Socio-cultural dimensions, employee-related assumptions and HRM practices-a multivariate model in a cross-national setting

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to present in what way socio-cultural dimensions and employee-related assumptions are related to human resource management (HRM) practices in different areas, as Scandinavia and Greece. These locations were selected as they belong to two distinct cultural clusters, thus making cultural differences more apparent. Interestingly, not much research has compared these specific countries, making it worthwhile to explore the differences or similarities that may exist. Specifically, different environmental forces such as national and organizational cultures are analyzed in depth in order to provide comprehensive insights on their impact on human resource management practices in these different countries. Influenced by the theoretical model of Aycan and Kanungo, we develop and test hypotheses that indicate how several socio-cultural dimensions and employee-related assumptions relate to human resource management practices. SPSS was used to test our hypotheses. Some of our preliminary results reveal that characteristics of national culture such as paternalism, power distance, fatalism, loyalty towards community are linked with organizational culture characteristics, such as participation, responsibility seeking, proactivity and obligation to others. Awareness of these links could enable firms to create or improve some HRM practices based on these elements and give motives to enhance employees’ performance.

Keywords:

• HRM Practices
• International HRM
• National Culture
• Organizational Culture

1. Introduction

National culture, among other factors, influences the HRM practices that a firm uses. Specifically, cultural values and norms shape managerial choices and decisions across national contexts. Multinational companies face the tension to adopt those HRM practices that include characteristics of global integration and local differentiation at the same time. This is because every country is characterized by particular culture since history, norms and customs, social environment, political environment, legislative frames are different. Therefore, companies that operate in different countries face divergent impacts. National culture influences organizational culture and the different HRM practices that should be used in order to be effective. Especially in some areas such as recruitment and selection, performance appraisal, human resource and career planning, job analysis, training and development, compensation and reward management (Chacko & Conway, 2019;Stavrou et al., 2010).

In particular, some practices may be considered appropriate in one culture, but may be less appropriate in another culture (Mayrhofer et al., 2019;P. Gooderham et al., 2008;Stavrou et al., 2010). For instance, the HRM practices of recruitment and selection exist in all firms but the strategy that each company uses, differs across cultures (Scheinder, 1988;Jackson & Schuler, 1995;Stahl et al., 2020). Thus, cultures which are characterized by high uncertainty avoidance tend to use more types of selection tests, conduct more interviews, examine the process in detail and prefer to collect objective data to end to the final decision (Ryan et al., 1999). Whereas HRM practices of benefits and compensation are influenced by different cultures, too. In high power distance cultures, payment systems are influenced by subjective decisions from top management and focus on the person rather than the job itself (Aycan, 2005). Additionally, the process of evaluating employees’ performance is influenced by different cultures and adapted, respectively. In fatalistic cultures, individuals perceive work outcomes to be beyond their influence, tend to accept performance below expectations, as long as the focal individual displays effort and willingness (Aycan, 2005;Minkov, 2018).

Consequently, managers should implement different HRM practices to fit into the specific culture of the organization (P. N. Gooderham et al., 2019). In case that organizational culture embraces improvements of employees’ skills and abilities, then HRM practices will stress job enrichment and performance reward. In different cases, where organizational culture enhances strict supervision rather than discretion and autonomy, HRM practices will be less related to job empowerment and job enrichment (Schuler, 1998; Stavrou and Brewster, 2005;Chacko & Conway, 2019).

Thus, this study examines to what extent national and organizational cultures affect HRM practices in Scandinavia and Greece. Most importantly, these differences are examined under the light of different environmental forces, such as national and organizational cultures, which are analyzed in depth. Moreover, it gives us comprehensive insights on their impact on HRM practices in different areas. Aiming to understand and analyze the deeper reasons of these differences and these relationships, we draw on a research model, which is influenced by the cultural model fit ofAycan et al. (2000). It examines these links among these variables. We develop and test the relative hypotheses.

Results are interesting as there is not much research comparing these specific areas (Goergen et al., 2009;Minkov, 2018). Also, it must be mentioned that this is the first attempt to apply and test this particular model in these contexts. Moreover, past research comparing these countries was scare (Minkov, 2018;Stavrou et al., 2010).

