More and more national flags of countries are hung in the headquarters of Multinational Enterprises (MNEs). This indicates the global villages in which hundreds of millions of consumers live. These consumers have many differences in culture, history, religion and society, which inevitably give rise to cultural conflict for many reasons including ethnocentrism, culture misreading and different cultural attitudes. Very high failure rates exist in joint venture enterprises with about 30 to 40% of them failing. Serious failures suffered by MNEs generally result from neglect of cultural differences. The President of the Panasonic Company in Japan has instructed his departmental managers to implement personnel diversification in senior management in order for it to become a true MNE. Therefore, it is important that enterprises have high-performance and cross-culturally trained management to enable them to rise to the challenges of global competition.

Cross-Cultural Management

The vitality of an enterprise is maintained by its culture, and a strong corporate culture helps the enterprise’s personnel to overcome frustration and challenge (Goffee & Jones, 1998). Due to cultural differences between different places, managers have to take into consideration four factors including: localization construction, multicultural coexistence, cultural conflict, and cultural mergence at the time of cross-cultural management (Schein, 1985).

Localization construction Goffee and Jones (1998) noted that the localization  of human resource was originally a local government request for MNEs to employ a specified quota of local people. It was later found that some advanced MNEs discovered talent localization to be favorable to the increase of corporate operation and the upgrading of corporate culture. By employing host country nationals (HCNs), a company can cultivate its own rapid market response staffers since HCNs are able to respond quickly to local market changes to maintain and raise the benefits of the company. In addition, employing HCNs reduces the cost of employing expatriates from the parent country (Kobrin, 1988). For this reason, many MNEs employ and train HCNs to promote their globalization strategies.

Multicultural coexistence The management of MNEs is facing heavy pressures of both global efficiency and local responsiveness, thus being confronted with the problem of trying to maintain a balance between them. Globalization of operations, culture diversification and space expansion greatly increase the complexity, risk and uncertainty of cross-cultural human resource management. Enterprise personnel have to conduct diversified human resource management based on better understanding local laws, regulations, cultures and customs (Hofstede, 1980). The practices of many MNEs show that diversified corporate culture can be further adapted to the requirements of cross-cultural management.

Cultural conflict refers to the contradictions and confrontations that may arise from different cultures in the course of mutual contact and influence. In fact, MNEs are sites of exchange among people in different social systems, economic systems, and corporate cultures. It is easy for MNEs to face cultural conflicts. The most difficult issue in cross-cultural management is cultural conflict. Adler (1999) stated that MNEs are the combination of techniques, capital, and managements of different countries, but also face the collision and mergence of different cultures. With regard to cross-cultural management, only if the merging and cooperation of different cultures are found and balanced can the management mode be implemented and cultural conflict resolved.

Cultural mergence In an effective mergence, with continuous innovation and corporate culture upgrading, corporate culture may be transmitted from internal competition to international competition. In addition, MNEs can merge different cultures if they are successful in driving multicultural coexistence and internationalized construction. Cowherd and Levine (1992) stated that cross-cultural management should be connected with diversification and internationalization of corporate operations. Therefore, when MNEs attempt cross-cultural management, attention should be paid to respecting different cultural values, raising cultural sensitivity, upgrading cultural consciousness, and promoting mergence of different cultures (Ani & Camp, 1996).

Organizational Performance

Sloma (1980) stated that organizational performance is an aggregative indicator referring to the degree of achieving organizational objectives. Chien (2004) noted the dimensions included in organizational performance, namely motivation models, leadership, organizational culture and environment, work design, and human resource management policy.

Motivation models Friedlander and Walton (1964) found that the reason for people to continue their work in an organization is likely to be related to the motivation factors of the organization, while the reason for people to leave their posts is likely to be related to the absence of hygiene factors. Therefore, if they wish to keep talented staff, managers have to deal with employees with different cultural backgrounds by using different motivation models. Van and Cummings (1990) also stated that employees’ behavior probably depends on the occurrence of individual interest. This would cause adverse effects to an organization in the long run. Therefore, the motivation model is of great importance for an organization.

