Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership

1

Cross-Cultural Leadership Research: GLOBE Project
Study Program Master of Business Administration (MBA)

Module: Assignment: Course Instructor:

Soft Skills & Leadership Qualities No. 2/2 Professor Dr. Ulrike Hellert

Author: Student ID Number:

Salma Souktani 234263

2nd Academic Semester 2009/2010 Place, Date Regensburg, 15th January 2010

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership

2

Table of Contents
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 2   List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 3   List of Tables.............................................................................................................................. 3   Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 4   1 Introduction of the GLOBE Project ........................................................................................ 4   2 Operationalization of Research Instruments ........................................................................... 5   2.1 Culture .............................................................................................................................. 5   2.1.1 Operationalization of Culture.................................................................................... 5   2.1.2 Clustering of Societal Collectivities.......................................................................... 8   2.2 Leadership ........................................................................................................................ 9   2.2.1 Operationalization of Leadership ............................................................................ 10   3 GLOBE’s Major Findings..................................................................................................... 10   3.1 Universally Desirable/Undesirable Leadership Attributes............................................. 10   3.2 Culturally Endorsed Leadership Theory Dimensions (CLTs) ....................................... 10   3.3 Cluster’s Leadership Profiles ......................................................................................... 11   Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 13   Bibliography............................................................................................................................. 15   Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. 16   Appendix B .............................................................................................................................. 17   Appendix C .............................................................................................................................. 19  

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership

3

List of Figures
Figure 1: The 7-step scale of the cultural dimension ‘Assertiveness’ ........................................7   Figure 2: Assessment items construct ‘quartet’ .........................................................................8   Figure 3: Cultural Clusters of Societal Collectivities ..................................................................9   Figure 4: Cultural Clusters’ scores on the different CLT dimensions.......................................12   Figure 5: The Germanic Europe Cluster’s Leadership Profile .................................................13   Figure C.1: Middle East Cluster’s Leadership Profile ..............................................................19   Figure C.2: Latin Europe Cluster’s Leadership Profile.............................................................19   Figure C.3: Latin America Cluster’s Leadership Profile ...........................................................19   Figure C.4: Confucian Asian Cluster’s Leadership Profile.......................................................20   Figure C.5: Nordic Europe Cluster’s Leadership Profile ..........................................................20   Figure C.6: Eastern Europe Cluster’s Leadership Profile ........................................................20   Figure C.7: Anglo Cluster’s Leadership Profile........................................................................21   Figure C.8: Sub-Saharan Africa Cluster’s Leadership Profile..................................................21   Figure C.9: Southern Asia Cluster’s Leadership Profile ..........................................................21  

List of Tables
Table 1: GLOBE’s nine cultural dimensions and their definition ................................................6   Table 3.1: Definition of the CLT dimensions ............................................................................11   Table 3.2: Cultural Dimension Drivers of Autonomous CTL ....................................................12   Table A.1: Universally Desirable Leadership Attributes...........................................................16   Table A.2: Universally Undesirable Leadership Attributes.......................................................16   Table A.3: Culturally Contingent Leadership Attributes ...........................................................16   Table B.1: Cultural Dimension Value Drivers of the Charismatic/Value-Based CTL ...............17   Table B.2: Cultural Dimension Value Drivers of the Team-Oriented CTL................................17   Table B.3: Cultural Dimension Drivers of the Participative CTL ..............................................18   Table B.4: Cultural Dimension Drivers of the Humane Oriented CTL......................................18   Table B.5: Cultural Dimensions Drivers of the Self-Protective CTL.........................................18  

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership

4

Abstract
Globalization as the increased economic, social, technical and political interdependence between various nations has been advancing throughout the world. It created an urgent need for effective global leader and managers to operate in multinational organizations. House (House, Sully de Luque, Dorfman, & Javidan, 2006) stated that leadership ‘lies in the eye of the beholder’1. In other words leadership is contingent upon the culture in which the leader operates. Many empirical comparative researches in the field of cross-cultural leadership attempted, over the years, to offer a theoretical construct for explaining cross-cultural differences in leadership behaviors. GLOBE was one of the most extensive and most comprehensive research programs to date. Harry Triandis, one of the titans in the field of cross-cultural research, referred to the GLOBE project as “the Manhattan Project of the study of the relationship of culture to conceptions of leadership”2. GLOBE’s findings present highly useful guideline to global leader and manager regarding how to adapt their behaviors to differences in cultures in order to be perceived as effective. This paper intends to provide a brief introduction of GLOBE research program, its methodology and findings.

