Leadership

CULTURE-BASED LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS AS
DETERMINED THROUGH AN EMPLOYEE ENVIRONMENT
SURVEY OF A MULTINATIONAL COMPANY
by
Susan J. Gilkey
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
May 2005
UMI Number: 3178453
UMI Microform 3178453

Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to provide a basis for researchers to increase their knowledge
of workplace attitudes across various cultures. Many companies operate in a global
business community. Management techniques that fit the work environment of one
culture may not be effective or appropriate for other cultures. To get a better
understanding of what management behaviors influence people of various cultures, it is
important to understand the overall differences between cultures when considering
motivators, common practices, relationships with superiors, leader competencies, and
worker expectations. Worker views and attitudes regarding management practices can be
assessed using a workplace assessment tool to determine areas of improvement. The
benefits of achieving an engaged workforce through a positive relationship between
leaders and employees can lead to desired business results through higher levels of
performance. The primary countries of focus in this study will include United States,
Australia, Germany, and Brazil.

Dedication
My deepest gratitude to my husband, Michael, for his support, encouragement and love
throughout this process. In addition, to my children, Erin and Ryan, for their
understanding and helpfulness in achieving this goal. To my parents, Roseanne and
William Lengyel, who raised me to be hardworking and persistent in reaching my goals.
To my numerous friends who patiently listened to the woes of undertaking this project.
For all of the above, I feel a great indebtedness for I am truly blessed.
Acknowledgements
My special thanks to Dr. Hal W. Stephenson, Dr. Ned M. Gibbons, and Murray J. Pyle
for their statistical expertise and patient guidance that they provided me to support this
project.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents iii
List of Tables v
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Purpose of the Study 2
Research Questions 3
Significance of the Study 3
Definition of Terms 4
Assumptions and Limitations 5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Current Literature on Cross-Cultural Issues 8
Cultural Dimensions Framework 15
Four Country Cultural Dimensions Comparison 19
Culture of Brazil 21
Culture of Germany 23
Culture of Australia 24
Culture of United States 24
Cross-Cultural Characteristics in the Workplace 26
Cross-Cultural Views of Implicit Leadership Theories 30

iii
Cross-Cultural Training and Skill Building 32
Understanding Culture Supports Business Goals 38
Conclusions on Cross-Cultural Leadership Issues 40
Leadership Theories 41
Organizational Identification Theory 44
Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) 45
Development of LMX 46
LMX Reflected in Organizational Performance 47
Conclusions of Leadership Theories 50
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN
Significance of Case Study Research 53
Target Population 54
The Survey 54
Research Hypotheses 56
Data Collection 58
Data Analysis 58
Expected Findings 59
Conclusion 60
CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSES
Demographic Analysis 61
Survey Statements Data Analysis and Hypotheses Decisions 64
Summary 83
iv
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion 85
Conclusions 99
Recommendations 105
REFERENCES 110
v
List of Tables
Table 1 Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Framework Scores 16
Table 2a Employee Environment Survey Statement Response

Percentages by Country 63
Table 2b Employee Environment Survey Statement Response

Percentages by Country 64
Table 3 Survey Statement Chi-Square Contingency Test for Independence Results 66
Table 4 Chi-Square Contingency Table Tests for Independence for Statement 5 68
Table 10a Chi-Square Contingency Table Tests for Independence for

Statement 2 80
Table 10b Chi-Square Contingency Table Tests for Independence for

Statement 3 81
Table 11 Summary of Hypotheses 80
vi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
The unlimited boundaries of today’s global business environment bring new
challenges to managers. When conducting business across various cultures, it is crucial to
understand cultural foundations that influence attitudes and behavior of managers and
employees so that a common corporate direction is shared (Barbuto, 2000). Managers on
rotational assignments as well as special project assignments working with members of
other cultures, supplier interface, consideration of future expansion, and joint ventures are
impacted by cross-cultural influences in a global business environment.
Cultural characteristics influence employee expectations regarding leadership
behaviors and these characteristics vary across different cultures. Organizations conduct
assessments of the workplace so leaders can better understand employee perspectives and
align management practices and policies more effectively. Recent studies (i.e., Katz,
Swanson & Nelson, 2001; Madzar, 2001) on workplace assessment look at management
practices, policies, attitudes, customer focus, ethical behavior, and commitment to
company members through the eyes of its employees. The views and attitudes of
employees impact business outcomes through their behavior. Through an assessment,
management is able to better direct energy where behavior will most likely benefit goal
attainment.
When operating a global business, the importance of understanding workplace
attitudes is increased due to the possible conflict between headquarter corporate
expectations and host country customs or culture. When conducting a workplace attitude
Culture-Based Implicit Leadership Behaviors 2
assessment, even similar responses may be the result of differently manifested leadership
behaviors.
An understanding of organizational theories and practices as well as a review of
cultural differences can broaden the knowledge base of effective management practices
to determine which practices are culturally bounded and which practices can be applied
more globally (Barbuto, 2000). A workplace environmental assessment conducted
through survey administration is a method to gather employee input on their perspectives
relative to manager practices and behaviors.
Employee survey data relative to leadership behaviors was collected through the
survey administration to four countries where the Kahuna Company conducts business
and will provide the basis of this study in the form of secondary data. The data of these
four countries will be compared using the cultural dimensions framework developed by
Geerte Hofstede (1983), which explains why people of different cultures translate life
events differently based on the level of individualism, masculinity, power distance, and
uncertainty avoidance. These countries include the United States (U.S.), Germany,
Australia, and Brazil. The people of these countries are referred to as U.S. Americans,
Germans, Australians, and Brazilians, respectively.
Statement of the Problem
Management techniques that fit the work environment of one culture may not be
effective or appropriate for other cultures. The goals and objectives of a company
operating in various countries or cultures could be affected by this aspect of
organizational behavior. To better understand which management behaviors influence

people of various cultures, it is important to understand the overall differences between
cultures when considering motivators, common practices, and relationships with
superiors, negotiating styles, and worker expectations of people of various cultures.
Aspects of the business world that differ between cultures include collectivism,
expectations of leadership, and time orientation, teamwork, strategic planning, inclusion
in decision-making, and leadership behaviors. These differences bring about different
leadership and employee behaviors (Robbins, 1992).
It is important for leadership to gain an understanding of the attitudes of the
employees. One way to gain this knowledge is by conducting a workplace environmental
assessment or attitude survey among employees. Survey results can be used to assess and
gain a better understanding of attitudes and prevalent cultural differences in the
workplace to determine if current management practices are effective in a particular
environment.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to understand the similarities and differences of
leadership behaviors in a multinational company’s employing units in the United States,
Germany, Australia, and Brazil. These four countries were chosen from the Kahuna
Company, a pseudo-name used for confidentiality purposes, operating units across the
globe because of their distant geographic locations from one another. As a result of this
study, multinationals will have a better understanding of what management practices can
more effectively influence the employees in particular operating units and which
management practices, if any, can be considered global in their effectiveness.

Research Questions
1. Do employees in countries characterized with high individualism place more
importance on receiving recognition and opportunities for personal development
and growth?
2. Do employees in countries characterized with low power distance place more
importance on their supervisor being open to team suggestions and inclusion in
decision making?
3. Do employees in countries characterized with high uncertainty avoidance place
more importance on clearly stated requirements, defined metrics, and established
tracking systems that help to better understand department goals and objectives?
4. Do employees in countries characterized with low masculinity place more
importance on their manager encouraging employees to perform at their best?
Significance of the Study
As a result of this study, a better understanding of what drives specific behaviors
will bring about better management practices and policies. Multinationals will have a
better understanding of what management practices can more effectively influence
employees in particular operating units and which management practices, if any, can be
considered global in their effectiveness. This understanding will be based on cultural
characteristics that guide the thinking and behavior that is reflected in workplace
performance.
In addition, global human resource practices of multinational companies will use
the results of this study to improve management-training efforts to prepare managers for
new assignments in various cultural settings. A better understanding of employees’
culturally based behaviors will lead to enhanced business objective communications of a
base MNE company and its subsidiaries.
Definition of Terms
Culture. The way of life shared by it people through values and practices that are
reflected in their thinking and doing.
EEAS. Employee Environmental Assessment Survey (EEAS) is a globally
administered survey that reflects employee attitudes administered to focus change efforts.
Implicit Leadership Theories. Conceptual structure of what employees expect of
their managers in the way of personal attributes that are the potential for their behavior.
Individualism. The extent to which importance is placed on job aspects that are
independent of the organization such as personal time, freedom, and challenge and
relative unimportance of job aspects that are dependent of the organization such as
training, skill use, working conditions, and benefits.
Leader-Member Exchange Theory. Describes the positive and negative aspects of
the relationship between a leader and member or employee.
Management Techniques. Practices demonstrated by managers to bring about
desired performance.
Masculinity. The relative importance of earnings, recognition, challenge, and
advancement and relative unimportance of relationship with manager, employment
security, and cooperation.

Multinational Enterprise (MNE) or multinational corporation (MNC). A
company that has employing units in more than one country and coordinated by a parent
firm.
Power Distance. The extent to which the less powerful members of institutions
and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.
Uncertainty Avoidance. The extent to which members of a culture feel threatened
by uncertain or unknown situations.
U.S. Americans. A term used to refer to people of the Unites States and to
differentiate from the term “Americans,” which is frequently used in reference to people
of the United States but can insult people of all of North America and South America due
to exclusion.
Worldwide Survey Administration. A survey completed by all employees within
one global company.
Assumptions and Limitations
All Kahuna employees within many operating units in the United States,
Germany, Australia, and Brazil were given the opportunity to complete the EEAS with
the exception of those on leave. This study focuses on the responses of salaried
employees, excluding executives. The timing of the administered survey was such that
current events did not favorably or unfavorably impact survey results (i.e., following pay
raises, bonuses, or rightsizing). Survey administers were clear about anonymity of
responses. The data used in this study was collected from one company, which is a
limitation for generalization. In addition, the questions used in this survey were designed
for purposes other than for the purpose of testing the hypotheses stated in this project.
The study does not take the gender issue into consideration and this might be a limitation
of the study.
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter will review various aspects of different countries’ cultural attitudes
and cross-cultural global management practices that should be of consideration when
planning leadership practices or expansions in multinational business operations. In
addition, this chapter will review leadership theories, workplace assessment benefits, as
well as literature on cross-cultural leadership behavior.
Dessler (1998) defines a multinational corporation (MNC) as a company
operating in two or more countries, coordinated by the parent company, that adjusts its
products and practices to each host country or market region. A country’s culture is the
way of life shared by its people through values and practices that are reflected in their
thinking and doing (Marquardt & Reynolds, 1994).
The overall employee expectations of their leader’s behavior, or Implicit
Leadership Theories, is a focus of this project. This focus is built upon the behaviors
demonstrated by managers revealing emotional intelligence quotient characteristics and
the ability to achieve good leader-member relationships.
Business success depends on people and values (Kanter, 1997). For managers to
engage the workers of an organization, they need to understand their values. By doing
this, managers are better able to create a workplace that is flexible and less resistant to the
continual change necessary to achieve business goals.
The widespread use of the internet has allowed small and large players to enter
the global marketplace. The opportunities for businesses are unlimited, and with these
opportunities come many new management challenges. Gioia (2002) suggests that U.S.
Americans are frequently viewed as ethnocentric and unwilling to be flexible in the
business environment. This characteristic can create a human resource management
challenge when trying to recruit and retain workers. The increased globalization of
businesses has presented some human resource management challenges and has forced
traditional practices to recognize the importance of cross-cultural training as well as
diversity training for employees.
Effective leaders must realize that their followers react differently to similar
situations due to what psychologists refer to as the law of individual differences (Dessler,
1998). This view of the individual makeup includes factors such as personality, needs,
values, and ability. When you compound these factors with different cultural tendencies,
individual performance is even more difficult to predict.
Cultural differences have been shown to affect the success rate of new business
ventures, mergers, and strategic alliances across boundaries or cultures (Hofstede, Van
Deusen, Mueller, & Charles, 2002). Many disparities in the goals and expectations
between leaders go unrecognized, which makes successful integration of people and
operations difficult. The success rate for cultures that are more distant in characteristics
has been shown to be even lower than for cultures that are more similar (Barkema, Bell,
& Pennings, 1996; Kogut & Singh, 1988; Li & Guisinger, 1991).
Current Literature on Cross-Cultural Issues
Research has focused on the role that leader and member cognitions play in the
organization (Lord, 2000). Within the workplace of various cultures, cognitions of both
leaders and followers may be impacted by their individual views as well as the social
system in which events are presented. Leadership strategies developed through the
application of Western management theories should not be considered of universal utility
since various cultures have different leadership behavior structures (Ayman & Chemers,
1983). For the purpose of this paper, these cognitions, or interpretations of events, will be
discussed through the collective cognition process versus an individual or dyadic process.
The personality of a country or culture is shaped through centuries of experiences
shared by members and can provide guidelines on how best to interact with specific
culture members (Harris & Moran, 2000). Not all members will behave the same but will
share some basic values and attitudes that influence behaviors.
The impact of cultural differences was revealed by sociologist Philippe d’Iribarne
(as cited in Hofstede, Van Deusen, Mueller, & Charles, 2002) when a comparison of
identical business operations was made between three different countries. The unique
traditions within each of the three countries were demonstrated through different social
behaviors and thinking patterns described by Hofstede (1997) as “software of the mind.”
A multinational enterprise (MNE) or company that conducts business globally or
transnationally faces increased challenge and complexity due to the cultural differences
among its members. In one study conducted by Li (2002), it was determined that many
international joint ventures fail due to the inability of the top management team to work
well together. In addition, a Wharton School analysis determined that multinational
corporations found that cultural factors impacted the success of Latin American business
activities (“The Changing Face,” 2002).