Leadership is a kind of capability of influencing other people’s behavior and accordingly achieving organizational objectives. Burress (1996) found that didactic leadership by chief executives (providing suggestions to employees, attaching importance to employees’ self-management, authorizing and encouraging team spirit) shows a positive correlation with employees’ work performance, and that those chief executives who use didactic leadership strategies have higher work performance. Campbell and Carol (1997) found that if chief executives adopt concerned leadership, their care and respect for employees would raise employees’ self-interest in their jobs as well as their organizational commitment and performance.

Organizational culture and environment Both the corporate culture and internal environment of MNEs will affect employees with different cultural backgrounds. The management and application of organizational culture can allow organizations to be successful and raise organizational performance, but may also cause loss in case of failure to do so. Through an empirical study of Taiwanese and US enterprises exploring relations among organizational culture, organizational scale, competition environment and organizational performance, Chow, Haddad, and Wu (2003) found that the uncertainty of an environment has a nonsignificant effect on organizational performance, while culture difference has a significant positive effect on organizational performance.

Work design After studying 265 electronic data processing employees of the US state government, Oldham and Kulik (1986) found a significant correlation between work performance and work design (including skill diversity, task integrity, self-determination and work feedback). Employees have better work performance and accordingly raise organizational performance if they feel that there is a suitable work design for them to carry out their work. Besides, through a meta-analysis of work characteristics, Fried and Ferris (1987) found that positive correlations exist between work design and organizational performance.

Human resource management policy Organizational performance comes from layout and the implementation of a human resource management policy, which is formulated to improve the skills, knowledge and capability of employees. Delaney (1995) found that a progressive human resource management policy can significantly reduce the turnover rate of organizational personnel. When discussing relations between human resource management policy and organizational performance, Delaney and Huselid (1996) found that more progressive human resource management measures − including prudent selection, training, and motivation-style salary and reward − have a positive effect on organizational performance. Similarly, training, information sharing and management
participation are also helpful in raising organizational performance.

Learning Organization

In the course of organizational transformation, organizational members search for methods to solve problems and difficulties. They could be urged to learn better work methods. Therefore, encouraging communication and cooperation enables the members to understand and solve problems and accordingly implement continual improvement to enhance competitiveness. Senge (1994) also stated that the factors affecting a learning organization include system thinking, personal mastery, improving mental models, building shared vision, and team learning.

System thinking Baker and James (1999) stated that bigger organizations would confront more numerous and disorderly problems in their operations − but if they were able to find the principles of handling complexity with simplicity in a confused and disorderly situation, management personnel would determine correct methods of solving problems. The aim in system thinking is to help an organization cultivate this ability to handle complexity with simplicity. Senge (1994) stated that the key to system thinking is to probe the reasons for everything and find the relation of cause and effect hidden in it. System thinking can be developed into simplified steps by which complicated problems can be more easily approached.

Personal mastery Organizations are composed of persons. Organizations can be improved only through individual learning. Although individual learning cannot ensure that the staff as a whole is learning, there is no way to start learning at the organizational level without individual learning. Aksu and Özdemir (2005) stated that personal mastery development has to be regarded as a prospect verified by practical application. By overcoming all difficulties, an individual has a greater desire to complete organizational tasks. Thus, personal mastery is an inherent motivational power helping organizational development.

Improving mental models Mental models are viewpoints rooted in the heart on how the surrounding world operates. Therefore, learning to uncover, inspect and improve mental models would be helpful to change cognition of how the surrounding world operates. Bennett and O’Brien (1994) stated that improving mental models gives the strength to help an organization’s personnel to thoroughly solve problems. Thus, organizational members have continually to seek out inner hypotheses and probe values and beliefs. Therefore, the foundation of mutual trust can be laid only when organizational members are acquainted with each other. Mutual trust is the key which is essential in strengthening an organization.

Building shared vision Retna and Tee (2006) indicated that shared vision means having goals and activities spreading throughout the whole organization, creating a feeling that all the organizational members are regarded as one. Senge (1994) stated that shared vision is also the common wish that an organization wants to realize. Aksu and Özdemir (2005) indicated that in order to establish a shared vision, an organization has first to encourage the establishment of individual vision. Personnel in an organization have continually to share and fuse their individual visions, then meld these visions into an organizational concept.

Team learning A team is composed of individuals, and thus individual learning is the foundation of team learning. Only when team learning is achieved, can the organization promote widespread learning. Watkins and Marsick (1993) stated that there are three team factors affecting realization of organizational learning: (a) degree of accepting team cooperation, (b) degree of advocating inquiry and dialogue, and (c) operating principles.

