["Applied Psychology, Volume 75, Issue 4, August 2026. ", "\nAbstract\nCultural tightness–looseness (CTL), commonly studied in the cross‐cultural psychology literature, has been proposed as a distal (i.e., country‐level) operationalization of situational strength, with tight and loose countries representing strong and weak country‐level situations, respectively. However, situational strength‐driven moderation hypotheses had not previously been tested empirically using CTL. Following previous studies involving more proximal operationalizations of situational strength that focused on relationships between personality and job performance, we propose that certain personality–performance relationships are moderated (often attenuated but in some cases enhanced) by the distal situational strength operationalization of CTL. Using two meta‐analytic datasets (one original and one archival), we provide the first empirical and indeed meta‐analytic test of CTL moderation and examine potential mechanisms for such moderation (e.g., whether the variance in conscientiousness and/or performance is restricted in tight countries). In general, across two different ways of scoring CTL and across several job performance outcomes, the meta‐analytic findings do not support the idea that country‐level CTL acts in a manner expected by situational strength theory. Moreover, the findings do not depend on the source of performance ratings, primary study design (cross‐sectional vs. longitudinal), economic conditions (gross domestic product), outliers, publication bias, or several other factors. Thus, in terms of practical implications for employee selection, employee performance is as robustly predictable from employee (or job applicant) personality scores in tight countries as in loose countries. We suggest future research that (a) assesses CTL and more proximal occupational strength simultaneously and (b) uses CTL measures that are themselves more proximal and that use a work/job (vs. general) frame of reference.\n"]