales and managerial jobs. Agreeableness was more
strongly related to the interpersonal facilitation component of contextual performance than to achievement-oriented task performance, suggesting a negative 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 Conscientiousness were positively related to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation 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 motivation. Finally, the anxiety and insecurity embodied by Neuroticism appears to
be inconsistent with Achievement Motives (Zhao & Seibert, 2006), suggesting 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 Schmeck (2009), who explore the relationships between the Five Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992b) and intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation,
340
and motivation in educational settings as measured by the Academic Motivation Scale (Vallerand et al., 1992). Their findings revealed that Extraversion
and Conscientiousness correlated significantly with both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and that together they accounted for 13% of the variance in
extrinsic motivation. In addition, Openness to Experience correlates significantly with intrinsic motivation, and Conscientiousness and Openness combine 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 tendermindedness, 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 significant 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 harmonizer, and (3) need to relate closely from the scales of the Personality and
Preference InventoryNormative (PAPI-N; Cubiks, 1996) correlate
van Emmerik et al.
341
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 NEOFFI, and positively with Extraversion. Overall, the available theory and
empirical research suggest the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6: The relationship between the Power Motive and Extraversion, 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 Culture

Finally, we formulate three moderating hypotheses based on the expectation
that motives that are consistent with cultural values will be more acceptable
342
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 aggregations 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 following 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 relationship will be stronger than in cultures scoring low on Performance
Orientation.
Hypothesis 8: The cultural dimension, Humane Orientation, will moderate 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 relationship than in cultures scoring low on Power Distance.
Method
Sample
This study employs a database developed by a worldwide operating consulting 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 conducted as part of the assessment of the management training programs within
each of the organizations. This guaranteed a response rate of approximately
van Emmerik et al.
343
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 selection of data for 17,358 managers in 24 countries, including 35% women
and 65% men.
Measures
McClellands 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 individual 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 pictures 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
dually 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, Affiliation, 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 Openness. 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
344
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 values 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, sensitive, 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).
Analysis
To test our hypotheses, multilevel analyses are most appropriate given the
two levels of analysis (Han & Williams, 2009): the individual level for managers 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.
Results
Table 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 Affiliation 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 correlations 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
Mean
SD
10
11
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Individual level
1. Gender 0.35 0.48
2. Achievement Motive 1.73 0.85 .02**
3. Affiliation Motive 1.29 0.60 .02* .16**
4. Power Motive 1.03 0.74 .00
.03** -.05**
Country level

5. Performance Orientation 4.24 0.24
6. Humane Orientation 4.08 0.26 .65**
7. Power Distance 4.29 0.30 .49* .36
8. Extraversion
48.72 1.78 .06
.09 .14
9. Agreeableness
47.02 2.66 -.32
-.13 -.20
.35
10. Conscientiousness
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**
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Individual-Level (N = 17,358 Managers) and
Country-Level Variables (N = 24 Countries)
346
Table 2. Mean Scores on Achievement, Affiliation, and Power Motive by Country

(17,358 Managers in 24 Countries)

Achievement
Motive
Affiliation
Motive
Country
Mean
SD
Mean
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Canada
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong
India
Indonesia
Italy
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico
Netherlands
Nordic countries
Philippines
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Taiwan
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Total
1.57
1.78
1.64
1.60
1.79
1.69
2.14
1.54
1.74
1.70
1.85
1.94
1.78
1.52
1.78
1.45
1.75
1.85
2.07
1.47
1.56
1.64
1.77
1.74
1.73
0.57
0.89
0.78
0.80
0.65
0.76
0.78
0.88
0.78
0.75
0.79
0.80
0.89
0.84
0.76
0.62
0.82
0.81
0.75
0.84
0.89
0.80
0.85
0.84
0.85
1.49
1.32
1.23
1.14
1.28
1.15
1.38
1.20
1.37
1.13
1.36
1.40
1.26
1.21
1.23
1.28
1.83
1.21
1.55
1.30
1.54
1.24
1.28
1.29
1.29
SD
Power Motive
Mean
0.52
1.07
0.62
1.07
0.58
1.09
0.56 .87
0.60
1.24
0.55
1.23
0.58
1.06
0.62
1.05
0.66
1.08
0.52
1.06
0.50 .98
0.58
1.19
0.57
1.00
0.56 .84
0.55
1.14
0.60
1.17
0.36
1.42
0.54
1.28
0.53
1.25
0.59 .82
0.54 .96
0.61 .74
0.61
1.11
0.59
1.02
0.60
1.03
SD
0.60
0.73
0.79
0.71
0.69
0.72
0.69
0.79
0.78
0.75
0.63
0.71
0.69
0.71
0.67
0.74
0.67
0.98
0.60
0.70
0.76
0.57
0.75
0.75
0.74
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 multicollinearity. 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).
347
van Emmerik et al.
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
SE
Step 2
g
Step 3
SE
Gender
.021** .008
.023** .008
Performance Orientation (PO) .073* .036
.018
.041
Extraversion
.004
.007
Agreeableness
.040** .007
Conscientiousness
-.038** .004
Neuroticism
.008
.005
Openness
-.011** .003
PO Extraversion
PO Agreeableness
PO Conscientiousness
PO Neuroticism
PO Openness
Log restricted-likelihood
-12920.722
-129230.653
11.05**
51.40**
Wald c2
SE
.023** .008
.175** .060
.042** .010
.052** .008
-.034** .006
.015** .005
-.008** .003
.155** .039
.051
.029
-.081** .024
-.021
.029
-.108** .027
-12917.003
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.
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 support 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 relationship 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 Motives
From Table 3, Step 2, Agreeableness is positively related to the Achievement
Motive (g = .04, p < .01), and Conscientiousness (g = -.04, p < .01) and
348
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)