Relations Among Learning Organization, Cross-Cultural Management and Organizational Performance

The purpose of cross-cultural management is to enable employees to adapt to a multicultural organization and for expatriates to learn local culture and environments rapidly. Adler (1999) stated that cross-cultural training shows a positive correlation with organizational performance under cross-cultural circumstances. Gordon and DiTomaso       (1992) indicated that cross-cultural management with strong momentum and adaptation has a positive effect on improving the performance of a company. Rashid, Sambasivan, and Johari (2003) indicated that both cross-cultural management and organizational commitment have significantly positive effects on the financial performance of an organization.

Large globalized environments display a dynamic and sophisticated state and therefore a learning organization capable of continual innovation and breakthroughs is the basis for enterprises to survive against competition. Participation and innovation in training organizational members’ capabilities of system thinking are key factors affecting organizational performance (McGill & Slocum, 1993). After studying 25 companies implementing a learning organization, Bennett and O’Brien (1994) found that indicators of organizational performance such as productivity, profit, market share and customer satisfaction are raised in these companies. Ellinger, Ellinger, Yang, and Howton (2002) stated that adoption of the principles of a learning organization by MNEs has a positive effect on cross-cultural management and organizational performance.

Goh (1998) found that a strategic learning organization model is necessary to enable cross-cultural management encouraging innovation and forgiving employees for trial failure to exist in MNEs. An important feature of learning organizations is that these organizations possess cross-cultural management and encourage organizational changes. These organizations need cross-cultural management with strong momentum to encourage organizational members with different nationalities to cooperate, explore and innovate, especially when there is a change in the working environment. Alavi and McCormick (2004) stated that cross-cultural management cannot be implemented effectively without the aid of a learning organization. Furthermore, a learning organization can create a phenomenon of complementing or melding different cultures in cross-cultural management to enable its members to accommodate, or accept all cultures.

Method

Research Hypotheses

As discussed above, the following approaches were set up first in the study for further analysis. The Corporate Cross-cultural Management was divided into four dimensions: Localization Construction, Multi-cultural Coexistence, Cultural Conflict and Cultural Mergence (Schein, 1985). Organizational Performance was divided into five dimensions: Motivation Models, Leadership, Organizational Culture and Environment, Work Design and Human Resource Management Policy (Chien, 2004). Learning Organization was divided into five dimensions: Personal Mastery, Improving Mental Models, Building Shared Vision, Team Learning and System Thinking (Senge, 1994). Major objectives in the study were to discuss the correlations among the four dimensions of Corporate Cross-cultural Management, the five dimensions of Organizational Performance and the five dimensions of Learning Organization. Moreover, the effect of Learning Organization on the correlation between Corporate Cross-cultural Management and Organizational Performance was further discussed. The four hypotheses are shown below.

H1 A positive correlation exists between Corporate Cross-cultural Management and Organizational Performance.
H2 A positive correlation exists between Learning Organization and Corporate Cross-cultural Management.
H3 A positive correlation exists between Learning Organization and Organizational Performance.
H4 Learning Organization has an impact on the correlation between Corporate Cross-cultural Management and Organizational Performance. H4 hypothesis was split into four subhypotheses, H4a, H4b, H4c, and H4d.
H4a Learning Organization can enhance the positive correlation between the Localization Construction Dimension and the five dimensions of Organizational Performance.
H4b Learning Organization can enhance the positive correlation between the Multicultural Coexistence Dimension and the five dimensions of Organizational Performance.
H4c Learning Organization can enhance the positive correlation between the Cultural Conflict Dimension and the five dimensions of Organizational Performance.
H4d Learning Organization can enhance the positive correlation between the Cultural Mergence Dimension and the five dimensions of Organizational Performance.

Research Sample

The Suzhou Industrial Park is the most densely settled location for multinationals in the Hua-Dong region of China. Wu (2004) stated that the establishment of the Park is the largest economic and technological cooperation project between the Chinese and the Singapore government. It is an important window of China’s reform and opening-up, showing a successful model of international cooperation, and also one of the fastest growing and most competitive industrial development zones in the world. One hundred and twelve multinationals out of the Fortune 500 in the world have invested in the Park, such as German Siemens Group, Korea Samsung Electronics, Japanese Fujitsu Group, England BOC Group,
France L’Oreal Group, American General Motors Corp. and so on. Therefore, the Suzhou Industrial Park was chosen as the research setting.