The setting of Greece and Scandinavia is deemed appropriate, as these countries belong to two distinct cultural clusters. Thus, cultural differences could become more apparent (Stavrou et al., 2010). Scandinavia is considered to maintain one of the best working conditions in Europe (Stavrou et al., 2010; Linberk, 2013;P. N. Gooderham et al., 2019). HRM practices are very developed, and their value is accepted from all the firms (Katou, 2017;P. Gooderham et al., 2008, 2015;2019; Psychogios & Wood, 2010; Stavrou et al., 2010). Whereas HRM in Greece is still underdeveloped and only multinational companies used high-performance work practices (Katou, 2017;Stavrou et al., 2010).

Moreover, some preliminary results show how differently national culture is related to organizational culture in these countries. In particular, it shows how some dimensions of national culture as paternalism, fatalism, power distance and loyalty to community are related to the dimensions of organizational culture as participation, proactivity, responsibility seeking and obligation to others. The awareness of these links may assist the administrations of the companies to understand the reasons that employees behave in a particular way in their working places in the different countries. Hence, they will be able to offer to their employees the appropriate motives and the necessary working conditions to be more effective and more efficient at their work in order to achieve the goals of the company.

This research also presents practical implications for multinational companies. For instance, proper job design drives employee satisfaction that raises work efficiency. Empowering supervision also makes employees more effective in their job as they have the opportunity to feel trusted, they can propose their ideas, thoughts, worries and solutions to face daily work issues. Whereas strict supervision decreases employees’ productivity and satisfaction.

Consequently, companies should select and apply carefully the appropriate HRM practices. In this way, employees will not lose their interest in their jobs, they will be willing to take initiatives to solve their daily work issues, to collaborate with their colleagues and their superiors when it is necessary. Through this process employees will become more efficient and the performances of the organization will be improved totally (Diamantidis & Chatzoglou, 2018).

2. Literature review

There is much research of analyzing how the different culture of each country influences differently the HRM practices that are used from companies of other countries, including divergent cultural environments such as China (Warner, 2008), Korea (Bae & Lawler, 2000), Singapore (Barnard & Rodgers, 2000), Kenya (Nyambegera et al., 2000) and Oman (Aycan et al., 2007). In addition, existing studies have compared HRM systems across different cultural contexts such as the Canada and US (Galang, 2004), Japan, Germany and US (Pudelko, 2006), East Asia (Zhu et al., 2007), Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia and Hong Kong (Mamman, Sulaiman, & Fadel, 1996), China and the UK (Easterby-Smith et al., 1995), Germany, Turkey and Spain (Özçelik and Aydinli, 2006), the Netherlands and China (Verburg et al., 1999), Japan, China and South Korea (Rowley et al., 2004), India and the UK (Budhwar & Khatri, 2001;Budhwar & Sparrow, 2002) Taiwan and China (Warner & Zhu, 2002). However, there is little research about Nordic countries and even less in comparison to Greece (Goergen et al., 2009;Kaasa & Minkov, 2020;Stavrou et al., 2015).

Precisely, the companies that operate in different countries may use the same HRM practices but the way that each company applies them make the difference. For instance, the evaluation based on direct feedback is more common in individualistic-cultures, whereas collectivist-societies focus on subtle, indirect, relationship-oriented and personal forms of feedback (Hofstede, 1994;Katou, 2017). Similarly, direct and formal processes of appraisal are more widespread in low-context cultures (Millimam, 1998). Low-power distance cultures appear to use more egalitarian and participative forms of performance appraisal. On the contrary, members of high-power distance cultures have an autocratic style that does not require them to express their perspectives in the appraisal review.

HRM practice of training and development is influenced by cultural variations, too. For instance, fatalistic-cultures perceive training and development as less relevant for organizations, given the prevalent assumption that employees have limited abilities that are difficult to be improved (Aycan et al., 2000). Also, individual learning styles are inherently culture bound (Liu, 2004); therefore, it is necessary to design and apply different training across cultures. In high-power distance cultures, training and education courses in which the instructor is perceived to possess sufficient authority, are preferred. In these cultures, organizations usually employ senior managers rather than external trainers to ensure a high-level of credibility and trust (Minkov, 2018;P. Wright et al., 2002). It is found that cultural values such as high-uncertainty avoidance and low-assertiveness drive managers to pursue systematic, internal and long-term orientations in personnel development (Hofstede, 1994;Minkov et al., 2017). Managers apply different HRM practices to fit the particular organizational culture and the different ways employees prefer to be treated (Lockhart et al., 2020).