1 Introduction of the GLOBE Project
The acronym ‘GLOBE’ stands for ‘Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness’. GLOBE is a cross-cultural research study whose goal is to examine the interrelationship between societal culture, organizational culture, and organizational leadership3. Robert J. House the principal investigator, who was joined by other notorious principal co-investigators, initially conceived the concept of the GLOBE project in the summer of 1991. Later on 170 social scientists and management scholars were recruited to develop a network of country coinvestigators spanning the world.

1 2 3

(House, Sully de Luque, Dorfman, & Javidan, 2006) (House et al., 2004) (House, Javidan, & Dorfman, 2001)

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership The ultimate goal of the GLOBE’s researches was to ‘develop an empirical based theory to describe, understand, and predict the impact of specific cultural variables on leadership and organizational processes and the effectiveness of these processes’4. The GLOBE’s researchers set as initial hypothesis that societal and organizational culture influences the kind of Leadership found to be acceptable and effective by the members of the respective culture5. This hypothesis was confirmed by the end of an eleven-years research program.

5

2 Operationalization of Research Instruments
To conduct the research program successfully, GLOBE had at first to develop a collective understanding of the project by establishing a consensual operational definition of the concepts of culture and leadership and more importantly by establishing a set of measurable variables of these two concepts.

2.1 Culture
One of the first obstacles GLOBE’s researchers encountered was establishing a consensual definition of the concept of ‘Culture’. Culture was over last decades variously defined. However, most of the issued definitions have in common the notion of ‘sharedness among collectivities’ in terms of shared values, beliefs, identities, ways of thinking and reacting. GLOBE’s researchers consensually adopted a working definition of the concept of culture. They defined it ‘as shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and interpretations or meanings of significant events that result from common experiences of collectives’ members and are transmitted across age generations’ 6. 2.1.1 Operationalization of Culture The concept of culture is, as seen above, a quite vague concept. In order to distinguish between the various societal collectivities in term of cultural differences, researchers needed to define measurable cultural variables. First of all GLOBE’s

4 5 6

(House et al., 2004) (Grove, Leadership Style Variantions Across Cultures: Overview of GLOBE Research Findings, 2005) (House et al., 2004)

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership researchers defined a set of measurable variables in order to capture the similarities and the dissimilarities in values, beliefs and practices among various societal collectivities. Based partly on previous works on measurement of culture relevant to crosscultural and leadership theory GLOBE established nine cultural dimensions, six of which adopted from Hofstede’s work (Hofstede, 1994)7: (1) Uncertainty Avoidance (Hofstede) , (2) Power Distance (Hofstede) , (3) Collectivism I (Hofstede), (4) Collectivism II (Hofstede), (5) Gender Egalitarianism (Hofstede), (6) Assertiveness (Hofstede), (7) Future Orientation, (8) Performance Orientation, (9) Humane Orientation. The table below (Table 1) summarizes the definition given by the GLOBE to each of the six dimensions8.
The degree to which members of a collective expect power to be Power distance Uncertainty avoidance distributed equally.

6

The extent to which a society, organization, or group relies on social norms, rules & procedures to alleviate unpredictability of future events. The degree to which a collective encourages & rewards individuals for Humane orientation being fair, altruistic, generous, caring & kind to others. The degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices Collectivism I encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty and Collectivism II Assertiveness Gender egalitarianism cohesiveness in their organizations or families. The degree to which individuals are assertive, dominant & demanding in their relationships with others. The degree to which a collective minimizes gender inequality. The extent to which a collective encourages future-oriented behaviors Future orientation Performance orientation such as delaying gratification, planning & investing in the future. The degree to which a collective encourages & reward group members for performance improvement & excellence.