Cases were chosen by way of convenience sampling. The directors and staff of 250 multinationals in the Park were asked to respond to a questionnaire about the variables of Corporate Cross-cultural management, Organizational Performance and Learning Organization. One thousand questionnaires were sent out, and 850 returned, with 793 valid ones used for further analysis. The returning rate was 79.3%. The sample was composed of 128 questionnaires returned from the integrated circuit industry, 127 from the computer and accessories industry, 168 from the telecommunication industry, 176 from the photoelectric industry, 89 from the precision machinery industry, and 105 from the hardware industry.

Research Instrument and Scale

The scale used here was a 6-point Likert scale. It was found that the respective average scores of the three scales in the study were higher than the average of 3.0 in a 6-point Likert scale. Therefore, it can be seen that the questions in the questionnaire are pertinent to real-life situations. The scales adopted were introduced as follows.

The scale for Corporate Cross-cultural Management was constructed by following the questionnaire of Schein (1985), and through factor analysis the questions were sorted into the four dimensions. Cronbach’s α of the separate dimensions were 0.83 (Localization Construction), 0.86 (Multicultural Coexistence), 0.86 (Cultural Mergence) and 0.86 (Cultural Conflict), and the Cumulative Percent of Variance was 70.

The scale for Learning Organization was constructed with 5 questions derived from the relevant questionnaire by Senge (1994). The Cumulative Percent of Variance was 65 and Cronbach’s α was 0.86. The scale for Organizational Performance was composed of the questions in the questionnaire of Chien (2004). The Cumulative Percent of Variance was 70 and Cronbach’s α was 0.95.

Results and Discussion

From the results of Pearson’s correlation analysis, the four dimensions of Corporate Cross-cultural Management have a positive correlation with Organizational Performance. For example, the Localization Construction Dimension shows positive correlations with the five dimensions of Organizational Performance  (correlation coefficients: 0.120**, 0.111**,  0.105**,  0.128** and 0.090* for Motivation Models, Leadership, Organizational Culture and Environment, Work Design and Human Resource Management Policy in that order). Therefore, H1 is tenable. With good cross-cultural management, a corporation could promote the capability of its organizational communication, help expatriates develop cross-cultural skills, set up cross-cultural adaptability, have its staff obtain sufficient information and mutual understanding, make staff feel inspired, facilitate team work, and raise staff satisfaction and work performance. In such circumstances, the organization should obtain maximum benefits.

Learning Organization has a positive correlation with the four dimensions of Corporate Cross-cultural Management (correlation coefficients: 0.115**, 0.082*, 0.327** and 0.306** for Localization Construction, Multicultural Coexistence, Cultural Conflict and Cultural Mergence in that order). Therefore, H2 is tenable. One of the characteristics of a learning organization is the possession of a corporate culture which encourages change and adaptation. A strong corporate culture is required especially when a corporation is facing an environment with dramatic changes, and it certainly encourages staff values of cooperation and innovation. Learning organization can expedite the tolerance of corporate
culture. Better corporate cross-cultural management helps more rapid adaptation of staff, and then enhances staff satisfaction and work performance.

Learning Organization has a positive correlation with the five dimensions of Organizational Performance (correlation coefficients: 0.813**, 0.846**, 0.888**, 0.840** and 0.875** for Motivation Models, Leadership, Organizational Culture and Environment, Work Design and Human Resource Management Policy in that order). Therefore, H3 is tenable. Only when staff are willing to learn voluntarily and change personal existing cognition on current operation can teams be set up by members with the same inclination. This is the premise of the establishment of a learning organization that will facilitate the building up of a climate and criteria for the whole organization to learn together. A learning organization can train staff in the mechanism of system thinking, participation, and innovation. It is also one of the key factors affecting organizational performance.

As for the test of H4, there are five partial cases in the study. One is the partial case identified by emphasis on Personal Mastery, one is on Improving Mental Models, one is on Building Shared Vision, one is on Team Learning, and the other is on System Thinking.