Notions of accepted behavioral rules, rituals and norms (Trice and Beyer, 1984) shared values, ideologies and beliefs (Schwartz and Davis, 1981;Mayrhofer et al., 2019) that make up organizational culture reflect on several HRM practices. If organizational culture embraces change and improvement of employee’s skills and behavior, HRM practices will highly stress performance reward or job enrichment. On the contrary, if organizational culture is in favor of close guidance and supervision rather than autonomy and discretion, then HRM practices will be less related to job enrichment and empowerment in job performance (Schuler, 1998; Stavrou & Brewster, 2005;Stahl et al., 2020).

Aiming to examine the links among national culture, organizational culture and HRM practices, we used the research model (Figure 1) which is influenced by the cultural model fit ofAycan et al. (1999). This research model consists of the variables we referred before. Hence, each variable includes some dimensions. Based on this, we developed some hypotheses that are to be analyzed in order to understand to what extent each dimension relates to the other one and to explain the results.

Figure 1. The research model (influenced by the cultural model fit of Aycan et al., 2000).

2.1. The description of the research model

Firstly, there is the variable of national culture is made up by the following dimensions:

Paternalism reflects on the relationships among the people in a society. To what extent they feel close and how much supportive they are (Aycan et al., 1999, 2000;Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018;Hofstede, 1980, 1998;1990;1994;Minkov, 2018, 2017).

Power distance indicates the inequality that characterizes a society and how much is accepted by its members (Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018;Hofstede, 1983, 1980;Minkov, 2018).

Fatalism is viewed as the belief that “what is going to happen, will happen, no matter how hard he tries”. This shows that it is impossible to control in total the outcomes of somebody’s actions. Therefore, trying too hard to achieve a goal or making long-term plans is not worthwhile. Since we cannot safely forecast the overcome (Triandis, 1984;Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018;Hofstede, 1980).

Loyalty towards community shows to what extent a person feels loyal to his community and feels obliged to fulfill his obligations towards the members of his group. This group may be his relatives, clan, organizations, etc. (Aycan et al., 2000, 1999;Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018;Minkov, 2018).

All the national cultural factors influence the way that managers or employees make decisions and perform their roles (Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018;Hofstede, 1980;Mansaray & Jnr, 2020). For instance, the concept of communication is primarily derived from extra linguistic elements and facial expressions in the cultures of Arab, Japan and South European countries (Boyacigiller, 1991;Knein et al., 2020). On the contrary, the concept of communication that is preferred is the written form in the cultures of North Europe (Hall, 1976;Knein et al., 2020). In order to examine these kinds of differences and to what extent national culture is related to organizational culture are referred to as the dimensions of the variable of organizational culture.

The variable of organizational culture includes:

Firstly, the dimension of Proactivity indicates how much employees are willing to make decisions to achieve their job objectives (Aycan et al., 1999;Diamantidis & Chatzoglou, 2018;Katou, 2017).

Secondly, the dimension of Responsibility seeking shows to what extent employees seek responsibility in their working place. It is possible that fatalism may have an effect on it (Aycan et al., 2000;Diamantidis & Chatzoglou, 2018;Katou, 2017).

Thirdly, the dimension of participation relates to whether or not employees prefer delegation at all levels and like to be consulted in matters that concern them (Aycan et al., 1999;Diamantidis & Chatzoglou, 2018;Katou, 2017).

Fourthly, the dimension of obligation towards others reflects on how much employees feel responsible to complete their tasks towards others in the company that they work (Aycan et al., 2000;Diamantidis & Chatzoglou, 2018;Katou, 2017).

It must be mentioned that national culture influences organizational culture and HRM practices (Jackson & Schuler, 1995; Chen, 2007;Hewett et al., 2018;P. M. Wright & Ulrich, 2017;Bogatyreva et al., 2019). For instance, a person who is in a specific culture is socialized with similar values and beliefs. Consequently, he is going to develop similar views about his managerial role (Hofstede, 1983; Stavrou, 2005;Aycan et al., 2000;Knein et al., 2020). Aiming to examine the relationship among the variables of organizational culture and HRM practices, the dimensions of the variables of HRM practices are presented, respectively.

The variable of HRM practices is divided in three areas: job design, supervisory practices and performance reward allocation.

The dimension of Job design includes feedback, autonomy, skill variety and task significance. Thus, the administration of a company measures the level of employees’ satisfaction. Particularly, their opinions about their jobs. If they are satisfied or not. In case that they are not satisfied, they can express their proposals. Similarly, autonomy shows at what extent employees are willing and desire to take initiatives in their workplace. Whereas task significance reflects on employee’s belief about how interesting is his job (Medonca&Kanungo,1994;Katou, 2017;Brewster et al., 2016; Diamantidis, 2011).