Step 1
g
SE
Step 2
g
Step 3
SE
Gender
.012*
.060 .014*
.006
Humane Orientation (HO) .122** .028 .124** .030
Extraversion
.002
.005
Agreeableness
.014** .005
Conscientiousness
-.006
.003
Neuroticism
.016** .004
Openness
.003
.002
HO Extraversion
HO Agreeableness
HO Conscientiousness
HO Neuroticism
HO Openness
-6766.81
-6779.27
24.32**
49.31**
Wald c2
SE
.014*
.006
.171** .034
.015*
.006
.021** .005
-.012** .004
.022** .004
.089
.002
.054** .022
.032** .024
.063
.018
-.069*
.025
.766
.023
-6780.94
75.88**
*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 Affiliation 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 Culture
Table 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.
349
van Emmerik et al.
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)

Step 1
g
SE
Step 2
g
Step 3
SE
Gender
-.006 .007 -.006
.007
Power Distance (PD)
-.043 .032 -.081*
.036
Extraversion
-.017** .006
Agreeableness
.010
.006
Conscientiousness
-.002
.004
Neuroticism
-.003
.005
Openness
-.013** .003
PD Extraversion
PD Agreeableness
PD Conscientiousness
PD Neuroticism
PD Openness
-10627.32
-10629.99
2.48
44.70**
Wald c2
SE
-.006
.007
-.237**
.078
.020*
.009
.028**
.007
-.020**
.005
.006
.050
-.014**
.030
-.171**
.044
-.107**
.036
.062*
.030
-.044
.041
.046
.031
-10625.80
80.39**
*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 relationship 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 Achievement 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 Achievement 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
350
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
van Emmerik et al.
351
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 culture 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 Agreeableness 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 Achievement Motive, as posited by Hypothesis 5. However, for low
Humane Orientation societies, Neuroticism is positively related to the Achievement 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 Figure 3) indicate that, consistent with expectations, the relationship of Extraversion, 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 interaction 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 Extraversion 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.
Discussion
The 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
352
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
van Emmerik et al.
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
353
354
motive relationships. We summarize the findings obtained for each of our

three sets of hypotheses below.
Culture and Acquired Motives

With 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, suggesting that the posited relationship may be more complicated than it initially
appears. The results of the current study suggest that societies with a relatively 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 occupants 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
van Emmerik et al.
355
necessarily rely on the organizational hierarchy, as used in high Power Distance cultures, to do so.
Societal-Level Personality and Acquired Motives

Our 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 Achievement 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 Experience. For Hypothesis 5, only the predicted positive relationship of the Affiliation
Motive and Agreeableness was obtained. Contrary to expectations, Neuroticism was also positively related the Affiliation Motive, whereas the remaining
Big Five factors were unrelated. The point of departure for the posited relationships between country level scores on the Big Five and acquired motives
was that people within certain cultures possess more or less dispositional differences, 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 moderating effects of culture must be taken into consideration when examining
these relationships.
The Moderating Effects of Culture