Table 1: GLOBE’s nine cultural dimensions and their definition 9 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

7 8 9

(Hofstede, 1994) (House et al., 2004) (House et. al, 2004)

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership GLOBE’s researchers established a 7-step Likert-type scale questionnaire item to each dimension, which allowed a refined differentiating between the various societal collectivities (Figure1). The extent to which a culture endorses a certain dimension could be thereby, within the realms of possibility, accurately described.
Non-Assertive Assertive

7

1
Greatly nonAssertive

7 2 3 4 5 6
Somewhat Assertive Greatly Assertive

Somewhat NonAssertive

Slightly Non-Assertive

Slightly Neither Assertive Assertive nor Non-Assertive

Figure 1: The 7-step scale of the cultural dimension ‘Assertiveness’ Source: Grove, C. N. (2005). Worldwide Differences in Business Values and Practices: Overview of GLOBE Research Findings.10

Since GLOBE’s scope is to assess the impact of both societal and organizational culture on leadership effectiveness, societies and organizations were considered as separate measurable unities. Therefore, the nine dimensions were used to measure culture within the larger society and the specific organization (operating within the respective society). GLOBE conceptualized the nine dimensions further by distinguishing between the two ways in which culture manifests itself within a society or an organization. Javidan and House (Javidan & House, 2001) stated that ‘to understand a culture, we need to know what cultural practices and people’s aspirations are’11. Essentially culture manifests itself in term of values and in term of practices, where values depict the aspirations of collectivities’ members of how things ‘should be’; and practices as how things are actually being reported ‘As is’. Accordingly questionnaire items were established as ‘quartet’ (Figure 2): for all nine dimensions across two unities of analysis (society and organization) in respect of the two manifestations of culture values (should be) and culture practices (As is)12.

10 11 12

(Grove, Leadership Style Variantions Across Cultures: Overview of GLOBE Research Findings, 2005) (Javidan & House, 2001) (Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson, 2000)

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership

8

Unities of Analysis

Societal

Nine dimensions of culture

Nine dimensions of culture

Organizational

Nine dimensions of culture

Nine dimensions of culture

As Is

Should be

Manifestation of Culture
Figure 2: Assessment items construct ‘quartet’ Source: Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P., & Peterson, M. F. (2000). Handbook of Organizational Culture and 13 Climate.

2.1.2 Clustering of Societal Collectivities Based on factors like common language, geography, ethnicity, religion and history, the GLOBE’s researchers assigned 62 societal collectivities to 10 distinctive cultural categories referred to as ‘clusters’ (Figure 3). The clustering concept was adopted based on prior works, e.g. (Ronen & Shenkar, 1985)14. The empirical pertinence of the proposed clustering was confirmed afterwards when tested statically using the ‘discriminant analysis’15. The clustering of different societal collectivities was proven to be a very useful method to summarize the similarities and dissimilarities between the various clusters and to make significant generalization about culture and leadership16. Cultural similarity is greatest among societies of the same cluster; cultural dissimilarity increases the further clusters are situated apart in the figure below (Figure 3). For instance the dissimilarity between the ‘Germanic Europe’ cluster and the ‘Middle East’ cluster is not as great as the dissimilarity between the ‘Germanic Europe’ cluster and the ‘Confucian Asia’ cluster.

13 14 15 16

(Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson, 2000) (Ronen & Shenkar, 1985) (Gupta, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002) (House, Hanges, & Javidan, 2004)

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership

9

Figure 3: Cultural Clusters of Societal Collectivities 17 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

2.2 Leadership
Alike the concept of ‘Culture’ there is no agreed-upon definition of ‘Leadership’. The concept of leadership was variously defined over the years however almost all definitions in the literature mention the role of leaders to exercise influence on members of a group in order to accomplish a shared goal18. The GLOBE’s researchers consent to a common definition of organizational leadership: ‘the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members’19. Their definition emphasizes on the leader’s main task of inducing effectiveness and success of given organizations.