The next dimension of supervisory practices includes goal setting practices, which indicate if managers and employees set goals together or employees just accept orders. Empowerment practices show to what extent managers support their employees to fulfill their difficult tasks in their workplace. Supervisory control shows if employees are able to work hard and effectively in the absence of their superiors (Aycan et al., 2000;Katou, 2017; Brewster, 2015; Diamantidis, 2011).

The last dimension of reward management describes the level that employees’ rewards are contingent upon performance (Aycan et al., 2000;Katou, 2017; Brewster, 2015; Diamantidis, 2011).

2.2. The link between organizational culture and national culture

Employees’ beliefs about national culture affect their beliefs about organizational culture (Agarwala, 2019; Breuer, 2019;Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018). The variable of organizational culture includes the dimensions of proactivity, obligation towards others, responsibility seeking and participation.

Proactivity shows how much employees are willing to make decisions to achieve their job objectives. It is supposed that if employees perceive that their society is characterized by high power distance, and then they may be more reactive than proactive. In this case, they are expected to provide guidance on what and how things should be done to their colleagues. Thus, employees who are not willing to take initiatives will behave according to guidance (Alofan et al., 2020;Aycan et al., 2000;Guest, 2017). Thus, we expect that:

Hypothesis 1: Employees’ beliefs about paternalism and power distance are related negatively to their proactivity.

Obligation towards others explains how much employees feel responsible to complete their tasks to others in the firm that they work (Aycan et al., 2000; Schein, 1999; Unsworth & Tian, 2018; Goergen et al., 2017). Loyalty towards community is as important as the obligation to one another in a society or in organizations in some cultures. Hence, employees who are supportive and loyal to their community may want to cooperate and support each other in their workplace in order to handle efficiently difficult situations (Agarwala, 2019). Thus, we expect that:

Hypothesis 2: Employees’ beliefs about paternalism and loyalty to community are related positively to their obligation to others in the workplace.

Responsibility seeking shows to what extent employees seek responsibility in their workplace. It is possible that fatalism may have an effect on it (Aycan et al., 2000;Brewster et al., 2016;Chacko & Conway, 2019;Wang et al., 2020). In fatalistic cultures, people may not be willing to take more responsibilities. Since they do not expect that their extra effort will necessarily bring the desired outcomes. Regarding their belief that “what is going to happen will happen, no matter how hard they may try”, we expect that:

Hypothesis 3: Employees’ beliefs about fatalism are negatively related to their responsibility seeking.

Participation relates to whether or not employees prefer delegation at all levels and would like to be consulted in matters that concern them. Both fatalism and paternalism are expected to influence the beliefs of employees’ participation. Employees are willing to participate in decision-making only when they believe that they can control matters. Otherwise, if results are predefined, they may have no interest in taking part in decision-making process without having any benefits (Aycan et al., 2000;Brewster et al., 2016;Wang et al., 2020). Hence, we expect that:

Hypothesis4a: Employees’ beliefs about fatalism are negatively related to their participation.

Since collaboration and support are the main responsibilities of a paternalistic employee (Aycan et al., 2000;Katou, 2017;Lockhart et al., 2020). Employees need to collaborate with their colleagues in order to change ideas, opinions or find ways to solve their daily issues together as a team in their workplace. Following this attitude, they can achieve better results. Consequently, we expect that:

Hypothesis4b: Employees’ beliefs about paternalism are related positively to their participation.

2.3. The link between organizational culture and HRM practices

Its common knowledge that HRM practices are a significant tool that can be used by every firm to motivate and manage employees efficiently. If employees are satisfied with their working place and feel part of the firm, they will be more willing to do the best they can to achieve the goals of the company (Pfeffer, 1998;Katou, 2017; Agarwala, 2019).

In particular, employees who are proactive and responsible may be more motivated and efficient when they are managed by HRM practices that endeavor these specific characteristics. The HRM practice of job design should make the job more interesting and creative for the employees. Then, supervisory practice should let employees feel free to try different ways than the usual ones to solve their daily issues. Similarly, the practice of reward should enhance employees’ behaviors that are more efficient and effective. By this way, employees will be aware of how they should deal with their daily issues in order to become more efficient and to contribute to the success of the company. As long as employees are able to select the proper way to solve their work issues, they are to be more responsible about the results of their actions (Mayrhofer et al., 2019). Thus, we expect that:

Hypothesis 5 a, b, c: Employees’ proactivity and responsibility seeking are related positively to HRM practices (including job design, supervisory practices and reward allocation).

