Le ModeÁ le de Culture Fit explique la manieÁ re dont l'environnement socioculturel influence la culture interne au travail et les pratiques de la direction des ressources humaines. Ce modeÁ le a e te teste sur 2003 salarie s d'entreprises prive es dans 10 pays. Les participants ont rempli un questionnaire de 57 items, destine aÁ mesurer les perceptions de la direction sur 4 dimensions socioculturelles, 6 dimensions de culture interne au travail, et les pratiques HRM (Management des Ressources Humaines) dans 3 zones territoiriales. Une analyse ponde re e par re gressions multiples, au niveau individuel, a montre que les directeurs qui caracte risaient leurs environnement socio-culturel de facË on fataliste, supposaient aussi que les employe s n'e taient pas malle ables par nature. Ces directeurs ne pratiquaient pas l'enrichissement des postes et donnaient tout pouvoir au controà le et aÁ la re mune ration en fonction des performances. Les directeurs qui appre ciaient une grande loyaute des employe s supposaient qu'ils remplissent entre eux des obligations re ciproques et s'engagaient dans la voie donnant pouvoir aux pratiques HRM. Les directeurs qui percevaient le paternalisme et une forte distance de l'autorite dans leur environnement socio-culturel, supposaient une re activite des employe s, et en outre ne pourvoyaient pas aÁ l'enrichissement des postes et aÁ la de le gation. Des modeÁ les spe cifiques aÁ la culture qui mettent en relation ces 3 groupes de variables ainsi que les applications de ces recherches pour la psychologie industrielles trans-culturellesont e te de battus.The Model of Culture Fit explains the way in which socio-cultural environment influences internal work culture and human resource management practices. This model was tested using 1,954 employees from business organisations in 10 countries. Participants completed a 57-item questionnaire which measured managerial perceptions of four socio-cultural dimensions, six internal work culture dimensions and HRM practices in three areas. Moderated multiple regressions at the individual level analysis revealed that managers who characterised their socio-cultural environment as fatalistic also assumed that employees, by nature, were not malleable. These managers did not administer job enrichment, empowering supervision, and performance± reward contingency. Managers who valued high loyalty assumed that employees should fulfil obligations to one another, and engaged in empowering HR practices. Managers who perceived paternalism and high power distance in their socio-cultural environment assumed employee reactivity, and furthermore, did not provide job enrichment and empowerment. Culturespecific patterns of relationships among the three sets of variables, as well as implications of this research for cross-cultural industrial/organisational psychology, are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

Post-retirement employment has become an increasingly important form of labor force participation for both retirees and employers in the last decade. In order to understand post-retirement employment decision-making, the current study investigates the meaning of work and its relationship to post-retirement employment. Based on previous research, we examined four dimensions of the meaning of work (i.e., social, personal, financial, and generative meaning of work) relevant to predicting post-retirement employment. Population-representative data from the German Transitions and Old Age Potential study (N = 2,149) were used to test the hypotheses. The results from binary logistic regression analysis indicated that the social and personal meanings of work were positively related to the likelihood to engage in post-retirement employment. Further, subjective economic status was found to moderate the relationship between the financial meaning of work and post-retirement employment. Exploratory analysis was conducted for post-retirement civil engagement and post-retirement family care in order to understand the broader role of the generative meaning of work. The findings of the present study extend previous research on late career decisions. The implications of these findings are discussed in terms of theoretical development and individual and organizational practices.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate whether perceptions of distributive, procedural and interactional justice can explain the frequently reported low organizational commitment of managers in corporate mergers. Specifically, it aims to examine whether each of the justice dimensions is significantly and uniquely related to affective commitment, which of the justice dimensions has the strongest relationship with the criterion, and whether instrumental evaluations or trust might function as a mediator.Design/methodology/approachA total of 128 managers from 37 companies completed a questionnaire. They had been involved in domestic or European mergers or acquisitions, which varied in the application of fairness rules.FindingsAlthough each fairness dimension correlated positively with affective commitment, only interactional justice showed a unique relationship with it. Results indicate that both instrumental evaluations and trust can function as a mediator.Research limitations/implicationsBecause of the cross‐sectional design, conclusions about the causal order of the variables cannot be drawn.Practical implicationsThe authors recommend that top managers should pay extra attention to timely, candid and specific internal communication with thorough and reasonable explanation of decisions, as well as the respectful treatment of managers. Moreover, the results indicate that managers reacted positively to fairness because it conveys positive relational signals, and because one can gain personal advantages through fair outcomes and processes.Originality/valueThe organizational justice approach has not yet been applied, to the authors' knowledge, in quantitative field studies of mergers. Furthermore, this paper offers a contribution to the literature on fairness heuristic theory.