17 18 19

(House e. a., 2004) (Yukl, 2009) (House et al., 2004)

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 2.2.1 Operationalization of Leadership

10

To measure the different perceptions of leadership’s effectiveness, GLOBE’s researchers used at first 7-step Likert-type scale questionnaire items probing respondent about 112 behavioral and attribute descriptors. Respondents were asked to which extent each attribute is regarded as conducive to an outstanding leadership or as impediment to an effective leadership.

3 GLOBE’s Major Findings
3.1 Universally Desirable/Undesirable Leadership Attributes
The aforementioned 112 behavioral and attribute descriptors of an outstanding were used to probe 17,300 middle managers in 951 organizations from the 62 societal collectivities20. The analysis of the responses led the GLOBE’s researchers to identify 22 attributes (Appendix A, Table A.1), which are universally perceived to be conducive to an outstanding leadership, like “honest”, and “motivator”. They were also able to identify 8 attributes (Appendix A, Table A.2), which are universally perceived as impediment to an outstanding leadership, like “irritable” and “asocial”. Yet, some attributes (Appendix A, Table A.3) were identified to be culturally contingent; that is perceived as conducive to an outstanding leadership in some societal collectivities while impediment to leadership effectiveness in other societal collectivities. Hence GLOBE’s initial hypothesis, that societal and organizational culture influences the kind of Leadership regarded as acceptable and effective by the members of the respective culture, was empirically proven to be accurate.

3.2 Culturally Endorsed Leadership Theory Dimensions (CLTs)
CLOBE’s researchers were able to empirically reduce the number of 112 behavioral and attribute descriptors into a simplified grouping of 21 “primary leadership dimensions” which are perceived –with varying extents- in all societal collectivities as leadership effectiveness related. These “primary leadership dimensions” were statically categorized into 6 common categories referred to as “Culturally endorsed Leadership Theory dimensions” or in short “CLT dimensions”. CLT dimensions are perceived as the
20

(House et al., 2004)

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership summary indicators of the characteristics, skills and abilities that are culturally perceived as conducive or as impediment to an outstanding organizational

11

leadership. In brief they depict different leadership ‘styles’. The following table (Table 4) summarizes the definitions of the six CLT dimensions.
Reflects the ability to inspire, to motivate, and to expect high performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core beliefs. Emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a common purpose or goal among team members. Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making and implementing decisions. Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also includes compassion and generosity. Refers to independent and individualistic leadership. Focuses on ensuring the safety and security of the individual. It is selfcentered and face saving in its approach.

Charismatic/Value Based Team Oriented Participative Humane Orientation Autonomous Self-Protective

Table 3.1: Definition of the CLT dimensions 21 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

3.3 Cluster’s Leadership Profiles
As seen above GLOBE’s researchers were able to empirically prove that societal and organizational culture influences the kind of Leadership regarded as acceptable by the members of a given culture; their next step was to investigate the ways in which cultural characteristics were related to differences in leadership approaches. The GLOBE’s researchers were able to relate empirically each of the CLT dimensions to each of the cultural dimensions. The table below (Table 3.2) shows the summarized relationship between cultural dimensions and the ‘Autonomous’ CLT dimension. In other words it shows the relative contribution of each cultural dimension toward the ‘Autonomous’ CTL dimension. Nine other tables summarizing the relationship between cultural dimensions and the remaining CLT dimensions are to be found in Appendix B.

21

(House et al., 2004)

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership

12

Autonomous CLT Cultural Dimensions Values Positively Performance Orientation related related Leadership attributes

• • • •

Individualistic Independent Autonomous Unique

Negatively

Humane orientation Institutional Collectivism

Table 3.2: Cultural Dimension Drivers of Autonomous CTL 22 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

The empirical investigation also revealed how the 10 cultural clusters’ scores on the different CLT dimensions. The polar diagram below (Figure 4) summarizes the cultural clusters’ scores on the different CLT dimensions, for instance Participative CLT receives the higher score in ‘Germanic cluster’ and the lowest score in the ‘Middle East’ cluster.