Furthermore, employees who are willing and desire to collaborate with others at work, it is possible that they would like to participate in affairs that concern them. In that case, employees are expected to react positively to empowering supervision in order to make their jobs more challenging and interesting for them (Arthur, 1994;Conger & Kanungo, 1988;Huselid, 1995;Katou, 2017). Hence, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 6: Employees’ participation and obligation towards others are related positively to empowering supervision practices.

The research model is depicted in Figure 1.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample

A questionnaire survey took place in 12 companies which operate in different industries such as food products, furniture, consumer goods, retail, quality services accreditation in Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark) and Greece. The number of (252) employees including HR and Economic managers, working in these companies, participated in this research. Precisely (126) employees worked at firms in Greece and (128) employees worked at firms in Scandinavia. Participants worked at different departments of the firms and not at a specific one, in order to collect information from different employees of different fields. Aiming to acquire more representative results and to examine them from different aspects. The demographic characteristics of the sample are included in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample

Gender	Greece	Scandinavia
Male.	44.4	43.3
Female.	55.6	56.7
Age.
20–30	24.6	38.3
31–45	45.2	35.8
46 >	30.2	25.0
Education.
High school and Lyceum.	22.3	8.3
College.	14.3	20.0
University.	40.5	39.2
Master.	22.2	32.5
PhD.	0.8	0

3.2. Procedure

The questionnaire was available in Greek and English for Greek and Scandinavian participants, respectively. There were no reports of any difficulty in understanding the statements. The questionnaire was available online for the participants to complete it. Moreover, they knew the process and the aims of this research and they were reassured for their anonymity.

The questionnaire consisted of (4) parts. The first part asked about demographic information, the second, the third and the fourth part assessed dimensions of the variables of national, organizational cultures and HRM practices. It included statements that respondents agreed to by using a 7-point Likert-type. Then, SPSS was used to test hypotheses and correlations between the dimensions. This method seemed to be the proper one since we aimed to examine the correlations among the variables. Also, the reliability of the variables was tested (cronbach’s alpha) and it was high (Table 2).

Table 2. Statistic information about the variables

Variables	Mean	Standard Deviation	Cronbach’s alpha statistics
Paternalism.	3.96	1.63	0.86
Power Distance.	4.01	1.16	0.60
Fatalism.	0.50	0.27	0.62
Loyalty towards. community.	0.50	0.27	0.63
Obligation. towards others.	0.50	0.27	0.63
Participation.	0.50	0.27	0.67
Proactivity.	0.50	0.27	0.66
Responsibility seeking.	0.50	0.27	0.78
Job design.	0.50	0.28	0.60
Supervisory.	0.50	0.27	0.66
Empowerment.	0.50	0.27	0.80
Control.	0.50	0.28	0.74
Reward.	0.50	0.27	0.76

3.3. Questionnaire

Questions derived from previous similar research (Stavrou, 2006; Hofstede, 1985, 1990, 1994; Katou, 2006, 2008;Apospori et al., 2008;Aycan et al., 1999;Psychogios & Wood, 2010) in order to ensure increased validity in examining the hypothesis of this research.

Among national culture dimensions, paternalism was assessed by four questions. Sample questions were “The ideal manager behaves as a parent in our society” and “People with power must take care of their subordinates as if they were their own children”. Power distance was assessed by four questions, such as “Hierarchy of power is necessary in the society” and “Inequality of social classes is not accepted”. Fatalism was assessed by two questions, like “There is no way to prevent bad incidents from happening, no matter how hard we may try”. Loyalty towards community was assessed by two questions, such as “Members of the society must be loyal to it, despite their objections”. Obligation towards others in the workplace was assessed by two questions, as “At my workplace, cooperation is more important than individual effort”. Participation was assessed by two questions, such as “It’s part of the company’s strategy that I participate to all decisions which concern me”. Proactivity is assessed by two questions, as “As an employee, i am more efficient in my job, when i am able to take initiatives rather than when they tell me exactly what i should do”. Responsibility seeking was assessed by four questions, as “As an employee, I not only accept but I also pursue taking responsibilities in my job” and “As an employee, i desire to work where i am able to be creative”. Job design was assessed by three questions, as “My job has a repetitive routine to follow”. Supervisory practice was assessed by two questions, such as “Manger and Subordinate jointly set employee goals (what and how to do my job)” and “The instructions/information/orders, i receive are clear and efficient”. Control was assessed by three questions as “Control is systematically applied in order to detect problems and to proceed with the required adjustments”. Reward system was assessed by four questions, as “No matter how much effort and time is spend at my job, i receive the same salary with my colleagues” and “Reward system enhances and supports company strategy and the achievement of its goals.” Moreover, Table 2 includes information about means, standard deviations and cronbach’s alpha about every variable.