Consistent 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 Experience emerged for low Performance Orientation cultures only; these personality
factors were unrelated to Achievement Motives in high Performance Orientation 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 supported) 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
356
judgmental and discomforting; emphasize seniority and control; and associate competition with defeat and punishment (Javidan, 2004; Tjsovold & Yu,
2007). Given these values, perhaps it is not surprising that, within such cultures, relatively high levels of conscientiousness among members are related
to lower levels of Achievement Motives. Indeed, to be conscientious in abiding 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 Performance Orientation cultures).
The results obtained for Hypothesis 8 offer further support for this interpretation, 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 predicted that the relationship between societal level personality and the Affiliation 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 cultures. 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
van Emmerik et al.
357
opposed to low Power Distance cultures. The results supported this prediction, 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 personality 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 Conscientiousness 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 Extraversion 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 experience 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 (positive), Agreeableness (positive), and Neuroticism (negative) and the Affiliation 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,
358
Humane Orientation, and Power Distance dimensions, we were able to identify 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.
Limitations
It 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 culturally 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 constraints 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 demographic 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 organizations and respondents are clients of the consultant firm that collected the
data, they tend to have either an international or Western orientation. Potentially, 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
van Emmerik et al.
359
Sternberg and Grigorenko (2006, p. 37) argue, people from Western countries 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 important 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.
Conclusions
Today, 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 organization 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 personnel 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 particularly 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, personality and personal motives are increasingly used to predict job performance,
but they may also be applied in assessments about whether candidates will fit
360
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 influence 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 interactive effects of individual (e.g., acquired motives) and societal-level (e.g., cultural 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 attribute. 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.
van Emmerik et al.
361
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 behavior 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 description. 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 organizations: 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 satisfactory 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 motivation: The development of a comprehensive measure. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 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.
362
Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in
personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality 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 interpersonal 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 performance: Individual and team-level relationships. Group & Organization Management, 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 workrelated values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, 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.
van Emmerik et al.
363
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 organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 3-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
House, R. J., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures 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 analysis and other multivariable methods. Boston, MA: PWS-KENT.
Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., & Schmeck, R. R. (2009). Role of Big Five personality 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). Culture 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 Business Review, 43(6), 6-25.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
364
McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and longterm 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 comparisons. Journal of Personality, 69, 819-846.
McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R data from 36 countries: Further intercultural comparisons. 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 universal. 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 FiveFactor Model of personality traits. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 1. Personality 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 corporation: Studying knowledge
transfer across international boundaries. Group & Organization Management, 34,
90-113.
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson &
N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional
psychology (pp. 333-352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Exploration in personality. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Nell, V., & Strumpfer, D. J. W. (1978). The power motive, power, and fear of weakness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42, 56-62.
van Emmerik et al.
365
Ng, T., & Sorenson, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships
between perceptions and support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group &
Organization Management, 33, 243-268.
Pang, J. S., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2005). Assessing implicit motives in U.S. college
students: Effects of picture type and position, gender and ethnicity, and crosscultural comparisons. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 280-294.
Park, Y.-K., Lee, C.-I., & Kabst, R. (2008). Human needs as predictors of organizational commitment and job involvement: An exploratory study. Management
Revue, 19, 229-246.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2002). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and
whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Pillai, R., Williams, E. A., Lowe, K. B., & Jung, D. I. (2003). Personality, transformational leadership, trust, and the 2000 U.S. Presidential vote. Leadership Quarterly,
14, 161-192.
Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Lets put the person back into entrepreneurship
research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 353-385.
Rubin, J. (1963). Review of The Achieving Society. Journal of Economic History, 23,
118-121.
Saad, S., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). Investigating differential prediction by gender in
employment-oriented personality measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
667-674.
Sagie, A., Elizur, D., & Yamauchi, H. (1996). The structure and strength of achievement motivation: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 431-444.
Salili, F. (1996). Achievement motivation: A cross-cultural comparison of British and
Chinese students. Educational Psychology, 16, 271-279.
Sanz, J., Gil, F., Garcia-Vera, M. P., & Barrasa, A. (2008). Needs and cognition/
behavior patterns at work and the Big Five: An assessment of the Personality
and Preference Inventory-Normative (PAPI-N) from the perspective of the FiveFactor Model. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 46-58.
Schmidt, L., & Frieze, I. H. (1997). A mediational model of power, affiliation and
achievement motives and product involvement. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11, 425-446.
Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of
human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 173-212.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.
366
Schriesheim, C. A., Cogliser, C. C., & Neider, L. L. (1995). Is it trustworthy? A