Figure 4: Cultural Clusters’ scores on the different CLT dimensions 22 Adapted from House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.
22

(House et al., 2004)

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership

13

The major achievement of the GLOBE project was the identification of ‘Leadership Profile’ for each cluster. The profile describes the relative importance and desirability that different cultural clusters attribute to the different leadership behaviors. The figure bellow (Figure 5) shows the profile for the Germanic Europe cluster.

Figure 5: The Germanic Europe Cluster’s Leadership Profile 23 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

The Leadership profiles for the remaining 9 cultural clusters are to be found in Appendix C.

Conclusion
Julius Caesar said that experience “is the teacher of all things”24, this is still an universally accurate adage. For leaders, work experience and international assignment are by far the most valuable sources for developping global leadership skills25. However the GLOBE project’s findings provide ‘soon-to-be’ global leaders with a platform to sharpen their awareness of differences in culture throughout the world and differences in leadership behaviors it entails. GLOBE provides a large amount of information on cross-cultural leadership and specific country cultural characteristics and leadership profiles. All the findings of the project were edited in an 800 pages book: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.26 (House e. a., 2004)

23 24 26

(House et al., 2004) Julius Caesar: Roman leader (100-44 BC) 25 (Conner, 2000)

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership GLOBE project is an extraordinary effort and a significant contribution to the organizational behavior literature; House (House R. J., 1998) summarized the achievement the GLOBE project by saying: “[…] a major contribution to the organizational behavior and leadership literature. To date more than 90% of the

14

organizational behavior literature reflects U.S.-based research and theory. Hopefully GLOBE will be able to liberate organizational behavior from the U.S. hegemony"27.

27

(House R. J., 1998)

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership

15

Bibliography
Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P., & Peterson, M. F. (2000). Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate. Sage Pubn Inc. Conner, J. (2000). Developing the global leaders of tomorrow. Human Resource Management Journal , Vol 39, 146-157. Grove, C. N. (2005). Leadership Style Variantions Across Cultures: Overview of GLOBE Research Findings. Retrieved 12 10th, 2009, from www. grovewell.com: http://www.grovewell.com/pub-GLOBE-leadership.html Grove, C. N. (2005). Worldwide Differences in Business Values and Practices: Overview of GLOBE Research Findings. Retrieved 12 10th, 2009, from www.grovewell.com: http://www.grovewell.com/pub-GLOBE-dimensions.html Gupta, V., Hanges, P. J., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Culture Clusters: Methodology and Findings. Journal of World Business (37), 11-15. Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Profile Books. House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies. Sage Publications. House, R. J. (1998). A brief history of GLOBE. Journal of managerial Psychology , Vol 13 (3/4), 230-240. House, R. J., Sully de Luque, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Javidan, M. (February 2006). In the eye of the Beholder: Cross-Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Persprctives , 67-90. House, R., Javidan, M., & Dorfman, P. (2001). Project GLOBE: An Introduction. Applied Psychology: An International Review , 50 (4), 489-505. Javidan, M., & House, R. J. (2001). Cultural Acumen for the Global Manager: Lessons from Project GLOBE. Organizational Dynamics , 29, 289-305. ROBBINS, S. P. (2005). Essentials Of Organizational Behavior (8th ed.). Prentice Hall. Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. The Academy of Management Review , Vol 10, 435-454. Yukl, G. (2009). Leadership in Organisations (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership

16

Appendix A
Universally Desirable Leadership Attributes Trustworthy Foresight Positive Confidence builder Intelligent Win-win problem solver Administrative skilled Excellence oriented
Table A.1: Universally Desirable Leadership Attributes 28 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Just Plans ahead Dynamic Motivational Decisive Communicative Coordinator