The goals of business are deeply rooted in national culture values and vary among
countries and cultures (Hofstede, Van Deusen, Mueller, & Charles, 2002). Among these
goals of business are cultural definitions for fair competition, levels of self-employment,
ethical practices, and concepts of desirable leadership traits.
Cultural influence on values, or feelings of right and wrong, has been shown to
differ among senior executives between U.S. and European countries (Schlegelmilch &
Robertson, 1995). In addition, Nakano (1997) found ethical perception differences
between U.S. and Japanese managers. These studies revealed that ethical decision making
was more individual than consensual in cultures with higher individualism.
Complications can occur when local managers and expatriate managers differ in
their ethical perceptions. In a study by McDonald and Kan (1997) conducted in a Hong
Kong business, local and expatriate managers did not share similar perceptions of ethics.
Similar studies revealed business ethics to vary across cultures as well (Baker & Veit,
1998; Enderle, 1997; Priem, Worrell & Walters, 1998; Stevenson & Bodkin, 1998;
Whitcomb, Erdener & Li, 1998).
The aspects of culture that typically impact the work environment include
customs, attitudes, education level, technology level, religion, and beliefs (Certo, 2000).
On a more personal behavioral dimension of the workplace, factors such as
communication styles, conflict resolution, decision-making, motivators, and expectations
of management have varying impact across cultures (Robbins, 1992).
Personal needs and motivators vary among people of different cultures. The
security needs of the Swiss, Japanese, and Austrians tend to be high in nature, and the
social needs of the Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians tend to be high. Self-actualization
needs tend to be high among people of the United States, Canada, Great Britain, New
Zealand, and Australia (Certo, 2000).
The leader’s success is affected by the interaction among the patterns of values
and behaviors among leader, follower, tasks, associates, time constraints, and
organization (Hersey, 1992). National culture impacts values and behaviors and the
recognition of the differences of these values and behaviors is a primary component of
reaching desired business objectives. Multinational organizations face the challenge of
effectively communicating and operating with the home company in a manner that fits
the cultural practices present in the host location (Robbins, 1992).
A manager must attempt to bring about specific follower behavior by
understanding the influence triggers or actions that lead to follower compliance (Barbuto,
2000). This type of leadership focus looks at how employees perceive their environment
versus the way the manager perceives the environment. This is atypical of today’s
leadership research and gives a new perspective into determining effective management
techniques. Barbuto (2000) also related that theory development from the follower’s
perspective has been lacking due to the longstanding research practice of primarily
studying the leader’s perspective.
Hofstede (1980) stated that differences in employee motivators, organization
structure, and leadership styles are frequently attributed to mental cultural programming
and that national culture greatly impacted employees’ work attitudes and values. The
various values and attitudes that cultures possess also affect the way employees think and
act about matters such as achievement, material wealth, work relationships, and risk-
taking (Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn, 2000).
Cultural relativism is the belief that no one culture is of higher standing or more
superior to another (Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn, 2000). Using this thought process,
individuals can better understand the differences of various cultures without judging and
comparing especially with one’s own culture. Seelye and Seelye-James (1995) support
the cultural relativism theory by adding that individuals are better able to examine
cultural misunderstandings when they admit that their own cultural attitudes are a product
of their upbringing and conditioning.
Accurate stereotyping is the information pertaining to cultural norms held
regarding a large group or culture and helps to better understand behaviors. Poor
communication among people of different cultures can occur if stereotyping is incorrect
and if ethnocentrism occurs (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). Ethnocentrism is the belief that
one’s own culture and values are superior to other groups and this tends to bring about
ineffective group productivity due to intergroup biases (Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn,
2000).
The tendency to think one’s own culture is superior over other cultures has been
found to be universal, so it is necessary for managers to be aware of this tendency and
attempt to understand other cultures to the extent possible (Brewer, 1986). Even when
people try to be totally objective, interpretations are based on their own experiences and
thoughts. However, the attempt to achieve the most accurate perception, which is the
closest to the true nature, should be made with great effort (George & Jones, 2002).
George and Jones (2002) relate that newly merged multinationals realize the
importance of rebalancing systems like compensation systems in order to eliminate
competition that might arise between global divisions. Other aspects of multinationals
that affect the motivation of employees as well as corporate global relations include
encouraging global assignments, management diversity training, coordination of global
meetings, and technology sharing (George & Jones, 2002).
The term “diversity” encompasses the countless characteristics and attributes that
make up all humans. When people of various cultures interact, these differences can lead
to miscommunication and misunderstanding (Harris & Moran, 2000). It is important for
managers in the business world to attempt to better understand these differences in order
to maximize effective communication and to create good working relationships in order
that the talents and innovations of all team members are encouraged. The renowned
anthropologist, Margaret Mead, summarized her thoughts on the benefits of
understanding cultures in her quote (Oskamp & Schultz, 1998, p. 152): “We must
recognize the whole gamut of human potentialities, and so weave a less arbitrary social
fabric, one in which each diverse human gift will find a fitting place.”
The four main systems that global leaders operate include the political system,
technical system, economical system, and cultural system. The cultural system is the
most abstract, difficult to describe, and the least understood (Harris & Moran, 2000).
Within the cultural system, cultural aspects of attitudes, beliefs, and values affect
manager behavior in decision making, strategy development, customer dealings, and
inclusion of subordinates and varies between cultures (Harris & Moran).

Cultural Dimensions Framework
Hofstede (1997, p. 262) defines power distance as “the extent to which the less
powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept
that power is distributed unequally.” In addition, Hofstede (1997, p. 263) defines
uncertainty avoidance as “the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by
uncertain or unknown situations.” The dimension of masculinity refers to the importance
of earnings, recognition, challenge, and advancement, and relative unimportance of
relationship with manager, employment security, and cooperation. A culture that tends to
be higher in individualism than collectivism values challenge and personal time over
training and benefits and shows less concern for the group and more concern for self.
According to Hofstede (1983), the dimension of power distance, uncertainty
avoidance, individualism, and masculinity can be used as a framework to help explain
how different cultures structure organizations, motivate people, and translate life events.
The dimension scores for Brazil, the United States, Germany, and Australia relative to
power distance (PD), uncertainty avoidance (UA), individualism (I), and masculinity (M)
are shown as percentages below. A high score in power distance indicates a general
acceptance that power and authority is not distributed equally. A high score in uncertainty
avoidance indicates the desire to avoid unknown or uncertain situations. A high score in
individualism reflects a preference for competitiveness over accommodation in dealing
with conflict resolution and decision making. A high score in masculinity places a greater
value on earnings, recognition, challenges, and advancement in the workplace than on
relationships, cooperation, and security.

Table 1. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Framework Scores
PD UA I M
Brazil 69 76 38 49
U.S. 40 46 91 62
Germany 35 65 67 66
Australia 36 51 90 61
The power distance dimension describes the level of respect or authority
individuals show for those in high ranking or titled leadership positions as well as a
general acceptance that power is not distributed equally (Robbins, 1992). In countries
with a high power distance, subordinates may be fearful of disagreeing with their
supervisors and may view decision-making to be autocratic.
Employees native to countries like the Philippines and India, where power
distance is high, view their managers differently from natives of low power distance such
as Denmark and Austria. In a work environment with high power distance, bypassing a
level of management would be considered insubordinate; in a workplace with low power
distance, the same behavior would be commonplace or expected (Hofstede, 1997).
The use of power is seen differently among many cultures. Cultures recognized to
have a high-power-distance form of society may accept and experience more incidences
of overt use of power as well as coercive management techniques. In societies with low
power distance, these management styles would be frowned upon and ineffective
(Robbins, 1992). In order to align behavior with intended results, managers must
understand how their leadership style their followers.
The Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck framework is an analyzing tool that identifies six
dimensions of culture to include relationship to environment, nature of people, focus of
responsibility, time orientation, activity orientation, and conception of space (Kluckhohn
& Strodtbeck, 1961). These dimensions are important for managers to understand,
particularly when trying to better understand an individual’s locus of control, perspective
toward goal setting, willingness to try something new versus keeping with tradition, and
expectation of participation.
An individual who may not be interested in setting goals may be from a culture
where the relationship to environment is one of subjugation and where setting goals
would be of no use if the future is believed to be preordained (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck,
1961). After 1961, the Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck framework, although dated, creates the
clearly stated framework of elements that refers to the level of goodness of basic human
nature that a culture holds. A more trusting society would demonstrate common practices
such as encouraged participation versus an autocratic decision-making style.
The personality attribute of locus of control would align closely with cultural
dimension of relationship to environment. Cultures that are dominant in their relationship
to environment dimension tend to feel that they are in control of their individual fate and
set personal goals to guide this fate. Their locus of control is defined as internal because
they drive their destiny (Robbins, 1992). Greater job satisfaction is generally experienced
by internals and appraisals looked at as a means for improving oneself. Locus of control
externals look outside of themselves for causes of life events; they tend to be less
involved in their work assignment and tend to blame managers and coworkers for poor
performance.
A personality trait that is closely related to the power distance concept is
authoritarianism (Hofstede, 1980). A culture high in power distance may reflect more
people of the authoritarianism personality attribute versus a culture low in power distance
where this type of personality is not as readily accepted or believed to be effective. A
manager must use this knowledge to align management style with an effective style for
the followers.
A general expectation in a U.S. workplace is for members to contribute their ideas
in the hope that new and innovative ideas can lead the company to desired business goals.
A manager with this mindset might find frustration and cause frustration in workers
whose cultural background leads their decision-making to traditional and standard
practices. Some workers are not generally expected to solve problems, as this is the
responsibility of upper management (Robbins, 1992).
Cultural differences in conflict resolution range from avoidance to collaborative.
Cultures determined to be higher on femininity than masculinity would be more likely to
be compromising or accommodating versus competitive and collaborative. In addition,
cultures high in uncertainty avoidance are more likely to withdraw or avoid conflict
resolution versus work in a collaborative or compromising manner (Hofstede, 1993).

Four-Country Cultural Dimensions Comparison
The cultural characteristics of Australia, Brazil, Germany, and the United States
can impact employee and leadership behavior in negotiating styles, inclusion in decision-
making, career development, and recognition. The far-reaching impact of negotiating
styles and decision-making on employees, management, shareholders, suppliers, local
society, and other stakeholders demonstrates the value of understanding the influences of
such business behaviors.
In a study of the negotiating styles in Brazil and the United States conducted by
Stephan (1995) and Dos Santos-Pearson (1995), it was revealed that the negotiating
styles used by the two countries were significantly different. The study also confirmed
Brazil to be a collectivist culture and the United States to be an individualistic culture. In
conflict situations, the Brazilian preference was to accommodate and withdraw as
compared with the United States preference to compete.
Although Dos Santos-Pearson (1995) found various studies pertaining to the
negotiating behavior of U.S. Americans, research on negotiating behaviors of South
Americans was scarce. However, the study revealed the Brazilians to frequently
demonstrate withdrawal and accommodation in a conflict situation and the people of the
U.S. more frequently demonstrated competitive behavior. In addition, the Brazilians more
frequently demonstrated behaviors that reflected concern for others than those in the
United States who more frequently demonstrated behavior that reflected greater concern
for the self in a conflict situation.

Aspects of the workplace influence employees differently between cultures. To
better understand the cultural differences is to reduce the uncertainty of predicted
behavior. Rushing (2001) studied U.S. American and Brazilian business owners to gain a
better understanding of how managers made strategic decisions and to see if the cultural
aspect of time orientation impacted that decision-making. It was determined that time
orientation is significantly correlated with strategic choice. The U.S. time orientation
defines the future to be of greater importance than the past or present, and decisions are
made with emphasis on new ideas. The Brazilian time orientation places less emphasis on
the future and more on the past. When making decisions, former methods are acceptable
since they are time-tested and held close.
Vitiello (2000) conducted a study to determine if the work life of the U.S.
American host employees was influenced by the German-based transnational culture. The
overall population was determined to be high in the individualism dimension, which is in
line with Hofstede’s (1983) scores of 91 for U.S. and 67 for Germany. The study revealed
that employees were not influenced by the cross-cultural aspects of the base company. If
this study compared countries with more diverse cultures and differing dimensions of
individualism and collectivism, and if the results were the same as for Germany and the
United States, broader conclusions could possibly be made regarding the useful
transference of management concepts.
The far-reaching impact of negotiating styles and decision-making on employees,
management, shareholders, suppliers, local society, and other stakeholders demonstrates
the value of understanding the influences of such business behaviors.