multiple-levels-of-analysis reexamination of an Ohio State leadership study, with
implications for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 111-145.
Schultheiss, O. C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2001). Assessment of implicit motives with a
research version of the TAT: Picture profiles, gender differences, and relations to
other personality measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, 71-86.
Scott, B. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2007). Are organizational justice effects bounded by
individual differences? An examination of equity sensitivity, exchange ideology,
and the Big Five. Group & Organizational Management, 32, 290-325.
Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human
Resource Management Review, 13, 257-279.
Shantz, A., & Latham, G. P. (2009). An exploratory field experiment of the effect
of subconscious and conscious goals on employee performance. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 9-17.
Sivakumar, K., & Nakata, C. (2001). The stampede toward Hofstedes framework:
Avoiding the sample design pit in cross-cultural research. Journal of International
Business Studies, 32, 555-573.
Slangen, A. H. L. (2006). National cultural distance and initial foreign acquisition
performance: The moderating effect of integration. Journal of World Business,
41, 161-170.
Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for
achievement: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 140-154.
Spangler, W. D., & House, R. J. (1991). Presidential effectiveness and the leadership
motive profile. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 439-455.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2006). Cultural Intelligence and successful
intelligence. Group & Organization Management, 31, 27-39.
Sturges, J., Conway, N., & Liefooghe, A. (2010). Organizational support, individual
attributes, and the practice of career self-management behavior. Group & Organization Management, 35, 108-141.
Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2006). Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic job preview, realistic living conditions preview, and cross-cultural
adjustment. Group & Organization Management, 31, 154-173.
Thomas, J. L., Dickson, M. W., & Bliese, P. D. (2001). Values predicting leader
performance in the U.S. Army Reserve Officer Training Corps Assessment Center:
evidence for a personality-mediated model. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 181-196.
Tjsovold, D., & Yu, Z. (2007). Group risk taking: The constructive role of controversy in China. Group & Organization Management, 32, 653-674.
Tuerlinckx, F., De Boeck, P., & Lens, W. (2002). Measuring needs with the Thematic
Apperception Test: A psychometric study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 448-461.
van Emmerik et al.
367
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., &
Vallieres, E. F. (1992). The Academic Motivation Scale: A measure of intrinsic,
extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Education and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003-1017.
Vane, J. R. (1981). The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT): A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 1, 319-336.
Weber, M. (1998). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (S. Kalberg,
Trans., 2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. (Original work published 1904)
Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. New York, NY: Free Press.
Winter, D. G., John, O. P., Stewart, A. J., & Klohnen, E. C. (1998). Traits and
motives: Toward an integration of two traditions in personality research. Psychological Review, 105, 230-250.
Zaidman, N., & Brock, D. M. (2009). Knowledge transfer within multinationals and
their foreign subsidiaries: A context-culture approach. Group & Organization
Management, 34, 297-329.
Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
259-271.
Bios
Hetty van Emmerik, Maastricht University School of Business and Economics,
Maastricht, The Netherlands. Research interests include organizational behavior and
(Strategic) HRM issues, e.g., social relationships within organizations (e.g., leadership and working within teams, mentoring, networking, social support issues) and the
association with various career outcomes at the team and individual level (e.g., team
satisfaction, commitment, burnout, and work engagement).
William L. Gardner, Texas Tech University, USA. DBA, Florida State University.
Current research interests include leadership, impression management, emotional
labor, causal attributions, ethical decision-making, and organizational recruitment
and socialization processes.
Dawn Fischer is a Research Assistant in the Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech
University. Her research interests encompass the areas of leadership and accounting,
with a special focus on taxation and cross cultural issues related to accounting.
Hein Wendt is consultant and researcher for Hay Group, The Netherlands, and works
mainly for clients in Europe and The Middle East.

Asociaciones de Cultura y Personalidad Con Motivos de Mcclelland

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Asociaciones de Cultura y Personalidad Con Motivos de Mcclelland

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Associations

Group & Organization Management

Hetty van Emmerik1, William L. Gardner2,

Maastricht University School of Business and Economics, Maastricht, The Netherlands

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

Group & Organization Management 35(3)

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

van Emmerik et al.

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

Group & Organization Management 35(3)

Theoretical Foundations: Acquired Motives,

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

van Emmerik et al.

Relationships of Acquired Motives With Societal

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

Group & Organization Management 35(3)

are especially relevant to McClellands Achievement, Affiliation, and Power

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

van Emmerik et al.

Matching Hypotheses Linking Motives and Culture

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

Group & Organization Management 35(3)

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

van Emmerik et al.

Furthermore, in a reestimation of McClellands (1961) fundamental thesis that

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

Group & Organization Management 35(3)

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

van Emmerik et al.

Matching Hypotheses Linking Aggregate

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

Group & Organization Management 35(3)

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

van Emmerik et al.

Hypotheses Concerning the Moderating Role of Culture

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

Group & Organization Management 35(3)

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

van Emmerik et al.

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

Group & Organization Management 35(3)

for cross-language and cross-cultural research. A detailed description of these

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

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

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

Group & Organization Management 35(3)

Table 2. Mean Scores on Achievement, Affiliation, and Power Motive by Country

multicollinearity. Multicollinearity was checked by inspecting variance

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

van Emmerik et al.

Table 3. Results of Mixed-Effects Restricted Maximum Likelihood Regression for

Testing the Matching Hypotheses

Testing the Matching Hypotheses Linking

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

Group & Organization Management 35(3)

Table 4. Results of Mixed-Effects Restricted Maximum Likelihood Regression

Openness to Experience (g = -.01, p < .01) are negatively related. Because

Testing the Hypotheses Concerning

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

van Emmerik et al.

Table 5. Results of Mixed-Effects Restricted Maximum Likelihood Regression for

The simple regression lines of the first interaction in Figure 1, Panel A

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

Group & Organization Management 35(3)