As shown in Table 1, from t values of the Localization Construction dimension under the Organizational Culture and Environment dimension (referring to Row: Localization Construction; Column: Organizational Culture and Environment), the t value (0.143) of the entire sample (sample size 793) was lower than that (0.395) of the partial case identified by emphasis on Personal Mastery (sample size 213). From t values of the Localization Construction dimension under the Human Resource Management Policy dimension (referring to Row: Localization Construction; Column: Human Resource Management Policy; Table 1), the t value (-0.341) of the entire sample is lower than that (-0.060) of the partial case identified by emphasis on Personal Mastery.

From the t values of the Localization Construction dimension under the Motivation Models dimension, the t value (0.226) of the entire sample was lower than that (0.574) of the partial case identified by emphasis on Improving Mental Models (sample size 164; the table is similar to Table 1 but not shown). From t values of the Localization Construction dimension under the Organizational Culture and Environment dimension, the t value (0.143) of the entire sample was lower than that (0.310) of the partial case identified by emphasis on Improving Mental Models (table not shown). From t values of the Localization Construction dimension under the three dimensions of Motivation Models, Organizational Culture and Environment, and Human Resource Management Policy, the t values (0.226, 0.143 and -0.341) of the entire sample were correspondingly lower than those (0.928, 0.397 and 0.575) of the partial case identified by emphasis on Building Shared Vision (sample size 128; with a table similar to Table 1 but not shown). From t values of the Localization Construction dimension under the five dimensions of Organizational Performance, those (0.226, 0.557, 0.143, 0.989, and -0.341) of the entire sample (sample size 793) were correspondingly higher than those (0.127, -0.954, -1.202, -0.619, and -0.592) of the partial case identified by emphasis on Team Learning (sample size 113; with a table similar to Table 1 but not shown).

The t values of the Localization Construction dimension under the Motivation Models dimension of Organizational Performance were 0.226 and -0.076 for the entire sample and the partial case identified by emphasis on System Thinking (sample size 175; with a table similar to Table 1 but not shown), respectively. From the t values of the Localization Construction dimension under the rest of the dimensions of Organizational Performance (referring to Row: Localization Construction; Column: Leadership, Organizational Culture and Environment, Work Design, Human Resource Management Policy in that order), those (0.557, 0.143, 0.989, and -0.341) of the entire sample were correspondingly lower than those (2.079, 0.582, 1.982, and -0.153) of the partial case identified by emphasis on System Thinking (table not shown). Therefore, H4a is partially tenable.

The t values of the Multicultural Coexistence dimension under the five dimensions of Organizational Performance for the entire sample (t value: -0.413, 0.385, 0.025, -0.032, and -0.776 for Motivation Models, Leadership, Organizational Culture and Environment, Work Design, and Human Resource Management Policy in that order) were correspondingly lower than those for the partial case identified by emphasis on Improving Mental Models (t value: 1.286, 0.639, 1.134, 1.001, and 0.285; table not shown), and also correspondingly lower than those for the partial case identified by emphasis on Team Learning (t value: -0.378, 0.783, 0.569, 0.536, and 0.009; table not shown). From t values of the Multicultural Coexistence dimension under the Human Resource Management Policy dimension, the t value (-0.776) of the entire sample was lower than that (-0.572) of the partial case identified by emphasis on Building Shared Vision (table not shown). The t values of the Multicultural Coexistence dimension under the Organizational Culture and Environment dimension of Organizational Performance were 0.025 and -0.095 for the entire sample and the partial case identified by emphasis on System Thinking (table not shown), respectively. From the t values of the Multicultural Coexistence dimension under the remaining dimensions of Organizational Performance, those (-0.413, 0.385, -0.032, and -0.776 for the Motivation Model, Leadership, Work Design, and Human Resource Management Policy in that order) of the entire sample are correspondingly lower than those (0.680, 1.478, 0.680, and 0.194) of the partial case distinguished by emphasis on System Thinking (table not shown). Therefore, H4b is partially tenable.

From the t values of the Cultural Conflict dimension under the five dimensions of Organizational Performance for the entire sample (referring to Row: Cultural Conflict; Column: Motivation Model, Leadership, Organizational Culture and Environment, Work Design, and Human Resource Management Policy in that order), the t values (7.318, 5.245, 5.641, 5.250, and 6.371) of the entire sample were higher correspondingly than those (0.422, 3.589, 3.229, 3.452, and 3.818) of the partial case identified by emphasis on Personal Mastery (Table 1). On the other hand, the four other partial cases identified by emphasis on Improving Mental Models, Building Shared Vision, Team Learning, or System Thinking also showed similar results (tables not shown). Therefore, H4c is untenable.