4. Results and discussion

The aim of this research was to examine and to analyze the extent to which national and organizational cultures affect HRM practices in different areas as Greece and Scandinavia. Thus, the assumptions of this research were examined based on this research model, which was influenced by the original cultural model fit ofAycan et al. (1999), respectively.

Correlation analysis was used to test our hypotheses. The relationship between variables may vary among cultural groups. For that reason, every hypothesis was tested separately for Scandinavian countries and Greece. Table 3 presents the results of correlations between the variables in Greek and Nordic firms, which are analyzed below it.

Table 3. Correlations between the dimensions concerning firms in Greece (4) and Nordic countries (5)

Independent variable (1)	Dependent variable (2)	Direction of hypothesis (3)	Pearson correlation (4)	Pearson correlation (5)
Paternalism. Power distance.	Proactivity.	H1 (-)partly Confirmed.	−0.038 0.199*	0.157* 0.240*
Paternalism. Loyalty to community.	Obligation to others.	H2(+)partly Confirmed.	0.195* 0.141	0.237* 0.115
Fatalism.	Responsibility seeking.	H3 (-)partly Confirmed.	−0.375**	−0.130^1
Fatalism.	Employees’ participation.	H4a(-) not Confirmed.	−0.011	−0.123^1
Paternalism.	Employees’ participation.	H4b (+)partly Confirmed.	0.193*	0.098
Proactivity. Responsibility seeking.	Job design.	H5a (+)partly Confirmed.	− 0.066 0.125	0.299** 0.318**
Proactivity. Responsibility. seeking.	Supervision. practices.	H5b (+)partly Confirmed.	0.007 0.405**	0.202* 0.278**
Proactivity. Responsibility. seeking,	Reward allocation.	H5c (+)partly confirmed.	0.021 0.411**	0.020 0.291**
Participation. Obligation to Others.	Supervision. Practices.	H6 (+) Confirmed.	0.620** 0.282**	0.406** 0.358**

Correlation is significant at the level 0.1 (1-tailed) *.

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed) **.

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Approaching the aforementioned findings, it seems that not all of the results were confirmed in both areas. The first part of the results was to examine variations among the variables of national and organizational cultures. It includes the hypotheses 1-4b.

Beginning with the first hypothesis showed that power distance did not inhibit proactive employee’s behaviour. This may be explained that even if social inequality in Greece is accepted, this is to change slowly and influence organizational culture dimensions. Proactive employees’ behaviors are considered more desirable and acceptable. On the other hand, power distance negatively related to employees’ proactivity in Scandinavia. Also, employees in Greek firms understood paternalism negatively as “authoritism” and not as a way to get managerial support to face their daily tasks. However, in Scandinavia, it seems that paternalism is perceived differently and more positively by the employees. This is also supported by Jones (2005),Stavrou et al. (2007) andP. Gooderham and Stensaker (2015).

The second hypothesis was partly confirmed. For those who believe in loyalty towards others seem not to feel obliged to fulfill their duties, thus the relationship is weaker and not significant, both in Greece and in Scandinavia. This indicated that employees that are more loyal to others do not necessarily tend to promote support and collaboration through their relationships with their colleagues in the workplace. Whereas paternalism was found to maintain a positive and quite significant relation to employees’ obligation to others in both areas. This can be attributed to the fact that employees who have adopted a paternalistic attitude are more willing to cooperate and support their colleagues in difficult situations. It is also referred by Schein (1978),Aycan et al. (1999), Jones (2005), Bruce (2011) and Alofan et al. (2020).