Honest Encouraging Motive arouser Dependable Effective bargainer Informed Team builder

Universally Undesirable Leadership attributes Loner Irritable Ruthless Asocial Indirect/Non-explicit Dictatorial Non-cooperative Egocentric

Table A.2: Universally Undesirable Leadership Attributes 29 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Culturally Contingent Leadership Attributes Anticipatory Logical Cautions Procedural Cunning Ruler Enthusiastic Sensitive Habitual Subdued Individualistic Worldly Intuitive Autonomous Orderly Compassionate Risk taker Elitist Self-sacrificial Formal Status-conscious Indirect Willful Intra-group conflict avoider Ambitious Micro-manager Class conscious Provocateur Domineering Self-effacing Evasive Sincere Independent Unique Intra-group competitor

Table A.3: Culturally Contingent Leadership Attributes 30 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

28 29 30

(House et al, 2004) (House et al, 2004) (House et al, 2004)

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership

17

Appendix B

Charismatic/Value-Based Leadership CLT Cultural Dimensions Values Positively Performance Oriented In-Group Collectivism Gender Egalitarianism Future Orientation Human Orientation related Negatively Power Distance related Leadership attributes

• • • • • •

Visionary Inspirational Self-sacrifice Integrity Decisive Performance oriented

Table B.1: Cultural Dimension Value Drivers of the Charismatic/Value-Based CTL 31 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Team-Oriented Leadership CLT Cultural Dimensions Values Positively Uncertainty avoidance In-Group-Collectivism Humane Orientation Performance Orientation Future Orientation Negatively related
/

Leadership attributes Collaborative team orientation • • • • Team integration Diplomatic Malevolent (reversescored) Administratively competent

Table B.2: Cultural Dimension Value Drivers of the Team-Oriented CTL 32 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

related

31 32

(House et al, 2004) (House et al, 2004)

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership
Participative Leadership CLT Cultural Dimensions Values Positively Performance Orientation Gender Egalitarianism Humane Orientation related Uncertainty avoidance Power Distance Assertiveness related related Leadership attributes

18

• •

Participative Autocratic (reverse-scored)

Table B.3: Cultural Dimension Drivers of the Participative CTL 33 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Negatively

Humane Oriented CLT Cultural Dimensions Values Positively Humane orientation Uncertainty Avoidance Assertiveness Performance Orientation Future Orientation related Negatively / Leadership attributes

• •

Modesty Humane oriented

Table B.4: Cultural Dimension Drivers of the Humane Oriented CTL 34 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Self-Protective Leadership CLT Cultural Dimensions Values Positively Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance related related Leadership attributes Self centered Status conscious Conflict inducer Face saver Procedural

• • •

Negatively

Gender Egalitarianism In-Group Collectivism Performance Orientation

• •

Table B.5: Cultural Dimensions Drivers of the Self-Protective CTL 35 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

33 34 35

(House et al, 2004) (House et al, 2004) (House et al, 2004)

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership

19

Appendix C

Figure C.1: Middle East Cluster’s Leadership Profile 36 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Figure C.2: Latin Europe Cluster’s Leadership Profile 37 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Figure C.3: Latin America Cluster’s Leadership Profile 38 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

36 37 38

(House et al, 2004) (House et al, 2004) (House et al, 2004)

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership

20

Figure C.4: Confucian Asian Cluster’s Leadership Profile 39 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Figure C.5: Nordic Europe Cluster’s Leadership Profile 40 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Figure C.6: Eastern Europe Cluster’s Leadership Profile 41 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

39 40 41

(House et al, 2004) (House et al, 2004) (House et al, 2004)

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership

21

Figure C.7: Anglo Cluster’s Leadership Profile 42 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Figure C.8: Sub-Saharan Africa Cluster’s Leadership Profile 43 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Figure C.9: Southern Asia Cluster’s Leadership Profile 44 Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

42 43 44

(House et al, 2004) (House et al, 2004) (House et al, 2004)

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful