Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence of national culture on organizational resilience, the effects of which are analyzed for companies from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) region. This paper utilizes an etic approach to study this relationship and has an empirical design with a sample of N = 464. The direct effect of national culture on organizational resilience is investigated. To measure national culture, this paper relies on the dimensions of Hofstede. A multiple regression analysis is applied to answer the hypotheses. Results show that the dimensions of power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and indulgence have a significant direct effect on an organization’s resilience. This paper confirms the necessity for reflecting upon the importance of national cultures to globally-working organizations. Organizations that are dedicated to proactive development in their organizational resilience must understand the cultural circumstances that might hinder resilience development. Indeed, cultural influences play a significant role in human resource trainings, choices of location, leadership styles, and managing stakeholders and external alliances to improve organizational resilience. This paper is the first to quantitatively study the relationship of national culture on organizational resilience.
Highlights
In the decade spanning 1988 to 1998, Korean Air suffered an airplane accident loss rate 17 times higher than that of its safest competitor, United Airlines
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence of national culture on organizational resilience, the effects of which are analyzed for companies from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) region
These findings were already significant for the NAFTA region, in which USA and Canada belong to the same cultural cluster
Summary
In the decade spanning 1988 to 1998, Korean Air suffered an airplane accident loss rate 17 times higher than that of its safest competitor, United Airlines. The major reason was found to be mitigated speech (i.e., the downplaying or sugarcoating of what is being said), which is common in cultures with a high power distance index and high context culture (Helmreich and Foushee 1993; Helmreich et al 2001; Merritt 2000). This was especially problematic in emergency situations, where direct speech was an imperative (Helmreich et al 2001). Following these results, combating mitigation was introduced as one of the most essential trainings for air crews, with crew members being trained in clear and assertive communication (Helmreich et al 2001; Merritt 2000)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
