**5. Conclusions**

the content to be developed and user, redistributing the control and the power of information among all the participants. It is therefore detectable a relationship in which the higher the value of the Power Distance, higher will be the necessity to use incentives to achieve

• Masculinity values—there is a significant negative correlation (r = 0.000 \*\*\*, for professionals) between this variable and incentives' use, while for managers a clear impact between this variable and the use of bonus does not come out. In organizations, the communities set a dynamic process of generating a new knowledge based on the interaction of negotiations aimed at ensuring the mutual integration between men and women. Groups are thus composed of people (regardless of gender) who share interests, aspirations, ideals, and who live in a space characterized by an intimacy of relationships that is opposed to the society based on gender ties. As a result, it is possible to state that the degree to which the gender

• Uncertainty Avoidance—there is a significant negative correlation (r = 0.000 \*\*\*, for managers; r = 0.000 \*\*\*, for professionals,) between this variable and the use of bonus. Individuals from cultures that favor a high level of uncertainty avoidance prefer order and stability whereas those from cultures that favor low uncertainty avoidance are relatively more comfortable dealing with uncertainty and less formal structure [58], that is teamwork and the use of bonus. These differences may have consequences for how individuals perceive the need for task and role structure. For instance, people from low uncertainty avoidance cultures may be less inclined to seek early closure on the clarification of roles, accountabilities,

• Indulgence (as it should be HOP)—there is a significant positive correlation (r = 0.001 \*\*\* for professionals) between this variable and incentives' use for professionals, while for managers and clericals a clear impact between this variable and the use of bonus does not come out. There is not a significant correlation between managers and clericals. Cooperating means establishing functional relationships, considering other people as necessary and indispensable resources for the achievement of a common goal. In high humane oriented environments, individuals treat each other with fairness, altruism, and care. There are various theories to explain the specificity of human cooperation, each influenced by the partiality of the privileged cooperation schemes: the theory of consanguineous selection that focuses cooperation between genetically related individuals; the theory of direct reciprocity that insists on egoistic incentives in bilateral interaction of cooperation (I give and you will receive); the theory of indirect reciprocity, which shows how cooperation emerges when a reputation of the cooperators can be built; a more recent theory is the "theory of altruistic punishment" which favors, in the genesis of cooperation, the willingness to punish those who do not cooperate or those who violate the rules, even if the punishment itself does not bring any gain for those who cooperate. Human behavior is complex and certainly, these theories do not complete the observations, which can be obtained from phenomena of altruism and cooperation that each individual can do. The importance of social habits in the animal kingdom is documented by the resource of aggregation, which is useful to protect against environmental adversities and to easily search for food. Mankind's progress and

inequality is minimized is positively correlated with the use of incentives.

the goals in groups.

180 Organizational Conflict

and task structure.

This study extends a growing line of research demonstrating that culture may play a critical role in the success of team-based reward programs or in the employee resistance to teams. Kirkman and Shapiro [59] argue that cultural values such as power distance [60], determinism [61], and individualism [60] can influence the extent to which employees resist teams.

Based on this literature it has used a regression model (Logit) to analyze which, among cultural dimensions of three types of employees (managers, professionals, clericals), have the strongest relationship to the propensity to the use of bonus for the group. The research has considered that Hofstede's model of cultural dimensions demonstrate a significant relationship between cultural dimensions and the use of incentives.

In particular, there is a negative correlation between Individualism, Power Distance, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Indulgence and bonus; so when each of them increases incentives' use decreases. For Pragmatism, instead, there is a positive relation; so when it increases the use of bonus increases too.

These results are validated for managers and professionals and no for clericals. It is important to note that culture moderates but do not override individual personality. Moreover, prior experience in interacting with different cultures can change the effect of the original cultural influence [62].

Future works should extend this line of research to investigate the impact of bonus for the team on other national dimensions such as for Globe's model. Additionally, while bonus can be understood as a special form of an incentive scheme, future research should test the effect of national culture on many different incentive systems.

[13] Merriman K. Low trust teams prefer individualized pay. Harvard Business Review.

Impact of National Culture on the Bonus' Use for Teamwork

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75909

183

[14] Bamberger PA, Levi R. Team-based reward allocation structures and the helping behaviors of outcome-interdependent team members. Journal of Managerial Psychology.

[15] Richman L. Project management step-by-step. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn;

[16] Madhani PM. Aligning compensation systems with organization culture. Compensation

[17] Hampel R. Committee on Corporate Governance: Final Report. London: Gee & Co; 1998 [18] Schuler RS, Rogovsky N. Understanding compensation practice variations across firms: The impact of national culture. Journal of International Business Studies. 1998;

[19] Morgenstern ML. The board's perspective: Compensation and the new employment

[20] Early C. Social loafting and collectivism: A compartion of United States and People's

[21] Kirkman BL, Shapiro DL. The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams: Toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness. Academy of

[22] Nickel JE, O'Neal S. Small group incentives: Gainsharing in the microcosm. Compen-

[23] Wagner JA. Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups.

[24] Parsons T, Shils E. Toward a General Theory of Action. New York: Harper and Row; 1951 [25] Kluckhohn F, Strodtbeck F. Variations in Value Orientation. New York: Harper and Row;

[27] Haire G, Ghiselli EE, Porter LW. Managerial Thinking: An International Study.

[28] Rokeach M. Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A Theory of Organisation and Change. San

[29] Hofstede G. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values.

[30] Geertz C. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays by Clifford Geertz. New York:

relation- ship. Compensation and Benefits Review. 1995;**27**(2):37-44

Republic of China. Adinistrative Science Quartely. 1989;**34**:565-581

2008;**86**(11):32

2009;**24**(4):300-327

and Benefits Review. 2014;**46**(2):103-115

Management Review. 1997;**22**(3):730-757

sation and Benefits Review. 1990;**22**(2):22-29

Academy of Management Journal. 1995;**38**(1):152-173

[26] Hall ET. The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday; 1959

New York: John Wiley; 1966

Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1968

Beverly Hills: Sage; 1980

Basic Books; 1973

2002

**29**:159-177

1961