From the t values of the Cultural Mergence dimension under the five dimensions of Organizational Performance, the t values of the entire sample were higher correspondingly than those of the five partial cases identified by emphasis on Personal Mastery, Improving Mental Models, Building Shared Vision, Team Learning, or System Thinking (tables not shown). Therefore, H4d is untenable.

As for H4a through to H4d, the situation can be summarized as follows:
The relationship between Localization Construction and both Organizational Culture and Environment and Human Resource Management Policy can be enhanced by Personal Mastery toward positive correlation. The relationship between Localization Construction and both Motivation Models and Organizational Culture and Environment can be enhanced by Improving Mental Models toward positive correlation. The relationship between Multicultural Coexistence and the five dimensions of Organizational Performance can be enhanced by Improving Mental Models toward positive correlation. The relationship between Localization Construction and three dimensions (Motivation Models, Organizational Culture and Environment, and Human Resource Management Policy) of Organizational Performance can be enhanced by Building Shared Vision toward positive correlation. The relationship between Multicultural Coexistence and Human Resource Management Policy can be enhanced by Building Shared Vision toward positive correlation.

The relationship between Multicultural Coexistence and the five dimensions of Organizational Performance can be enhanced by Team Learning toward positive correlation. Except for the Motivation Model, the relationship between Localization Construction and the remaining four dimensions of Organizational Performance can be enhanced by System Thinking toward positive correlation. Except for Organizational Culture and Environment, the relationship between Multicultural Coexistence and the remaining four dimensions of Organizational Performance can be enhanced by System Thinking toward positive correlation.

The five dimensions of Learning Organization cannot enhance the relationship between the two other dimensions (Cultural Conflict and Cultural Mergence) of Corporate Cross-cultural Management and the five dimensions of Organizational Performance. This may be because their original positive correlations were strong enough. Therefore, Learning Organization cannot show any further impact on their positive correlation.

Conclusions

Based on the literature review and empirical study, the three conclusions for cross-cultural management were posited as described below.

Implementing Localization Operation

The localization operation is the cross-cultural management mode which is most capable of accommodating foreign cultures and avoiding fierce cultural conflict. Many MNEs are located and oriented at the strategy of localization operation. For example, NEC’s success in international operations rests on many important factors, of which localization of products, talents and corporate management are especially pivotal. Compared with other management modes, localization operation has four advantages. First and foremost, it can stop conflicts arising from culture differences with host-country management personnel. Secondly, it can lessen differences of companies’ brand and management concepts within a local society. Thirdly, it is favorable to growth, promotion and circulation of local talents, and helps the company gain public praise. Finally, a company can use flexible countermeasures to treat unfavorable limitations that may appear when the international marketing environment changes.

Practicing Cross-Cultural Training

Cross-cultural training is a strong tool with which to realize cultural integration. Such training has various specific aims. Some examples include reducing culture conflicts encountered − probably by expatriate managers − to enable them to get accustomed to the local environment and take normal roles as soon as possible, promoting local employees’ understanding of the company’s operation concept and rules of practice, and so on. Various forms of cross-cultural training enable enterprises to avoid culture misreading and reduce culture conflict in exchange and communication. The training helps to achieve culture mergence and establish harmonious operation and management modes. For example, the Hewlett-Packard Company in China, against the background of Chinese culture and American Hewlett-Packard Culture, gradually forms a particular corporate concept to raise external adaptation and internal concordance. This concept refers to common long-term strategy, mutual benefit, mutual trust and comanagement, which are regarded by many cultural experts as the four key elements of cross-cultural management in Sino-foreign joint ventures.

Establishing A Learning Organization

Learning, which is regarded as an important method by which an organization can develop and maintain adaptability, is the most effective approach for an organization to create opportunities for existence and development. In a learning organization interactions between individuals with different cultural backgrounds and between an individual staff member and a group of his/her colleagues are stressed. Encouragement and guidance are given in system thinking, personal mastery, shared vision, the improvement of mental models and team learning within the organization to share the cultural resources and wisdom of different cultures. The hope within the learning organization is that corporate collective wisdom can take precedence over the total of individual wisdom. For example, a shared vision is a truly inspiring strength. In the World Top 500 listed in Fortune magazine, 80% of the companies have their own vision statement. Compared with those that perform badly, companies that perform well have very well-defined vision statements.

Adler, N. J. (1999). From the Atlantic to the Pacific century: Cross-cultural management reviewed. Journal of Management, 12(2), 295-318.

Aksu, A., & Özdemir, B. (2005). Individual learning and organization culture in learning organizations: Five star hotels in the Antalya region of Turkey. Managerial Auditing Journal, 20(4), 413-422.

Alavi, S. B., & McCormick, J. (2004). A cross-cultural analysis of the effectiveness of the learning organization model in school contexts. The International Journal of Educational Management, 18(7), 408-416.

Ani, A., & Camp, R. C. (1996). Global managers: Qualities for effective competition. International  Journal of Manpower, 17(6), 5-18.

Baker, W. E., & James, M. S. (1999). The synergistic effort of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 411-427.

Bennett, J. K., & O’Brien, M. J. (1994). The building blocks of the learning organization. Training, 31(6), 41-49.

Burress, M. A. (1996). The relationship between team leader behaviors and team performance and satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas, TX, USA.

Campbell, J. P., & Carol, A. (1997). Management by enlightened self-interest: Technique versus kindness. Health Care Supervisor, 16(2), 48-57.

Chien, M. H. (2004). A study to improve organizational performance: A view from SHRM. Journal of American Academy of Business, 4(1/2), 289-291.

Chow, C. W., Haddad, K. M., & Wu, A. (2003). Corporate culture and its relation to performance: A comparative study of Taiwanese and U.S. manufacturing firms. Managerial Finance, 29(12), 65-76.

Cowherd, D. M., & Levine, D. I. (1992). Product quality and pay equity between lower level employees and top management: An investigation of distributive justice theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(2), 302-320.

Delaney, J. T. (1995). Forthcoming, unions, human resources, and organizational outcomes. In D. Lewin, B. Kaufman, & D. Sockell (Eds.), Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949-969.

Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., Yang, B., & Howton, S. W. (2002). The relationship between the learning organization concept and the firm’s financial performance: An empirical assessment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 31(1), 5-21.

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287-323.

Friedlander, F., & Walton, E. (1964). Positive and negative motivations toward work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 194-207.

Goffee, R., & Jones, C. (1998). The character of a corporation: How your company’s culture can make or break your business. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Goh, S. C. (1998). Toward a learning organization: The strategic building blocks. Sam Advanced Management Journal, 63(2), 15-22.

Gordon, G. G., & DiTomaso, N. (1992). Predicting corporate performance from organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 29(6), 783-798.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kobrin, S. L. (1988). Expatriate reduction and strategic control in American multinational corporation. Human Resource Management, 27, 63-75.

McGill, M. E., & Slocum, J. W. (1993). Un-learning the organization. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 67-79.

Oldham, G. R., & Kulik, C. T. (1986). Relations between job facet comparisons and employee reactions. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 38-52.

Rashid, M. Z. A., Sambasivan, M., & Johari, J. (2003). The influence of corporate culture and organizational commitment on performance. Journal of Management Development, 22(8), 708-728.

Retna, K. S., & Tee, N. P. (2006). The challenges of adopting the learning organization philosophy in a Singapore school. The International Journal of Educational Management, 20(2), 140-153.

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P. (1994). Learning to alter mental models. Executive Excellence, 11(3), 16-17.

Sloma, R. S. (1980). How to measure managerial performance (pp. 66-89). Georgia, USA:
Macmillan P.C.

Van, D. L., & Cummings, L. L. (1990). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. Paper noted at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco.

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Wu, Y. X. (2004). Culture conflict and cross-cultural management. Journal of Zhonggong Fuziangshengwei Dangxiao, 5(4), 19-44.

Appreciation is due to anonymous reviewers.

Dr. Fu-Jin Wang, Department of Tourism, Aletheia University, (251) 32, Chen-Li Street, Danshuei Town, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. Phone: 886-2- 26212121; Fax: 886-2-26238663; Email: [email protected]