The third hypothesis showed that fatalism is negatively related to responsibility seeking, especially in Greece compared to Scandinavia. This may appear because of the fatalistic nature of Geek culture, which is characterized by the belief of “what is to happen, it will happen, no matter how hard they may try. The result will remain the same”. Consequently, it seems that this belief affects employees in Greece significantly as they make them not to be willing to take more responsibilities, as there is no additional gain or motives for them. It is mentioned byApospori et al. (2008),Psychogios and Wood (2010),Katou (2017).

The fourth hypothesis in these areas was also found to be the same about how employees’ beliefs about fatalism are negatively related but not significantly with their participation. This may happen as they view fatalism as the events that are inevitable, and they cannot invert them, no matter how hard they may try, as it does not depend on them. Although paternalism is related positively but not significantly to employees’ participation. This relationship is stronger in Greece than in Scandinavia, as it is major of importance for employees, since it gives them the opportunity to become better. Based on this supportive attitude, they may feel secure to take initiatives, to try new ways by collaborating with their colleagues in order to solve matters that concern them in their working place. Through this process employees can evolve and to be more effective. It is also referred by Psychogios and Wood (2010), Mc Gregor (1960), Cotton (1993), Apospori et al. (2008), P. M. Wright and Ulrich (2017) and Olafsen, (2020).

The second part of the results includes the relation between the dimensions of organizational culture and HRM practices. It concerns the hypotheses 5a,b,c and 6. The fifth hypothesis, proactivity and responsibility seeking are related positively and significantly to job design and supervision practices in Scandinavia. However, proactivity is positively related and not significantly related to reward practices. Whereas responsibility seeking is related positively and significantly to reward practices in Scandinavia and Greece. This can be attributed to the fact that proactive organizational culture does not seem to enhance more rewarding practices. It seems that being proactive does not lead to high-performance HRM practices. It is possible that proactivity is not a strong characteristic of organizational cultures in Greece, which needs to be examined further. However, this hypothesis was mostly confirmed in Scandinavia rather than in Greece. Both proactivity and responsibility seeking were positively and strongly related to all HRM practices (Erez and Early, 1987; Conger and Kanungo, 1998;Guest, 2017;Unsworth & Tian, 2018).

The sixth hypothesis confirmed that as much as employees’ participation and obligation towards others are enhanced, are more willing to enhance supervision practices to be improved. It is also referred by Conger and Kanungo (1998), Huselid (1995), Diamantidis and Chatzoglou (2018), and Mayrhofer et al. (2019).

5. Conclusions and implications

This research attempts to provide insights into national and organizational cultures and their impact on HRM practices among Greece and Scandinavia. Precisely, the aims of this research are presented in brief in Table 4 and are analyzed below it.

Table 4. Aims of the research

The gaps in the literature	The gaps that this research attempts to fill in	The results of the research
There was much research of analyzing that the different culture of each country influences differently the HRM practices which are used from companies of other countries. Including divergent cultural environments such as China, Korea, Sngapore, Canada, USA, Japan, Europe, UK, Australia and so on. Though, there wasn’t much research about Scandinavia and Greece (Goergen et al., 2009;Minkov, 2018).	There was not much research comparing these specific areas such as Scandinavia and Greece (Goergen et al., 2009;Minkov, 2018).	It showed the differences that appeared in the areas of Greece and Scandinavia. For instance, the dimension of power distance influenced differently the people’s behaviour in the society. Particularly, in Greek society was accepted and it was related positively to employees’ proactivity, whereas in Scandinavian society wasn’t accepted and it was related negatively to employees’ proactivity. Hence, the different characteristics that the members of these societies presented, affected the way that they apprehended some dimensions.
The original cultural model fit ofAycan et al. (2000) was tested to countries such as Canada, India, USA, Germany, Russia, Turkey, China, Israel, Pakistan, Romania (Aycan et al., 2000).	We developed this cultural model fit. It was the first attempt to apply and test this particular model in these contexts.	There are some HRM practices such as the practice of job design which drives employee’s satisfaction and raises work efficiency. Also, the practice of empowering supervision makes employees more effective in their jobs. Whereas strict supervision decrease employees’ productivity and satisfaction.
It was an integrate cultural model fit (Aycan et al., 2000).	We had the opportunity to examine the links under the light of different environmental forces such as national culture, organizational culture and HRM practices.	Companies should select and apply carefully the appropriate HRM practices. In this way, employees will not to lose their interest in their jobs, they will be willing to take initiatives to solve their daily work issues, to collaborate with their colleagues and their superiors when it is necessary. Through this process employees will become more efficient and the performance of the organization will be improved totally.
		The awareness of these links may assist the administrations of the companies to understand the reasons that employees behave by a particular way in their working places in different countries. Hence, they will be able to offer to their employees the appropriate motives and the necessary working conditions to be more effective and more efficient at their work in order to achieve the goals of the company.

This specific model was selected as it included the dimensions of national, organizational culture and HRM practices and we were able to examine the links among these dimensions in different areas. The setting of Greece and Scandinavia was appropriate in order to examine how the different culture of every country influenced the HRM practices that a firm applied. Also, past research comparing these countries is not frequent, in other words it is scarce (Kaasa & Minkov, 2020;Stavrou et al., 2010). Additionally, this research is the first attempt to apply and test this specific cultural model fit in these areas.

We selected countries that belong to different cultural clusters, so as the cultural differences that may appear to be more apparent (Knein et al., 2020;Stavrou et al., 2010). Thus, Scandinavia and Greece were selected as these countries follow different systems of HRM (P. Gooderham & Stensaker, 2015; 2019Psychogios & Wood, 2010;Stavrou et al., 2010). Scandinavia is considered to maintain one of the best working conditions in Europe. Since HRM in Scandinavia is very developed since it is considered that human resources are an important asset for each company in order to achieve its goals (Katou, 2017). Whereas HRM in Greece is the opposite of Scandinavia, as it is still underdeveloped (P. Gooderham & Stensaker, 2015; 2019Psychogios & Wood, 2010;Stavrou et al., 2010).

For the above reasons, our research revealed differences between the countries because of the different perception that each society maintains and especially about fatalism, paternalism and proactivity. These specific dimensions should be examined in depth. Additionally, these differences confirmed that national culture influenced organizational culture and the different impact that HRM practices accepted in different areas. There were dimensions such as power distance that influenced differently the people’s behaviour in the society. Particularly, in Greek society, it was accepted and it was related positively to employees’ proactivity, whereas in Scandinavian society was not accepted and it was related negatively to employees’ proactivity. Hence, the different characteristics that the members of these societies presented affected the way that they apprehended some dimensions. Consequently, the way that they behaved and the different HRM practices that should be implied to be efficient.

Moreover, it provided an insight on how differently national culture is related to organizational culture in these countries. It also showed how some dimensions of national culture as paternalism, fatalism, power distance and loyalty to community are related to the dimensions of organizational culture as participation, proactivity, responsibility seeking and obligation to others. Thus, the awareness of these links may assist the administrations of the companies to understand the reasons that employees behave in a particular way in their working places in different countries. By this way, they will be able to offer to their employees the appropriate motives and the necessary working conditions in order to be able to be more effective and more efficient at their work. Additionally, this research also presents practical implications for multinational companies in both areas.

For companies that operate in Scandinavia, it seems that their organizational cultures should embrace mostly elements such as proactivity, participation, responsibility seeking and obligation to others. These characteristics seem to be important for employees and for that reason were significantly related to HRM practices that were applied from a firm. Employees need to feel proactive, responsible and to be able to participate in matters that concern them in their workplace. In this way, they feel they are important members of the firm and they want to contribute as much as possible to fulfill company goals. Consequently, HRM practices such as job design, supervision and reward should endeavor these characteristics. Employees will be more satisfied, they will enhance their performance and organizational performance will be increased, respectively (Bogatyreva et al., 2019;Katou, 2017).

However, for companies that operate in Greece, it seems that their organizational cultures should cultivate characteristics such as responsibility seeking, participation and obligation to others. These elements seem to be important for employees because of the significantly positive relationship with HRM practices that are applied in companies in Greece. Employees need to be able to participate in decisions that concern them and to take more responsibilities in their workplace. They want to feel part of the company that they work for and to be able to contribute as much as possible to the development of the firm. It seems that these characteristics can be enhanced through the HRM practices of reward and supervision.

Also, it must be referred that strict supervision decrease employees’ productivity and satisfaction. Whereas, empowering supervision makes employees more effective in their job as they have the opportunity to feel trusted, they can propose their ideas, thoughts, worries and solutions to face daily work issues.

Consequently, companies should select and apply carefully the appropriate HRM practices, so as employees not to lose their interest in their jobs. Since they should be willing to take initiatives to solve their daily work issues, to collaborate with their colleagues and their superiors when it is necessary, to be able to improve their skills and their abilities. Through this process employees will become more efficient and the performance of the organization will be improved.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.