Hofstede, Van Deusen, Meuller, and Charles (2002) studied business leaders’
roles in various countries. Cross-cultural management practices were the focus of this
study in which MBA students rated goals-in-use as demonstrated by their leaders. The
study revealed that perceptions of desirable leadership traits were significantly correlated
with cultural dimensions. Data from fifteen countries was found to form five clusters of
similar countries. The United States fell into one cluster, Germany fell into another
cluster, and Australia and Brazil fell into another cluster. Australia did not fall into the
same category as other Anglo countries, and it was determined to be associated with the
more cosmopolitan mix that is made up from various parts of the world.
In a study conducted by Beldona (1997) to determine preferred management
control systems and performance results between U.S. and Germany, found that
performance was not affected by differing choices of control methods. The German
subsidiary chose a behavior-based control system as opposed to the outcome-based
systems chosen by the U.S. Although the study did conclude the importance of
appropriate fit between control systems and cultural environment, but did not conclude
that the control design would impact performance.
Culture of Brazil
Many common social customs differ between cultures. The simple practice of
shaking hands is significantly more meaningful and polite in Brazil than in the U.S. To
walk into a room with many people and greet everyone as a group with a hello may pass
as acceptable in the U.S. but seem rude in Brazil. The acceptable action for an individual
entering a room in this case is to bow slightly and then go around the room to shake each
individual’s hand (Harper & Moran, 2000). Embracing individuals one knows well is also
a more common practice in Brazil than in the U.S. Brazilians may think that people from
the U.S. are standoffish because the comfortable speaking distance is much closer
together in Brazil than in the U.S. (George & Jones, 2002).
When beginning a business dealing, U.S. Americans are more likely to
immediately jump right into the subject at hand and people of Brazil are more likely to
begin the process with pleasantries regarding family, health, weather, and sports (Harper
& Moran, 2000). Brazilians are generally late for appointments when compared to the
promptness standards of U.S. and German business people. The use of business cards is
common in the U.S. as compared to the Australians who rarely use them.
Much like the U.S. and Australia, Brazil is a multicultural mix that includes
Asian, European, African, East Indian, and ancient Indian heritages. As with most Latin
American countries, Brazilian thinking and ways of life are impacted by a long history of
Roman Catholic tradition (Harper & Moran, 2000). Although the church is primarily
focused on a spiritual mission, social inequities have been included in recent platforms to
help bring about social improvements and a growing middle class.
As with many other regions of the world, managers must realize that countries
located near one another may differ in local customs and practices. Many Latin American
countries may share a common language but differ in governing policies, socio-economic
status, and education levels (Harris & Moran, 2000). These are characteristics that can
prove helpful to managers when determining effective business strategies.

Culture of Germany
Germans are very punctual, and a German manager plans his or her day well.
Other business attributes of the German people include pride in quality, formal,
conservative behavior, exact in verbal and written transactions, and somewhat distant in
business relationships (Harris & Moran, 2000). German workers are very knowledgeable,
among the highest paid workers in the world, and realize a high standard of living.
An important factor impacting the German business arena is the 1993 inception of
the European Community (EC) and its directives that members follow. The business
process of operating for the collective good allows employee input into management
decisions through worker representation on decision making boards to emphasize the
importance of the individual worker (Harris & Moran, 2000).
Business and government work closely together to provide workers with many
benefits including good health care, pensions, and paid vacation (Harris & Moran, 2000).
Although these benefits come at the expense of high taxes, the German workers are
confident in knowing they have some security measures in place.
Common German business practices include strict adherence to time and
schedules, subdued speech and mannerisms, and formal etiquette using titles.
Introductions are formal as well and performed through a third party. Business and
pleasure are not generally conducted outside of the normal business hours in order that a
conflict of interest is not created (Harris & Moran, 2000). In addition, Germans generally
keep discussion to business topics and do not discuss private life issues.
Culture of Australia
Australia has a very young population with nearly one third being younger than
20 years of age. As a multicultural cauldron of heritages, 94% of Australians are
descendants of the European countries of Holland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, and
others. Approximately 4% of the population is of Asian descent and 1% descends from
the original Australian inhabitants referred to as Aborigines. Although 73% of
Australians claim the Christian faith, religion does not hold a dominant role as in the
Brazilian population (Harris & Moran, 2000).
Business dealings are a bit informal with an exchange of handshakes between
men and a kiss on the cheek between women. Initial use of titles is generally dropped
quickly for the use of first names. The use of business cards is not a common practice. In
general, Australians are outgoing, speak frankly, and have little tolerance for class
structure (Harris & Moran, 2000). An overall warm, informal, and friendly population,
Australians work to live and enjoy life. They are very conscious of keeping close
relationships and a clean environment.
Culture of U.S.
U.S. Americans hold the belief that they can accomplish just about anything if
they put their mind to it and admire those individuals who achieve great strides regardless
of barriers. U.S. Americans possess a fervent work ethic but enjoy leisure time as well.
Much like the Germans, U.S. workers are efficient, time conscious, and always looking
for ways to do things bigger and better (Harris & Moran, 2000).
There is little recognition of class by U.S. Americans but in the business and
entertainment arenas, power and celebrities are highly regarded. Business dealings are
generally conducted informally with handshake greeting, casual dress, little use of titles,
and minimal physical contact (Harris & Moran, 2000). The U.S. workers’ competitive
drive to achieve is evident in both work and leisure and may be attributed to a young
nation overcoming many barriers. The U.S. society is youth oriented, patriotic, and
although considered to highly value material acquisitions, is known to be generous to
nations in need.
Unlike Germany and Brazil, there is a separation of church and state in the U.S.
giving the church little influence over business. The cultural value of competitiveness and
individualism may overshadow the spiritual nature with a materialistic nature of the U.S.
Americans. In business dealings, U.S. workers like to exchange ideas as part of a
competitive and effective negotiating or decision making process in order to accomplish
corporate goals (Harris & Moran, 2000).
Business practices in the U.S. are generally informal with little adherence to strict
protocols. Meeting topics are addressed immediately and focus is on getting the task at
hand completed. To support the meeting topic, U.S. workers like to present analysis and
charts as a means to gain support and agreement. This style, which is also a cultural
characteristic of Germany, is indicative of a monochromic time orientation that is
reflected in scheduled and prioritized events (Harris & Moran, 2000). The Brazilians,
however, value time differently and reflect a polychromic in time orientation where
people and transactions take precedence over rigid schedules and controlled events.
Cross-Cultural Characteristics in the Workplace
A study was conducted in Great Britain to determine the impact a manager’s input
had on creating employment relationships (“Managers input,” 2002). The study
determined that the relationship between an individual and his or her direct manager or
supervisor was the most important factor influencing the work environment. As
determined through a study conducted in China, employee input on management
behaviors rated interpersonal competence of managers and goal efficiency as primary
factors for effective leadership (Ling, Chia, & Fang, 2000).
Other influential factors included the quality of management, recognition of
contribution, job satisfaction, and effective communication (“Managers input,” 2002). Of
less significance were job security, relationship with colleagues, pay, working hours, and
work culture. Having conducted international business research for many years,
International Survey Research (“Employee Satisfaction,” 2003) states that various
societies possess differing views related to employment relationship expectations.
The use of teams is a standard management practice in decision making in the
U.S., but individual effort within teams cannot be easily identified (Robbins, 1992).
When managing in a highly collective organization, however, this is not an issue. These
individuals are typically motivated through the group’s accomplishments and have been
shown to perform better within a group than when working alone and with rare incidence
of social loafing (Robbins, 1992). A team is likely to exhibit some social loafing in
organizations within individualistic societies, such as the U.S. and Australia, as some
individuals may not perform to their highest efficiency knowing that individual
contributions cannot be easily identified.
In addition to the cultural dimensions noted earlier, Trompenaars (1996)
described the cultural differences of emotional expression, individual decision-making,
relationships, status, and locus of control, as demonstrated in the business world. The
neutral manner of emotional expression in Germany greatly differs from the more
affective manner of emotional expression in the United States. In the business arena,
people within a more neutral emotional country would be less likely to reveal feelings,
strong facial expressions, and casual physical contact (Trompenaars, 1996).
When it comes to preference for individual decision-making, Trompenaars (1996)
revealed that fewer respondents from Germany and Brazil preferred individual decisions,
14% and 28% respectively, compared with the 40% U.S. American respondents who
favored individual decisions. In the same study, preferences for individual freedom over
group focus revealed the percentage of respondents from Germany, Brazil, Australia, and
the United States to rank 45, 56, 70, and 79, respectively. That same group ranked their
preference to be left alone to get work done as Brazil 74%, U.S. 83%, Germany 87%, and
Australia 97%.
When considering what leadership styles need to be taken into question when
applied within a global organization, multiple aspects related to home base rotation need
to be understood. A manager from a multinational home base country may manage
employees of the base country as well as employees of another country or culture. Also, a
manager may have an assignment in a different country or culture with the responsibility
to manage host country employees and possibly a multicultural work force.
Many global companies put managers on a rotation of assignments among many
cultures or countries, and it is important that these managers understand that different
management methods may need to be used to affect results. It is worth the company’s
effort to support cultural training efforts, since the average cost of a three year-overseas
assignment costs approximately $1 million, making training costs a relatively incidental
expense (Blassingame, 2002).
Some significant cultural business environment factors indicated by Bass (1990)
included differences in leadership goals, styles, authority limits, and other business
conditions required for leadership. Ayman and Chemers (1983) also supported this
conclusion when they determined the differences in the leadership structures among Iraqi,
U.S. American, and European samples. Different cultural foundations offer multiple
dimensions to leadership styles through the leader’s culture and also the evaluation of the
leader’s behavior through the evaluator’s cultural perspective and measuring system.
In a study of employees of one organization having branches in Hong Kong and
the United States, employee performance was examined to see if it was related to
perceived participative decision-making (Lam, Chen, & Schaubroeck, 2002). It was
determined that within both cultures, performance was positively affected when
individuals and groups reported high on opportunity to participate in decision-making.
An aspect that may not get revealed in a study such as this is the level of expectation
between the groups that brings about the high rating. A high rating within one cultural
group may be manifested differently from the identical rating in another group.
Current literature relates that cultural learning brings about differences in
foundations for security needs, social needs, self-actualization, goal setting, and
management styles (Lam, Chen, & Schaubroeck, 2002). These differences can
complicate daily work interactions and interpretations of these interactions.
Understanding the nuances of cultural programming is imperative to recognizing the
triggers and expectations that bring about the compliance of employees.
Negotiating, the process of making decisions, is an important aspect of any
workplace (Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn, 2000). When people of different cultures
attempt to make decisions, one party may try to reach a decision quickly, such as U.S.
Americans who are more short-term-focused and individualistic. The other party, such as
Brazil, may attempt to move more slowly allowing for relationships to form and are more
long-term focused and collectivistic in nature. These differences are indicative of the
different practices demonstrated by people from individualistic or collectivistic cultures
and can impact business objectives.
Dessler (1998) discussed five basic assumptions that help create organizational
culture and can help to better guide the development of a global organizational culture.
These include an organization’s relationship to environment; nature of reality, truth, time,
and space; what human attributes are assumed to be intrinsic or ultimate; and, nature of
human relationships.
Within organizations of various cultures, these assumptions are translated and
demonstrated differently, through thinking and behavior, since the variables of the
assumptions carry different value by cultures. Companies planning to expand into new
cultures need to recognize the cultural dimensions where business will be conducted.
Barkema and Vermeulen (1997) have shown that new business entries into the
Netherlands were related to the differences in uncertainty avoidance. In addition, Luo
(1999) found that the performance for new businesses entering China was negatively
associated with the cultural distance of the partners.
Cross-Cultural Views of Implicit Leadership Theories (ILTs)
The expectations of employees regarding leadership behavior differ across
cultures and continue to change as advancements in our society take place. As cultures
move from industrialized into information and technology societies, employees expect
more opportunities for growth as gained through increased self-direction and less
manager intervention (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). Although studies conducted in the
U.S. have shown that increased productivity and reduced resistance to change occur when
proposed interventions were discussed jointly with management and employees (Fiedler,
1967), other cultures may not have the expectations to be included in such decision
making or react in the same manner as workers in the U.S.
Koopman, Hartog, and Konrad (1999) determined that desired leadership traits
varied across cultures. Leadership dimensions across 21 European countries were
reviewed to determine if an ideal leadership prototype existed. Not one particular

management style was able to be determined due to the two broad cultural clusters
represented by these countries.
Ling, Chia, and Fang (2000) conducted a study in China to better understand
employee perceptions of implicit leadership behaviors. The implicit leadership factor, as
determined by employee input, found to be of highest ranking was interpersonal
competence followed by goal efficiency, personal morality, and versatility.
The Chinese collectivism value framework supports the level of importance that
employees place on the interpersonal competence of their managers (Ling, Chia, & Fang,
2000). In a collectivist culture, less emphasis is placed on individual performance and
more value is placed on group outcomes. This type of framework leads to greater loyalty
for the organization or group and is totally opposite from the individualistic framework
like that of countries such as the United States, the Netherlands, and Great Britain
(Hofstede, 1983).
Similar exploration of implicit leadership theory conducted with U.S. American
participants (Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994) resulted in the identification of
sensitivity, dedication, tyranny, masculinity, charisma, attractiveness, intelligence, and
strength as the eight primary factors.
In an investigation conducted among business employees in South Wales, United
Kingdom, an association was determined between organizational identification and
positive manager ratings by employees. In addition, employees with high organizational
identification were more likely to report more job satisfaction, intention to stay with the
company, and well-being (Martin & Epitropaki, 2001). These psychological reactions
may be different for those experiencing high organizational identification in other
cultures, since some cultures may value organizational identification differently.
A study done in the United States found that employees more frequently sought
out information based on the leadership traits demonstrated by their managers (Madzar,
2001). As different ILTs for different cultures were discussed earlier and managers of
various cultures demonstrate leadership practices in various cultural workplaces, it is
important to understand the complex factors that impact employee behavior based on
their interpretation of specific leader behaviors.
Cross-Cultural Training and Skill Building
Managers can prepare for cross-cultural assignments by building interpersonal
skills, diversity training, and a general awareness of successful interventions conducted in
a cross-cultural work environment. In addition, primary focus for managers in a cross-
cultural work situation should include gaining an understanding of employee
expectations.
When attempting to achieve a work culture that promotes global organizational
learning, a look at best practices is a good place to start (Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn,
2000). High-performance organizations can be found in various parts of the world, and
modeling their successes can be of great benefit.
Budke (2002) revealed that efforts to create an organizational culture and a high-
performing team could be positively influenced through focus on interpersonal skills
training and diversity training. This study concluded that the interventions were
influential in bringing about exceptional organizational outcomes, improved efficiencies,
increased revenues, and higher quality ratings.
An important aspect of management is to understand the role expectations of their
employees and the expected behavior associated with the various positions in the
organization (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). If a manager uses a highly structured manner
of supervising in a job that requires more latitude and innovation, the situation could
result in a disengaged employee leading to unsuccessful goal accomplishment. The same
can result when a hands-off management style is used in a situation that requires strict
adherence to structure and little room for individual style. The leadership style must be
appropriate to the expectation of the task and outcome (Hersey & Blanchard).
Managers can use reflective leadership practices (Ollila, 2000) to better determine
how their behavior affects others. Through this process, reflective skills can be developed
to create a supportive work climate. Not only is reflection a valuable management tool in
a typical workplace setting, but it is of added value in workplaces of different cultures. In
addition, training to help develop these skills would be appropriate for any manager, but
it would be particularly helpful for managers destined for assignments in various global
cultures.
A company hoping to expand its business or market share into a different country
or culture must be cognizant of the cultural traditions of the targeted market or
workforce. As a starting point for determining what modifications, if any, need to be
made to management applications, deviations between cultures using the frameworks
described earlier should be understood. An example of this is the recently recognized

Chinese market, where 25% of the world’s population resides and where great
opportunities for market growth exist for companies who can tap the potential of the
workforce as well as the pool of consumers (Ling et al., 2000). To better serve a customer
base within a different culture, businesses must understand the buying power, purchase
capability, and trends that drive customer purchases.
If a U.S. company attempts to set up business in China, U.S. managers must
understand the traditional work ethic of the Chinese. Managers need to be trained to
influence employees according to the employees’ value system. Typical leadership
factors important to workers in the United States focus more on task competencies,
intelligence, and strength (Offermann et al., 1994) but may not effectively influence a
work group made up of individuals of other cultures (Ling et al., 2000).
Certo’s (2000) suggestion to better influence employees of multinational
companies include learning the language, understanding the attitudes, and recognizing the
personal needs and driving motivators. When managing in other countries, managers
need to recognize that goals and objectives must reflect local business practices as well as
the cultural norms and values. When policies are written, managers should allow local
workers the opportunity to define specifics to administer the policy.
Another area of consideration is the role that national culture plays in
organizational culture. Robbins (1992) relates how companies outside of their originating
country carry with them certain organizational culture traits, but the national culture has a
greater influence on the workplace. When hiring people to fill positions within new
cultures, it is important to know that you may not find candidates who will do things in
the way the originating culture is familiar with doing things. Another hiring strategy
would be to look specifically for candidates who appear to fit the originating culture’s
manner of operating.
Managers should receive training in common socialization practices before
beginning an assignment where people of different cultures are introduced. Some
practices that are different among those of different cultures include standing space
between speakers, recognition of authority, use of status symbols like offices, adherence
to time schedules, use of titles, accessibility to high-level management, level of
supervision, preferred group size, adherence to tradition, level of decision-making, and
acceptance of authority.
Managers who are embarking on managing people of other cultures, either within
their own culture or within another culture, need to assess how their leadership style
effectively elicits desired performance. Attempts to better understand the cultural
dimensions of the employees can be supported through the frameworks of Hofstede and
of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck. Comparisons between the manager’s culture and the
member’s culture can be made to determine which management principles need to be
adjusted to appropriately focus on cultural differences. These steps support a situational
and flexible leadership style versus a general philosophy that is intended to fit all
cultures.
Communication problems will always exist. To minimize them is the job of every
manager. Good communication helps not only to develop new ideas but also to share and
use new ideas (Kanter, 1997). People of various cultures communicate differently. Each
person has his or her own message decoding system, and one’s culture adds potential for
even greater opportunity for miscommunication. People interpret what they hear and see
differently according to their background. These messages are then evaluated and form
the basis for subsequent behavior or reactions. To minimize miscommunication when
dealing with people from different cultures, Adler (1986) recommends that an individual
initially assume differences, describe rather than interpret, practice empathy, and check
out interpretations until certainty is achieved.
When dealing with other cultures, it is important to recognize that solutions that
worked in a workplace in one culture may not work in another. Examples of these
solutions include a matrix-structured organization, the use of management by objectives,
and pay-for-performance programs (Trompenaars, 1996). A matrix organization works
best in low power-distance cultures but does not work well in cultures with high-power-
distance cultures. Management by objectives works best in cultures high in individualism
but not so well in countries where collectivism and the good of the whole is more highly
regarded. A pay-for-performance program does not work well in a culture where a leader
is considered the nurturer of individuals and the value of ascription over achievement
exists. In addition, a pay-for-performance program would put individuals in competition
with one another and that would not fit their value of collectivism. It is not surprising that
these business strategies were created and implemented successfully within the United
States or countries with similar work cultures (Trompenaars, 1996).
Harris and Moran (2000) suggest that individuals continually attempt to view
situations through the other person’s perspective in order to see the logic behind a given
behavior. Individuals organize their surroundings in a manner that is meaningful and
rational to them. Screening behavior by putting oneself in another’s place, results in a
more positive evaluation and understanding.
The view of a manager operating in the global market must look beyond their
local work area to encompass all cultures involved with their multinational organization.
The ability of a manager to effectively communicate with people of other cultures is
imperative in the exchange of information, ideas, negotiating, and decision making
(Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). The judgments, or attributions, made regarding the behavior
of people from different cultures can be molded by perception, ethnocentrism, and
stereotyping. The more that is learned about another culture, helps develop a greater
understanding and more accurate perception of that culture’s behavior.
Valuable tips for managers in global business dealings have been developed to
help managers to tune themselves to other cultures (Gebelein, Stevens, Skube, Lee,
Davis, & Hellervik, 2000). These tips suggest to question your own assumptions about
how business is done in other cultures, different ways of achieving the same goals,
become aware of the common business practices in your own country that are viewed
differently in other countries, pay attention when locals object to a product or process,
ask for coaching from people within your organization who know the culture of the
country you will be working in, read world news, plan more face-to-face interactions
with global team members early in your relationship, and encourage discussion of
international business within your organization.

Understanding Culture Supports Business Goals
People from various cultures have different learning styles, decision making
approaches, and habits. Many influences impact these behaviors including informal and
formal educational systems experiences. The learning preference of some employees may
lean toward collaborative or philosophical and other employees’ preferences may lean
toward individual and practical (Marquardt & Reynolds, 1994).
Organizations that strive to build upon knowledge to continually grow and learn
are described by Senge (1999) as learning organizations. Marquardt and Reynolds (1994)
discuss the importance of the global learning organization as an organization that can
globalize operations effectively through better understanding of team learning within
organizations and across organizations. Leaders must act as facilitators to the constant
change and markets, technologies, and sources of information.
A great wealth of cultural understanding can be gained through returning
expatriates who have experienced cross-cultural assignments first hand. Expatriates can
share information, contacts, and insights from their first-hand realities as well as help
prepare future cross-cultural assignment candidates (Marquardt & Reynolds, 1994).
These experiences can also help to develop regional and global strategic planning
initiatives that support the various branches of a multinational in operating more
cohesively.
Business-related attitudes and cultural values can be assessed by using a testing
tool for determining cultural style (Gundling, 2003). Results of individuals can be
compared to reflect areas where values differ in order to provide information for better
understanding. Some workplace behaviors that are shaped by cultural values include
customer relations, negotiating styles, after-work socialization, problem resolution,
employee expectations of leaders, goal setting, career pathing, acceptable ethical
behaviors, and gender-appropriate behaviors (Gundling, 2003).
There is no sure way to avoid all miscommunications between coworkers. Seelye
and Seelye-James (1995) suggest an understanding of silent values can help avoid
inaccurate behavior assumptions. These silent values include the manner in which
different groups value time, gender roles, and body distance. Also included in these silent
values are the meaning of certain dress, business dealings, and learning styles.
In an effort to understand the experiences of managers around the world, Kanter
(1997) and a team from Harvard Business Review conducted a World Leadership Survey.
In addition to determining that the world is not yet a global village sharing a common
management culture, the survey revealed five prevailing themes. These themes include:
how corporate and country interest conflict and coincide in the face of global markets,
which social responsibilities are embraced or rejected by business leaders, the ways in
which work and family interests can support each other, issues of loyalty and hierarchy
that create a still-divided organization, and what companies say about the importance of
their ever-closer relationships with customers and suppliers and how this compares with
what they are actually doing.
In addition, this survey of managers clustered countries in three distinct groups.
The first group included Australia, United States, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand,
and Singapore. The characteristics shared in this group included a preference for family
over work and being the least cosmopolitan. Cosmopolitan in this survey is defined as
being multilingual and having experienced an international assignment (Kanter, 1997).
The second group included the countries of Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Italy,
Spain, and Venezuela. The common characteristics in this group included industry
protection through trade policy, more privately owned companies, and fewer joint
ventures.
The third group included the countries of Austria, Belgium, Finland, France,
Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. The common characteristics in this group
included pessimism about the future, most cosmopolitan, and having a greater number of
close partnerships.
Many advanced cultures are witnessing a change in the reporting structure of
organizations as well as fewer distinctions in titles and dependencies (Kanter, 1997).
Global competitive pressures are forcing businesses to implement new strategies and
create new structures that support a more effective and change-adept environment.
Conclusions on Cross-Cultural Leadership Issues
Many companies develop strategies to increase market share in the global
business community, which is comprised of many cultures. As a human strategy, it is
imperative to understand the values, perceptions, and cultural traditions that your targeted
market or workforce possesses in order to align management practices with desired
behaviors. These behaviors can be impacted by management practices that recognize
differences in individual security needs, socialization practices, cultural dimensions,
language, motivators, and communication styles.

A better understanding of cultural differences is of benefit to any person who
meets people from circles other than their own (Hofstede, 1991). This will also help to
ensure that cultural differences are a source of synergy versus conflict particularly in the
workplace. When cultural values are understood, common practices to solve everyday
problems can be developed more easily.
By understanding the cultural context in which others interpret events, similarities
are capitalized and differences are understood in order that a more accurate prediction of
member behavior can be made. This behavior directly supports corporate goals either
negatively or positively and can be directed through knowledge of the cultural
conditioning that members have learned. Cultural awareness is significant because it can
drive effective management practices that are in line with corporate objectives, as well as
provide a workplace that includes all employees.
Improved cross-cultural communication can further business goals when message
receivers interpret the sender’s message as intended (Dessler, 1998). Even within a
common culture environment, accurate communication can be a challenge. The addition
facets of cultural differences can further complicate and hinder clear communication.
Leadership Theories
Hersey and Blanchard (1993) impress that the people system or social system is
but one of many organizational systems. In addition to the human or social system, other
organizational systems that a manager must be aware of include administrative system,
decision making system, and technological system.

When managers attempt to understand all aspects of an organization and its
employees in order to predict behaviors or outcomes, they are essentially practicing as
applied behavioral scientists (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). Through the collection of
observations and information pertinent to people and an organization environment,
managers can better plan and implement initiatives that will provide a greater sustainable
competitive advantage for that organization.
Some basic organizational theories relate to the influence that managers strive to
create in dealing with employees to bring about effective behavior in the workplace.
These theories include those related to organizational commitment, individual
motivation, basic human needs, and the leader-member relationship. The benefits of
achieving a positive relationship between leaders and members, or Leader-Member
Exchange (LMX), can help to create a supportive work force and the subsequent
behaviors that lead to desired business results.
Organizations face the challenge of possessing a cohesive workforce that
effectively strives for corporate goals. The leadership behaviors and the subsequent
relationship developed between a leader and their employees can impact this
cohesiveness in either a positive or negative manner. Focused efforts to improve the
relationship between leaders and their followers can help to build an organization where
goals are shared and successes are achieved (Berrin, Kraimer, & Liden, 2002).
In addition, managers must understand basic human needs, as these needs drive
the motivation for desired behaviors (Certo, 2000). Through implementation of specific
practices and management behaviors, companies can realize the desired employee
behaviors through the positive exchange relationship between employees and leaders.
In the world of organizational sciences, studies focusing on measuring leadership
behaviors have produced inconsistent findings when measuring various characteristics
(Tejeda, 2001). The findings, as discussed by Tejeda (2001), point out that further
research is required to develop the structure of effective leadership behaviors that can
predict the desired productivity and psychological reactions to effectively support
organizational goals.
In the past, much focus was placed on the behavior and perspective of the
manager, with little focus on the perspective of the subordinate. Barbuto (2000)
suggested that managers need to understand their followers’ perspective. In addition to
managers learning about their employees’ perspectives, this author will explain the
importance of understanding the basic needs that drive individual behavior and how those
needs produce the drive and motivation for effective performance.
Allinson, Armstrong, and Hayes (2001) pointed out that more emphasis should be
placed on aspects of the relationship between supervisor and subordinate instead of the
relationship between organizational components and subordinates. Allinson, Armstrong,
and Hayes also relate how recent research with this focus has developed based on the
concept of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX).
House and Aditya (1997) discuss competencies of effective leaders. These
competencies include personal drive, motivation, integrity, self-confidence, intelligence,
business knowledge, and emotional intelligence. These competencies can be

demonstrated in people-oriented behaviors or task-oriented behaviors or a combination of
both. Blake and McCanse (1991) describe effective leaders as possessing high levels of
both behaviors focused on people and tasks.
Organizational Identification Theory
Wan-Huggins and Griffeth (1998) stated that organizational identification is an
individual’s perception of his or her partnership in the organization’s successes and
failures. Connecting with an organization can fulfill the human need for fulfillment, self-
esteem, and belonging. Research has revealed that organizational identification can
impact an employee’s effectiveness within an organization through employee
interactions, intention to remain with the company, and job performance.
Employees’ behavior can result from fulfilled or unfulfilled individual needs
(Maslow, 1970). A positive attitude can produce the desired behavior, which can
favorably impact job performance. That, in turn, can affect costs, quality, and a
company’s marketshare.
Yankelovich’s view of future work commitment brought forward by Zunker
(1998) revolves around the complexity and uncertainty of work commitment.
Yankelovich believes that as the focus on the individual’s role decreases and a more
cooperative focus increases, the result will be an attitude of mutual accomplishment and
sharing. Higher-quality interpersonal relationships, policies, and leadership styles will
lead toward a greater concern for the interests of each individual.

Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX)
Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory describes the positive and negative
aspects of the relationship between a leader and member or employee. In addition, LMX
explains how relationships between leaders and employees are developed and how they
can be influenced to bring about productive behavior through mutual respect and loyalty
(Berrin, Kraimer, & Liden, 2002). This influence can lead to specific behaviors and roles
within an organization that can positively affect corporate objectives.
The social exchange theory is the basis for the Leader-Member Exchange Theory
(LMX), and it is rooted in the reciprocity of the leader-member relationship. Sparrowe
and Liden (1997) reported that a structure can either facilitate or curtail the process where
leaders pull members into the in-group or inner life of an organization but do not include
others. An organization’s reporting structure as shown on an organizational chart can
support or hinder the development of a positive LMX through the ability to exchange
valued resources that are components of LMX.
LMX is derived from a vertical dyad linkage theory that focuses on the reciprocal
nature of exchange processes that take place between individuals and their direct
authority figure (Yukl, 1998). Primarily, this relationship begins to develop through
initial encounters, when the leader mentally classifies the employee either into the in-
group or out-group. This classification subsequently influences future mutual exchanges.
The initial impression or classification occurs early on and reflects the leader’s view of
the member’s compatibility, dependability, and level of competence (Allinson,
Armstrong, & Hayes, 2001).

Members of the in-group have an exclusive relationship with their leader in that
they are more trusted and given more responsibility. These members are typically
expected to work harder to achieve goals and to share in the leader’s administrative
duties. The benefits of the additional expectations to the member include role in decision-
making, greater authority, and more challenging assignments (Berrin, Kraimer, & Liden,
2002). As the leader and member continue to reinforce their mutual trusting relationship,
a greater level of dependence and loyalty develops.
Conversely, out-group members have a low level of mutual exchange with their
leader, and this allows them to perform to moderate expectations and in turn receive
standard rewards and recognition (Yukl, 1998). When subordinate commitment is
required for tasks to be carried out successfully, these members are less motivated to
exert above-average effort to bring about the desired goal.
Development of LMX
A positive LMX develops when a manager perceives a subordinate to be
competent and dependable. In addition, a manager is more likely to develop a positive
LMX with an employee who reflects the same values and attitudes of the leader (Turban
& Jones, 1988; Yukl, 1998).
A higher degree of LMX can be developed through the actions of the leader as
demonstrated by supportive leader behavior, additional delegation, minimal monitoring,
requests for consultation, and a personal focus on mentoring. Employees who
experiences positive LMX with their manager typically demonstrate more effective
performance, have greater job satisfaction, and are more committed to the organization
(Allinson et al, 2001).
The LMX pattern is likely to be duplicated from one level of the organization to
the next, as indicated in a study by Cashman, Dansereau, Graen, and Haga in 1976 (as
cited in Yukl, 1998). Their study revealed that a manager who shared a favorable
exchange relationship with the boss was likely to possess a positive exchange relationship
with the employee.
When members have a higher level of LMX or mutual dependence between their
leader and the next level of authority, they are likely to experience benefits that can
support their efforts. These benefits might include the availability of funds, resources,
equipment, better projects, and facilitation of approval processes (Yukl, 1998). In
addition, members view their leaders as sharing more information, possessing greater
technical skills, increasing inclusion in decision-making, providing more subordinate
autonomy, and generally increasing consideration when that manager has a favorable
exchange relationship with their leader.
LMX Reflected in Organizational Performance
The exchange quality between a leader and a member affects the organization as
well as the members (Allinson et al. 2001). LMX can cause leaders to treat members
whom they feel to be competent in a different manner than they treat other members. An
in-group member has previously been determined to possess the performance levels and
behaviors satisfactory in the judgment of the leader. If a manager witnesses the poor
performance of an in-group member, the manager will generally attribute it to be due to

an external cause, meaning that the reason for the poor performance – lack of
information, resources, or support – was out of the employee’s control. With the reason
for the poor performance clearly identified, the manager is likely to react to alleviate the
cause and support that member.
In the reverse situation where poor performance of a member of the out-group is
apparent, a leader may attribute the performance to an internal issue (Yukl, 1998).
Internal in nature means that the employee did not put forth the effort or does not possess
the ability to perform effectively. This would indicate that the initial determination made
by the employee’s manager tends to form the basis of interpretations of future behavior,
and this interpretation may lead to unjust judgments of employees as well as to a lost
opportunity to correct an organizational issue that needs attention (Yukl, 1998).
Performance problems of an out-group member that are determined by the
manager to be internal in nature contrast with the employee’s determination that the
problem was due to something beyond their control or to an external cause. This may
lead the manager to deal with the poor performance in a punitive manner even though the
cause may be external to the employee and due to an organizational issue that should be
addressed (Yukl, 1998). The expectation is that managers are to handle poor performance
effectively and to bring about change within the organization when needed. To better
determine if the root cause of poor performance is due to internal or external causes,
managers must evaluate poor performance without bias so that employees are treated
fairly and the business is run appropriately.

When leaders work to create a positive relationship with their employees, they are
likely to bring about motivated and competent followers. The benefits are realized
through employee-demonstrated contributions in shared tasks, maintaining a cooperative
work environment, innovative ideas, and voicing of dissent when involved in decision-
making. Gerstner and Day (1997) reveal that LMX has a strong relationship with task
performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.
When Flaherty and Pappas (2000) employed the LMX theory in a study of sales
employees to measure levels of trust, commitment to the organization, distributive
justice, procedural justice, and overall job satisfaction, they realized that organizational
commitment and trust could be enhanced by training managers to use more consistent
managing methods. Through more consistent management practices, the perception of
procedural justice was higher; this positively impacted overall commitment to the
organization.
Liden, Wayne, and Shore (1997) related the importance of the relationship
between immediate supervisor and employee as well as the relationship with their
organization. The employee’s perceived level of support received from an organization is
perceived organizational support (POS) and the exchange relationship between a leader
and an employee is LMX. They discussed the antecedents and consequences of LMX and
POS and stated that both are derived from social exchange theory.
Social exchange theory explains both POS and LMX as the evolution of a
relationship based on an exchange of something of value. As the exchanges are judged as
fair to both parties, the relationship strengthens. A strong leader-member relationship can
impact an employee’s POS as one factor in the overall view of the organization.
Eisenberger, Fasol, and Davis-LaMastro (1990) determined employee commitment to be
related in a positive manner to innovation, conscientiousness in performing job
responsibilities, and commitment.
The relationship between innovation and positive LMX is recognized in research
carried out by Scott and Bruce (1998). In addition, they report a relationship between
positive LMX with an inclusive decision-making style. By encouraging others’ input, a
supportive approach toward teamwork and a more cooperative work environment are
created.
It was determined that high levels of LMX, or possessing a healthy leader-
member working relationship, acted as a buffer to an individual’s job and career
satisfaction when that individual suffered from poor organizational fit (Berrin, Kraimer,
& Liden, 2002). This would indicate that employee attitudes that are impacted by
organizational culture could be mediated by strong supervisor relationships.
Conclusions of Leadership Theories
In an effort to maintain a competitive position in the global marketplace, an
organization must be aware of the management behaviors that support an engaged and
motivated work force. Implementing practices and strategies that develop this
relationship-building behavior, for both leaders and members, can lead to the successful
accomplishment of corporate objectives through the combined efforts of all its members.
Desired behaviors are the result of a motivated workforce possessing the skills
and knowledge to perform. The informal nature of a positive LMX relationship helps to
remove status barriers and allows members to focus on their role as a valued team
member. In addition, the continuous feedback builds trust and the member’s feeling of
self-efficacy. LMX takes a new look and provides a clear definition of the longtime
business theory based on building strong leader and employee relationships.
Collaborative relationships can be enhanced through greater focus on establishing
in-group relationships where positive exchanges lead to greater self-awareness among
members. By gaining a better understanding of the factors that lead to positive
performance and collaborative relationships, leaders will be better equipped to enhance
corporate success. Focus on management training, such as that aimed at teaching
consistent managing practices and relationship building, can build organizational
commitment as well as fulfill the motivating human needs to be part of a team, feel
empowered, and realize personal growth.

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH DESIGN
The purpose of this study is to determine whether employee attitudes and
expectations differ regarding leadership behaviors across cultures as well as to give
possible cultural explanations for differences that may result. Employee input from a
multinational company, the Kahuna Company, has been gathered through the global
administration of a workplace survey. The responses will be analyzed to determine if
there are significant differences between countries. This project will be conducted as a
case study of one multinational company’s efforts to recognize the attitudes of its many
employees across the globe.
A case study format facilitates quantitative research of this kind in which
individual or group responses provide data relevant to their particular environment. The
data can be used to better analyze attitudes and characteristics of these groups or
individuals. In addition, a case study can explain or evaluate situations or phenomena in
order to shed new light on or to determine intervention effectiveness; such as in an
evaluation of a government program.
This research is a case study and will explore employee attitudes within the MNC,
Kahuna Company. The information gained as a result of this study will be used to
strengthen the management program training and practices on which Kahuna focuses
across various global business units. This case study can provide generalizations and
comparisons that can lead to the building of new theory in the area of cross-cultural
leadership behavior.
The basis of this study is through a secondary data source which is comprised of
the results of an employee work environment assessment entitled Employee Environment
Assessment Survey (EEAS). The data was administered as a manual questionnaire to all
non-executive salaried employees in each facility of the various countries. The data was
collected and then compiled into electronic data reports by country. The scores of eight
questions or statements of each country will be compared to the responses from each of
the other countries to determine if patterns exist that can be generalized across various
countries or to determine if there are significant differences.
Significance of Case Study Research
The purpose of the case study research is to obtain information from a situation
similar to the researcher’s problem situation. For best results, conducting a case study
requires the cooperation of the organization whose activities are being studied (Gillham,
2000). In a case study, the researchers must be flexible and attempt to collect information
and insights wherever they find them. Like all exploratory research, the results from case
study analysis should be seen as tentative. Generalizing from a few cases can be
dangerous because most situations differ in some sense. Even when situations are not
directly comparable, a number of insights can be gained and hypotheses suggested for
future research (Boghan and Taylor, 1984).
Case study research provides unique meaning because of its applicability to real-
life situations (Yin, 1993). By relating directly to readers’ everyday experiences, case
study research facilitates an understanding of complicated real-life situations. The
researcher and the reader each bear witness to multiple perspectives of an environment
and the interaction among those perspectives without influencing the outcome. The
primary advantage in this case study is its custom design and highly focused research,
which enabled the researcher to carefully study patterns of perceptions and identify
relationships between regional responses.
Target Population
The survey was administered in the year 2000 to all non-executive salaried
employees of the Kahuna Company working in employing units in the United States,
Germany, Australia, and Brazil. The survey is administered to Kahuna Company
employees every four years. There was no randomization or specific qualifications in the
selection of the survey respondents. The subjects or respondents to the EEAS were
determined by those employed by the Kahuna Company at the time of survey
administration. Scores of the EEAS were gathered through the administration of one
common survey to these four countries.
All Kahuna Company employees were asked to complete a manual survey, with
the exception of those on leave of absence. The number of respondents from the United
States totaled 59,185, with a response rate of 32%. The number of respondents from
Australia totaled 5,358, with a response rate of 59%. The number of respondents from
Brazil totaled 17,289, with a response rate of 94%. The number of respondents from
Germany totaled 14,931, with a response rate of 40%.
The Survey
The survey results of the second quarter of 2000 will be used in this study. At the
time of administration, the survey was considered a tool to determine employee views on
a periodic basis. Some of the survey characteristics include years of service, functional
role and department, level within organization, gender, age, and race. The primary
portion of the survey consists of opinion statements requiring a Likert scale type of
response.
This study will focus on eight of the 90 questions or statements given on the
employee survey. Many of the 90 questions pertained to the employee’s work location,
status, gender, and other characteristics. Of the remaining questions, eight attitude
questions or statements were determined to best match questions determined to help
managers influence employees’ performance as developed by Buckingham and Coffman
(1999) after years of research with the Gallup Organization. The eight survey questions
or statements are:
1. The management style in my department encourages employees to

perform at their best.
2. My immediate supervisor manages people well.
3. My immediate supervisor demonstrates the core values of our company.
4. When employees in my group have suggestions for change, our immediate

supervisor is usually open to our suggestions.
5. I believe that I have the opportunity for personal development and growth.
6. I have a clear understanding of the goals and objectives of my department.
7. How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that affect your
work?
8. How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive from doing a good
job?
The survey to be addressed is the Employee Environmental Assessment Survey
(EEAS). International research company and survey developer International Survey
Research has validated the survey, ensuring its reliability in determining the workplace
attitudes of employees. The scores of survey statements may be viewed from various
aspects including percent favorable or unfavorable response as well as percent satisfied or
unsatisfied.
Data gathered from the EEAS conducted during the second quarter of 2000 will
be evaluated to determine trends in results throughout four countries in which Kahuna
Company conducts business around the world. The responses to each of the eight
questions or statements will be compared with each of the other countries’ responses.
Research Hypotheses
H1 Based on the range of scores for the dimension of individualism/collectivism for the
countries of Australia, Brazil, Germany, and United States, those countries scoring
higher in individualism will place more importance on receiving recognition and
opportunities for personal development and growth (statements 5 and 8).
Subhypothesis to H1: The responses for employees in Brazil will show lower
scores, indicating less importance, than the employees in the U.S. and Australia
given that Brazil received a 38 rating on Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
Framework; lower than the 90 rating for Australia, 91 rating for the U.S., and a 67
rating for Germany.
H2 Based on the range of scores for the dimension of power distance for the countries
of Australia, Brazil, Germany, and United States, those countries scoring lower will
place more importance on their supervisor being open to team suggestions and
inclusion in decision making (statements 4 and 7).
Subhypothesis to H2: The responses for employees in the U.S., Germany, and
Australia will reflect similar outcomes since the respective ratings on the Cultural
Dimensions Framework were 40, 35, and 36. The responses for employees in Brazil
will show lower scores, indicating less importance, than the employees from the
U.S., Germany, and Australia given that Brazil received a 69 rating.
H3 Based on the range of scores for the dimension of uncertainty avoidance for the
highest will place more importance on clearly stated requirements, defined metrics,
and established tracking systems that help to better understand department goals
and objectives (statement 6).
Subhypothesis to H3: The responses for employees in Brazil will reflect higher
scores, indicating greater importance, than employees of the U.S. since their
Cultural Dimensions Framework ratings were 76 for Brazil and 46 for the U.S.
H4 Based on the range of scores for the dimension of masculinity/femininity for the
lower (more femininity) will place more importance on the manager encouraging
employees to perform at their best (statement 1).
Australia should reflect similar outcomes since the respective ratings on the
Cultural Dimensions Framework were 62, 66, and 61. The responses for employees
in Brazil will show lower scores, indicating less masculinity, than the employees
from the U.S., Germany, and Australia given that Brazil received a 49 rating.
Data Collection
EEAS responses to the eight specific survey statements will be the secondary data
used in this project to begin the exploratory data analysis. Each statement response for
each of the four countries surveyed will be matched with other country responses to
facilitate comparison analysis. The statement responses were scored on a 1-5 scale
ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, or from very satisfied to very
dissatisfied.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics and various “goodness of fit tests” will be used to
summarize the sample data from the various regions. The goodness of fit, or chi-square,
test is commonly used in comparative studies to determine if relationships exist between
categories or variables. In this case, the various region scores for each survey statement
will be checked for differences between the expected frequency and the observed
frequency to determine if significant differences exist.
Statements 1 and 4 through 8 will be analyzed with focus on the stated
hypotheses regarding cultural dimensions and differing attitudes in the
workplace. The analysis of statements 2 and 3 will be used as additional findings in the
area of cultural attitudes.

Expected Findings
The expectation of the study is to provide a basis for researchers to increase their
knowledge of leadership behaviors and employee attitudes across cultures. When
conducting business across various cultures, it is crucial to understand the cultural
foundation, which influences attitudes and behavior. Organizations conduct assessments
of the workplace so leaders can better understand employee perspectives and align
management practices and policies more effectively. Managers on rotational assignments
as well as special project assignments working with members of other cultures, supplier
interface, consideration of future expansion, and joint ventures, will gain from this study.
Cultural similarities or differences in how employees view their work
environment as well as differences in observed management behaviors will be revealed.
Some responses may reveal that employee attitudes about particular workplace practices
can be generalized across global cultures.
Some employee attitudes that are expected to be seen in this study include
differences in understanding of company goals and objectives, inclusion in decision-
making, and management’s openness to employee input among the four countries since
scores in the dimensions of power distance differ. In addition, the value placed on the
expectation to receive recognition can be expected to show little difference since the
masculinity dimension of the four countries studied does not vary a great deal.
Using Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Framework as a guide, some expected
findings of this study would indicate that the attitudes of the employees of the U.S. and
Australia would place more importance on receiving recognition and opportunities for
growth than employees in Germany and Brazil. In addition, employees in Brazil would
place less importance on inclusion in decision making and management’s openness to
team suggestions. The variance in the dimension of power distance would indicate that
employees in the U.S. would be less likely to have rules and processes specifically
spelled out and defined as compared to employees in Brazil. Employees in Brazil would
place slightly more importance on the relationship with their manager and encouragement
from their manager to perform at their best
Conclusion
The results of this study will enable management practices to be understood as to
their effectiveness across cultures and modified accordingly. Global human resource
practices in preparing employees of global companies for work assignments in various
settings will use the results of this project to improve management training efforts to
prepare managers for new assignments. Having a better understanding of the employees’
culturally based behaviors will lead to enhanced business objective communications of a
base MNE company and its subsidiaries. Through a better understanding of what drives
specific behaviors, better management practices and policies will be developed and
applied.
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSES
This chapter contains the analyses of the data and findings associated with the
stated hypotheses of this study. The results of the data analyses and interpretation as it
relates to each of the hypotheses are presented.
From the tabulation of the employee environment assessment survey data
administered to Kahuna Company’s salaried non-executive employees, eight statement
responses were focused on for the countries of the United States, Germany, Australia, and
Brazil. This secondary data was analyzed with statistical methods using the chi-square
test to determine if significant differences existed between country responses. This
analysis was used, along with the cultural characteristics framework (Hofstede, 1983)
scores in examining the four hypotheses raised.
Demographic Analysis
Of the over 50 countries in which Kahuna Company conducts business
worldwide, these four countries were chosen because of their relative global distance
from one another and representation of four different continents. The number of
respondents from the United States totaled 59,185, with a response rate of 32%. The
number of respondents from Australia totaled 5,358, with a response rate of 59%. The
number of respondents from Brazil totaled 17,289, with a response rate of 94%. The
number of respondents from Germany totaled 14,931, with a response rate of 40%.
The Kahuna Company salaried employees surveyed were given a choice of
responses using a five-position Likert scale allowing their response the range of agree,
tend to agree, neutral, tend to disagree, or disagree on statements 1 through 6.
Statements 7 and 8 allow the for a range of choices to include very satisfied, satisfied,
neutral, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied. As shown on Table 2, the percentage for each
choice category for each statement by country is demonstrated.
The eight survey statements were chosen of the original 90 due to their focus on
management behaviors and they are as follows:
1. The management style in my department encourages employees to
perform at their best.
2. My immediate supervisor manages people well.
3. My immediate supervisor demonstrates the core values of our company.
4. When employees in my group have suggestions for change, our immediate
supervisor is usually open to our suggestions.
5. I believe that I have the opportunity for personal development and growth.
6. I have a clear understanding of the goals and objectives of my department.
7. How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that affect your
work?
8. How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive from doing a good
job?
Table 2a. Employee Environment Survey Statement Response Percentages by Country
Tend to Tend to
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
Statement 1 % % % % %
United States 25 32 12 19 13
Germany 13 22 10 33 22
Australia 19 32 12 23 13
Brazil 39 30 6 14 11
Statement 2
Germany 20 30 11 25 14
Australia 26 35 11 16 12
Brazil 45 28 5 13 9
Statement 3
Germany 13 22 34 17 14
Australia 25 34 23 10 9
Brazil 48 26 10 9 6
Statement 4
Germany 27 40 10 15 8
Australia 33 40 11 11 6
Brazil 54 26 5 9 7
Statement 5
Germany 19 29 12 23 16
Australia 26 26 13 17 18
Brazil 43 23 5 14 16
Statement 6
Germany 56 32 5 4 2
Australia 43 37 16 13 9
Brazil 61 25 4 6 4
Table 2b. Employee Environment Survey Statement Response Percentages by Country
Very Very
Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied
Statement 7
Germany 8 42 17 26 7
Australia 9 40 23 21 7
Brazil 15 46 22 15 3
Statement 8
Germany 6 33 19 29 14
Australia 8 26 22 25 20
Brazil 18 32 19 20 12
Survey Statements Data Analysis and Hypotheses Decisions
In order to test for significance in differences between countries’ responses to a
specific statement, the observed frequencies or number of responses by category (agree,
tend to agree, neutral, tend to disagree, or disagree) for each statement was compared to
the expected frequencies for each statement by using the chi-square distribution
hypothesis test, which is denoted as Q2. Using the Megastat software add-in to Microsoft
Excel to calculate a chi-square contingency table test for independence, a p-value results
indicating if country responses reflect a significant statistical difference.
The resulting p-value from country comparisons is used in accepting or rejecting
the hypotheses. When a p-value result is <.05, a significant statistical difference exists
and supports accepting the hypotheses. When a p-value result is >.05, a significant
statistical difference does not exist and this leads to rejecting the hypotheses.
Another way to show the chi-square test is through the following calculation.
Q2 = U (O–E)2
E
An assumption of independence would result in similar statement responses for
the four countries in this analysis. An assumption of dependence would result in various
statement responses and would indicate a dependence of country as an influence in
survey statement response. Each of the eight statements was tested using the responses
from all four countries through the use of contingency table calculations. Of the eight chi-
square contingency table tests for independence, all eight resulted in p-values of <.05,
which indicates a significant statistical difference (Table 3).

Table 3. Survey Statement Chi-Square Contingency Test for Independence Results
p-Value Results
Statement 1 0.00
Statement 2 0.00
Statement 3 0.00
Statement 4 0.00
Statement 5 0.00
Statement 6 0.00
Statement 7 0.00
Statement 8 0.00
p-value <.05 indicates a significant statistical difference between all four countries’
responses
The above results can be used to support or reject the hypotheses of the study.
Along with Table 3, additional detail is provided in Tables 4 through 10. These tables
provide the output from the Megastat software used to run the chi-square test for
independence, which indicates the observed frequencies, expected frequencies, impact to
chi-square total, and p-value to support judgments beyond those drawn from the results of
the statistical test for independence.
Hypothesis 1: Based on the range of scores for the dimension of
individualism/collectivism for the countries of Australia, Brazil, Germany, and United
States, those countries scoring higher in individualism will place more importance on
opportunities for personal development and growth and on receiving recognition
(statements 5 and 8).
Subhypothesis to H1: The responses for employees in Brazil will show lower
scores, indicating less importance, than the employees in the U.S., Germany, and
Australia given that Brazil received a 38 rating on Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
Framework; lower than the 90 rating for Australia, 91 rating for the U.S., and a 67 rating
for Germany.
The analysis of Statement 5 responses was conducted using the chi-square
contingency table test for independence (Table 4). The test indicates a significant
statistical difference, which would be in line with Hypothesis 1. In addition to the
statistical test results, judgments can be made from the differences between the observed
and the expected frequencies for each country for this statement. The observed frequency
is the actual number from the count of response occurrences resulting from the survey for
a given category. The expected frequency is the theoretical expected number of
occurrences derived from the total number of respondents divided by category choices. If
a country’s observed score is greater than the expected score, the score would be higher
than expected. If a country’s observed score is lower than the expected score, the score
would be lower than expected. The observed and expected frequencies indicate that
Brazil scored higher than expected, which does not support Hypothesis 1. In addition, the
U.S., Germany, and Australia all indicated lower observed frequencies than expected and
this does not support Hypothesis 1.

Table 4. Chi-Square Contingency Table Tests for Independence for Statement 5
Tend to Tend to
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree Total
Statement
5
U.S.
Observed 13,577 15,348 9,445 11,216 9,445 59,029
Expected 15,421 15,300 7,818 10,893 9,508 59,029
(O-E)2/E 220.56 0.15 338.50 4.93 0.42 564.56
Germany
Observed 2,828 4,317 1,786 3,424 2,382 14,736
Expected 3,850 3,819 1,952 2,742 2,374 14,736
(O-E)2/E 271.08 64.75 14.03 169.53 0.03 519.40
Australia
Observed 1,392 1,392 696 910 964 5,354
Expected 1,399 1,388 709 996 862 5,354
(O-E)2/E 0.03 0.01 0.24 7.42 11.91 19.62
Brazil
Observed 7,434 3,967 864 2,420 2,766 17,462
Expected 4,562 4,526 2,313 3,249 2,813 17,462
(O-E)2/E 1,808.74 66.70 906.90 211.26 0.76 2,994.36
Total
Observed 25,231 25,033 12,791 17,970 15,556 96,581
Expected 25,231 25,033 12,791 17,970 15,556 96,581
(O-E)2/E 2,300 131.59 1,259.67 393.13 13.12 4,097.93
4,097.93 Chi-
12 square
0.00 df
p-value
The chi-square contribution number and chi-square totals shown below each
expected frequency number in the table above can be used to support or reject the
hypothesis. The major contributions to chi-square for Statement 5 are from Brazil
indicating greater dependence than the other countries.
Responses to Statement 5 show employees in Brazil to believe they have the
opportunity for personal development and growth to a greater extent than employees in
the U.S., Germany, and Australia. Employees in Australia believe this to a somewhat
lesser degree, followed by employees in the U.S. and Germany to the least degree.
and the expected frequencies for each country for this statement. The observed and
expected frequencies indicate that Brazil scored higher than expected, which does not
support Hypothesis 1. In addition, the U.S. unexpectedly showed only a minimal
difference between observed frequency and expected frequency. Since the U.S.
framework score was 91, the expectation was that the U.S. would show higher observed
frequency than expected frequency in the chi-square table. Germany and Australia
indicated lower observed frequency than expected and this does not support
Hypothesis 1.
Very Very
Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Total
Statement
8
U.S.
Observed 7,637 19,973 12,336 11,162 7,637 58,745
Expected 7,329 19,339 11,934 12,322 7,822 58,745
(O-E)2/E 12.97 20.83 13.58 109.21 4.40 161.00
Germany
Observed 888 4,885 2,813 4,293 2,076 14,952
Expected 1,865 4,922 3,037 3,136 1,991 14,952
(O-E)2/E 511.78 0.28 16.62 426.86 3.34 958.88
Australia
Observed 427 1,387 1,173 1,333 1,067 5,386
Expected 672 1,773 1,094 1,130 717 5,386
(O-E)2/E 89.56 84.28 5.71 36.65 170.17 386.36
Brazil
Observed 3,047 5,416 3,216 3,385 2,031 17,095
Expected 2,133 5,628 3,473 3,586 2,276 17,095
(O-E)2/E 391.74 7.94 19.01 11.21 26.43 456.32
Total
Observed 11,998 31,662 19,538 20,173 12,807 96,179
Expected 11,998 31,662 19,538 20,173 12,807 96,179
(O-E)2/E 1,006.05 113.33 54.92 583.93 204.34 1,962.56
1,962.56 Chi-
12 square
0.00 df
p-value
hypothesis. The major contributions to chi-square for Statement 8 are from Brazil and
Germany indicating greater dependence than the other countries.
Responses to Statement 8 show employees in Brazil and the U.S. to be satisfied
with the recognition they receive for doing a good job to a greater extent than employees
in Germany and Australia. Employees in Australia believe this to a somewhat lesser
degree and employees in Germany to the least degree showing an observed frequency of
888 to an expected frequency of 1,865.
The analysis of responses for Statement 5 show no support for Hypothesis 1 since
observed frequencies did not follow the expected pattern as described in the hypothesis.
Since country framework scores did not result in observed and expected frequency
patterns as described in the hypothesis, Hypothesis 1 is not accepted.
Hypothesis 2: Based on the range of scores for the dimension of power distance
for the countries of Australia, Brazil, Germany, and United States, those countries scoring
lower will place more importance on their supervisor being open to team suggestions and
inclusion in decision making (statements 4 and 7).
Australia will reflect similar outcomes since the respective ratings on the Cultural
Dimensions Framework were 40, 35, and 36. The responses for employees in Brazil will
show lower scores, indicating less importance, than the employees from the U.S.,
Germany, and Australia given that Brazil received a 69 rating.
and the expected frequencies for each country for this statement. The observed and
expected frequencies indicate that Brazil scored higher than expected, which does not
support Hypothesis 2. In addition, the U.S., Germany, and Australia all indicated lower
observed frequencies than expected and this does not support Hypothesis 2.
Tend to Tend to
Statement
4
U.S.
Observed 18,916 23,646 7,094 5,911 3,547 59,114
Expected 20,744 22,132 6,134 6,280 3,824 59,114
(O-E)2/E 161.04 103.49 150.23 21.60 20.11 456.48
Germany
Observed 3,997 5,922 1,480 2,221 1,184 14,804
Expected 5,195 5,543 1,536 1,573 958 14,804
(O-E)2/E 276.23 25.92 2.02 266.98 53.63 624.77
Australia
Observed 1,768 2,143 589 589 321 5,412
Expected 1,899 2,026 561 575 350 5,412
(O-E)2/E 9.02 6.77 1.38 0.37 2.34 19.88
Brazil
Observed 9,185 4,423 851 1,531 1,191 17,180
Expected 6,029 6,432 1,783 1,825 1,111 17,180
(O-E)2/E 1,652.72 627.85 487.41 47.41 5.66 2,821.04
Total
Observed 33,867 36,133 10,014 10,252 6,243 96,510
Expected 33,867 36,133 10,014 10,252 6,243 96,510
(O-E)2/E 2,099 764.03 641.04 336.35 81.74 3,922.17
3,922.17 Chi-
12 square
0.00 df
p-value
hypothesis. The major contributions to chi-square for Statement 4 are from Brazil
indicating greater dependence than the other countries.
Responses to Statement 4 show employees in Brazil to believe their immediate
supervisor is usually open to suggestions for change to a greater extent than employees in
the U.S., Germany, and Australia. Employees in Australia and the U.S. believe this to a
somewhat lesser degree and employees in Germany to the least degree.
and the expected frequencies for each country for this statement.
Very Very
Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Total
Statement
7
U.S.
Observed 7,051 22,329 12,340 12,340 4,701 58,761
Expected 6,884 23,536 12,122 12,160 4,059 58,761
(O-E)2/E 4.08 61.89 3.90 2.65 101.64 174.16
Germany
Observed 1,184 6,215 2,515 3,847 1,036 14,797
Expected 1,733 5,927 3,053 3,062 1,022 14,979
(O-E)2/E 174.31 13.99 94.51 201.29 0.19 484.28
Australia
Observed 479 2,130 1,225 1,118 373 5,325
Expected 624 2,133 1,099 1,102 368 5,325
(O-E)2/E 33.50 0.00 14.50 0.24 0.07 48.31
Brazil
Observed 2,494 7,647 3,657 2,494 499 16,790
Expected 1,967 6,725 3,464 3,475 1,160 16,790
(O-E)2/E 141.01 126.37 10.81 276.98 376.73 931.90
Total
Observed 11,208 38,321 19,737 19,799 6,608 95,673
Expected 11,208 38,321 19,737 19,799 6,608 95,673
(O-E)2/E 352.90 202.26 123.71 481.16 478.62 1,638.65
1,638.65 Chi-
12 square
0.00 df
p-value
The observed and expected frequencies indicate that Brazil scored higher than
expected, which does not support Hypothesis 2. In addition, the U.S. unexpectedly
showed only a minimal difference between observed frequency and expected frequency
where as Germany and Australia showed a greater gap between observed and expected
frequency. Since the framework scores for the U.S., Australia, and Germany were
similar, the gaps between observed and expected frequencies for the three countries were
expected to be similar in the chi-square table and this does not support Hypothesis 2.
hypothesis. The major contributions to chi-square for Statement 7 are from Brazil and
Germany indicating greater dependence than the other countries.
Responses to Statement 7 show employees in Brazil and the U.S. to be satisfied
with their involvement in decisions that affect their job to a greater extent than employees
in Germany and Australia. Employees in Germany believe this to a somewhat lesser
degree and employees in Australia to the least degree.
Since country framework scores did not result in observed and expected frequency
patterns as described in the hypothesis, Hypothesis 2 is not accepted.
Hypothesis 3: Based on the range of scores for the dimension of uncertainty
avoidance for the countries of Australia, Brazil, Germany, and United States, those
countries scoring highest will place more importance on clearly stated requirements,
defined metrics, and established tracking systems that help to better understand
department goals and objectives (statement 6).

Subhypothesis to H3: The responses for employees in Brazil will reflect higher
scores, indicating greater importance, than employees of the U.S. since their Cultural
Dimensions Framework ratings were 76 for Brazil and 46 for the U.S.
Tend to Tend to
Statement
6
U.S.
Observed 20,655 23,015 5,901 5,901 3,541 59,014
Expected 25,339 20,671 4,972 4,992 3,040 59,014
(O-E)2/E 865.97 265.88 173.70 165.68 82.66 1,553.88
Germany
Observed 8,327 4,758 744 595 297 14,721
Expected 6,321 5,156 1,240 1,245 758 14,721
(O-E)2/E 636.75 30.73 199.00 339.78 280.09 1,486.35
Australia
Observed 2,301 1,980 856 696 482 6,313
Expected 2,711 2,211 532 534 325 6,313
(O-E)2/E 62.06 24.29 197.50 48.83 75.17 407.86
Brazil
Observed 10,430 4,275 684 1,026 684 17,098
Expected 7,341 5,989 1,441 1,446 881 17,098
(O-E)2/E 1,299.13 490.81 397.41 122.22 43.95 2,353.52
Total
Observed 41,712 34,028 8,185 8,218 5,004 97,146
Expected 41,712 34,028 8,185 8,218 5,004 97,146
(O-E)2/E 2,863.92 811.72 967.61 676.50 481.86 5,801.62
5,801.62 Chi-
12 square
0.00 df
p-value
The observed and expected frequencies indicate that Brazil and Germany scored
higher than expected, which does support Hypothesis 3, since their framework scores
were 76 and 65 respectively. In addition, the U.S. and Australia scored lower than
expected, which also supports Hypothesis 3, since their framework scores were 46 and 51
respectively. The four countries’ observed and expected frequencies in the chi-square
table were as expected and this does support Hypothesis 3.
hypothesis. The least contribution to chi-square for Statement 6 is from Australia
indicating the less dependence than the other countries.
Responses to Statement 6 show employees in Brazil and Germany to believe they
have a clear understanding of the goals and objectives of their department to a greater
extent than employees in the U.S. and Australia. Employees in Australia believe this to a
somewhat lesser degree and employees in the U.S. to the least degree.
The analysis of responses for Statement 6 show support for Hypothesis 3 since
observed frequencies did follow the expected pattern as described in the hypothesis.
Since country framework scores did result in observed and expected frequency patterns
as described in the hypothesis, Hypothesis 3 initially appears to be supported.

Hypothesis 4: Based on the range of scores for the dimension of
masculinity/femininity for the countries of Australia, Brazil, Germany, and United States,
those countries scoring lower (more femininity) will place more importance on the
manager encouraging employees to perform at their best (statement 1).
Australia should reflect similar outcomes since the respective ratings on the Cultural
Dimensions Framework were 62, 66, and 61. The responses for employees in Brazil will
show higher scores for Statement 1, due to a lower masculinity rating, than the employees
from the U.S., Germany, and Australia given that Brazil received a 49 rating.
Tend to Tend to
Statement
1
U.S.
Observed 14,791 18,932 7,099 11,241 7,691 59,754
Expected 15,039 17,886 6,312 12,178 8,339 59,754
(O-E)2/E 4.10 61.18 98.22 72.09 50.40 285.98
Germany
Observed 1,941 3,285 1,493 4,927 3,285 14,931
Expected 3,758 4,469 1,577 3,043 2,084 14,931
(O-E)2/E 878.37 313.88 4.49 1,166.85 692.22 3,055.81
Australia
Observed 1,017 1,713 642 1,231 696 5,299
Expected 1,334 1,586 560 1,080 740 5,299
(O-E)2/E 75.20 10.12 12.17 21.16 2.58 121.23
Brazil
Observed 6,715 5,166 1,033 2,411 1,894 17,219
Expected 4,334 5,154 1,819 3,509 2,403 17,219
(O-E)2/E 1,308.98 0.01 339.46 343.90 107.82 2,100.20
Total
Observed 24,464 29,095 10,268 19,810 13,566 97,203
Expected 24,464 29,095 10,268 19,810 13,566 97,203
(O-E)2/E 5,563 385.21 454.34 1,603.99 853.02 5,563.21
5,563.21 Chi-
12 square
0.00 df
p-value
The observed and expected frequencies indicate that Brazil scored higher than
expected, which does support Hypothesis 4, since the framework score 49 as compared to
the scores of 61, 62, and 66 respectively for Australia, the U.S., and Germany. In
addition, the U.S., Germany, and Australia scored lower than expected, which also
supports Hypothesis 4. The four countries’ observed and expected frequencies in the chi-
square table were as expected and this does support Hypothesis 4. Although the
framework scores of 61, 62, and 66 respectively for Australia, the U.S., and Germany
were relatively similar, the percentages of agree and tend to agree responses revealed
greater differences than expected and were shown as 57%, 51%, and 35% respectively
for the U.S., Australia, and Germany.
hypothesis. The highest contribution to chi-square for Statement 1 is from Brazil
indicating more dependence than the other countries.
Responses to Statement 1 show employees in Brazil to believe the management
style in their department encourages employees to perform at their best to a greater extent
than employees in the U.S. Employees in Australia believe this to a somewhat lesser
degree and employees in Germany to the least degree.
Since country framework scores did result in observed and expected frequency
patterns as described in the hypothesis, Hypothesis 4 initially appears to be supported.
In addition to the above analysis for the hypotheses, some additional data and interesting
findings has come out of the statement analysis that the author would like to point out.
The results of Statements 2 and 3 were not predicted as part of the four hypotheses but
their results indicate that Brazil is the major contributor to chi-square totals indicating
greater dependence than the other countries (Tables 10a & 10b). As discussed in all
previous statement analyses, responses for Statements 2 and 3 also showed higher
observed frequencies than expected frequencies. In addition, employees in Brazil believe
that their immediate supervisor manages people well and demonstrated core values to a
greater extent than employees in the U.S. Employees in Australia believe this to a
somewhat lesser degree and employees in Germany to the least degree.

Table 10a. Chi-Square Contingency Table Tests for Independence for Statement 2
Tend to Tend to
Statement
2
U.S.
Observed 17,756 20,123 7,102 8,286 5,919 59,185
Expected 18,291 19,159 6,241 9,250 6,244 59,185
(O-E)2/E 15.71 48.50 118.81 100.43 16.94 300.38
Germany
Observed 2,979 4,468 1,638 3,724 2,085 14,894
Expected 4,603 4,821 1,571 2,328 1,571 14,894
(O-E)2/E 573.16 25.87 2.92 836.97 168.09 1,607.02
Australia
Observed 1,392 1,873 589 856 642 5,352
Expected 1,654 1,733 564 836 565 5,352
(O-E)2/E 41.67 11.42 1.05 0.47 10.67 65.30
Brazil
Observed 7,736 4,813 860 2,235 1,547 17,19
Expected 5,313 5,565 1,813 2,687 1,813 17,190
(O-E)2/E 1,104.92 101.47 501.24 75.99 39.12 1,822.74
Total
Observed 29,861 31,278 10,189 15,100 10,193 96,621
Expected 29,861 31,278 10,189 15,100 10,193 96,621
(O-E)2/E 1,735.46 187.26 624.02 1,013.87 234.83 3,795.44
3,795.44 Chi-
12 square
0.00 df
p-value
Table 10a. Chi-Square Contingency Table Tests for Independence for Statement 3
Statement
3
U.S.
Observed 17,664 19,430 11,776 5,299 4,710 58,879
Expected 17,851 17,754 12,120 6,067 5,087 58,879
(O-E)2/E 1.96 158.14 9.79 97.16 27.84 294.88
Germany
Observed 1,929 3,264 5,045 2,522 2,077 14,837
Expected 4,498 4,474 3,054 1,529 1,282 14,837
(O-E)2/E 1,467.69 327.16 1,297.10 645.63 493.58 4,231.15
Australia
Observed 1,332 1,812 1,226 533 480 5,382
Expected 1,632 1,623 1,108 555 465 5,382
(O-E)2/E 54.99 21.98 12.51 0.85 0.46 90.78
Brazil
Observed 8,156 4,418 1,699 1,529 1,020 16,822
Expected 5,100 5,073 3,463 1,733 1,453 16,822
(O-E)2/E 1,831.27 84.48 898.22 24.02 129.46 2,967.46
Total
Observed 29,081 28,924 19,745 9,884 8,287 95,920
Expected 29,081 28,924 19,745 9,884 8,287 95,920
(O-E)2/E 3,355.90 591.76 2,217.62 767.65 651.34 7,584.27
7,584.27 Chi-
12 square
0.00 df
p-value
In general, employees in Brazil (see Table 2) responded more favorably to all
eight statements with an average of 75% of all responses given as “agree” or “tend to
agree” in statements 1 through 6, and an average of 56% of all responses given as “very
satisfied” or “satisfied” in statements 7 and 8. The remaining countries’ favorable
responses to statements 1 through 6 were 63%, 63%, and 54% respectively for the U.S.,
Australia, and Germany. The remaining countries’ favorable responses to statements 7
and 8 were 49%, 42%, and 45% respectively for the U.S., Australia, and Germany.
In addition, employees in Germany responded less favorably to all statements
with an average of 32% of all statement responses given as “tend to disagree” or
“disagree” in statements 1 through 6, and an average of 38% of all responses given as
“dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” in statements 7 and 8. The remaining countries’ less
favorable responses for statements 1 through 6 were 26%, 23%, and 20% respectively for
Australia, the U.S., and Brazil. The remaining countries’ less favorable responses for
statements 7 and 8 were 37%, 31%, and 25% respectively for Australia, the U.S., and
Brazil.
Summary
Following the statement response data analyses and country comparisons using
statistical methods of analysis, the researcher addressed the four hypotheses. The
interpretation of the data brought about conclusions regarding the acceptance or rejection
to the hypotheses stated. These conclusions include the rejection of Hypothesis 1, the
rejection of Hypothesis 2, Hypothesis 3 appears to be supported, and Hypothesis 4
appears to be supported (Table 11). The conclusions came about due to the supportive
results following multiple country contingency table tests relating to Hypotheses 1, 2, 3,
and 4.
Table 11. Summary of Hypotheses
Decision to
Hypothesis Number and Description Accept or Reject Reasons for Decision
Hypothesis 1: Based on the range of scores Reject Data did not support this
for the dimension of hypothesis relative to country
individualism/collectivism for the countries tests as predicted based on
of Australia, Brazil, Germany, and United framework scores. Brazil had
States, those countries scoring higher in a higher observed frequency
individualism will place more importance than expected frequency and
on receiving recognition and opportunities the U.S., Germany, and
for personal development and growth Australia all indicated lower
observed frequencies than
expected and this does not
support Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 2: Based on the range of scores Reject Data did not support this
for the dimension of power distance for the hypothesis relative to country
countries of Australia, Brazil, Germany, tests as predicted based on
and United States, those countries scoring framework scores. Brazil had
lower will place more importance on their a higher observed frequency
supervisor being open to team suggestions than expected frequency,
and inclusion in decision making which does not support
Hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3: Based on the range of scores Data initially Data supported this hypothesis
for the dimension of uncertainty avoidance appears to be relative to country tests as
for the countries of Australia, Brazil, supportive predicted based on framework
Germany, and United States, those scores. The analysis of
countries scoring highest will place more responses for Statement 6
importance on clearly stated requirements, show support for Hypothesis 3
defined metrics, and established tracking since observed frequencies did
systems that help to better understand follow the expected pattern as
department goals and objectives described in the hypothesis.
Hypothesis 4: Based on the range of scores Data initially Data supported this hypothesis
for the dimension of masculinity/femininity appears to be relative to country tests as
for the countries of Australia, Brazil, supportive predicted based on framework
Germany, and United States, those scores. The analysis of
countries scoring lower (more femininity) responses for Statement 1
will place more importance on the manager show support for Hypothesis 4
encouraging employees to perform at their since observed frequencies did
best follow the expected pattern as
described in the hypothesis.
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion
The introductory portion of this research focused on establishing the need for a
better understanding of corporate culture from a global perspective. A totally clear
understanding does not exist of how behavior is manifested based on cultural
characteristics. Only generalizations can be made regarding behavior associated with
cultural characteristics. When conducting a workplace assessment, even similar responses
may be the result of differently manifested behaviors. The survey statements can be
translated differently among respondents within one culture as well as between cultures.
The statement translation can be a very subjective matter.
Pros and Cons of Using the Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Framework
Predictions were not made by the author relative to all country scores on the
Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Framework (HCDF). The basis for predicting a difference
between countries using the HCDF was by using the face value of the framework scores
as determined by Hofstede. In using the HCDF, there was no way to precisely determine
how many points in the framework resulted in cultural differences. First, theorists have
acknowledged the existence and importance of corporate cultures. Second, theorists
recognize the cultures are conceptually different based on geographical locations. Third,
theorists recognize that cultures do not exist independently of leaders and both leaders
and followers exist in the context of the organization or culture.
Using Hofstede’s model, this research sought to answer these questions:

1. Do employees in countries characterized with high individualism place more
importance on opportunities for personal development and receiving
recognition?
2. Do employees in countries characterized with low power distance place more
importance on their supervisor being open to team suggestions and inclusion
in decision making?
3. Do employees in countries characterized with high uncertainty avoidance
place more importance on clearly stated requirements, defined metrics, and
established tracking systems that help to better understand department goals
and objectives?
4. Do employees in countries characterized with low masculinity place more
importance on their manager encouraging employees to perform at their
best?
A positive aspect of using the HCDF was the simple structure of variables and
associated characteristic values for various countries. The negative side of using the
HCDF was that country scores represent a general population of that country but may not
necessarily represent the respondents for the survey for a specific country.
The survey instrument design affected data analysis results due to the available
response choices. One choice selection for survey statements provided a range from agree
to disagree without allowing choices to reflect frequencies. The choices did not allow for
frequencies in which a specific experience was demonstrated and this limits quantifying
responses that truly match one between countries. The current instrument may result in a
similar “agree” response between two countries when in reality, one country response
reflects a once weekly experience and another country response reflects a ten times
weekly response. In this case, the actual manifestation of a behavior is different but
revealed through the data as identical. An example is if employees in Brazil responded
“agree” when their manager demonstrated a behavior once a week and employees in
Germany responded “agree” when their manager demonstrated a behavior once a month.
The actual behavior was demonstrated less frequently but rated the same per the survey
choice.
Discussion of Survey Statements
Survey statements were not developed for the sole purpose of this study but were
pulled from a larger employee environment survey. These questions were chosen due to
their focus on management practices and workplace behaviors in order to gain employee
perspectives in these areas. Survey statements reveal employee perception of their
manager’s behavior that aligns with the hypotheses assumption of the importance of that
specific behavior, which was derived from the HCDF characteristics. Statements used in
this study may present limitations in determining the importance placed on a particular
management behavior, but better suited for determining employee perceptions on their
manager’s behavior.
Although surveys were administrated to employees of the four countries studied
in their native language, it is possible that employee responses were affected by nuances
due to language translation. However, the author does not believe language translation
affected the results.

To further the results of this study, survey questions could be developed using
specific HCDF characteristics as the basis for rationale for hypothesis development as
well as a response scale that included frequency of statement demonstration. Example
statements for power distance could be more specific to determine employee input
relative to the use of titles, actions construed as being insubordinate, amount of open
discussion, and incidences of coercive management techniques. These statements and
responses could be structured to determine quantifiable incidents to provide data that
would more clearly reflect the differences in country responses.
Statement Responses and Explanations
Statement 1. Survey responses for Statement 1 were dependent on country. In
addition, the observed and expected responses followed the expectations derived from the
HCDF. Brazil was the major contributor to chi-square indicating the most dependent on
country as a variable. Employees in Brazil believe the management style in their
department encourages employees to perform at their best. Analysis did support the
hypothesis that employees of countries rated lower in masculinity would place more
importance on their manager encouraging employees to perform at their best.
A possible reason for this response is that employees in Brazil have a greater
appreciation for the personal focus their manager provides them in encouragement
whereas in other countries, this same encouragement is expected more and recognized
less. Countries rated low in masculinity tend to value cooperation and relationships,
which would support the desire for a manager’s personal focus. Employees in Brazil may
experience fewer actual incidences of being encouraged to perform at their best, but rate
or respond the same as another country’s employee who experiences fewer. Each
country’s scoring definitions or ruler for responses is dependent upon cultural
expectations and personal expectations.
The result of this provides implications for global or cross-cultural management
practice in that managers need to be made aware of employee expectations and areas
where focus can be made for improving workplace relationships. Of particular
importance is when a manager is from a culture high in masculinity. This manager must
recognize that employees of cultures low in masculinity possess differing expectations
and their motivation and effectiveness depend on management techniques suited for their
preferences.
Statement 4. Survey responses to Statement 4 were dependent on country but the
observed responses as compared to expected responses did not follow expectations
derived from the HCDF. Brazil was the major contributor to chi-square indicating the
most dependent on country as a variable. Employees in Brazil and in the U.S. were the
most satisfied with their supervisor’s openness to suggestions. Analysis did not support
the hypothesis that employees of countries rated lower in power distance would place
more importance on their supervisor being open to team suggestions since employees in
Brazil reported their managers demonstrating this behavior most frequently even though
rated high in power distance. Even though Brazil is higher than the other three countries
in power distance, it had the highest percentage of “agree” with a score of 54% for
statement 4 “when employees in my group.”

This result begs the question “what cultural characteristic, if any, influences
employees in Brazil to rate managers so much higher than employees of other countries?”
A possible reason for this response is that employees in countries high in power distance
do not necessarily experience less opportunity for team suggestion input as might be
expected with the unequal distribution of power characterized by high power distance.
Another possible reason for this result may be related to another cultural
characteristic such as collectivism. People in countries high in collectivism may tend to
favor positive responses and possess an acquiescence bias or may have lower
expectations that bring about high ratings. It may be that managers in Brazil are just
much nicer than in other countries and employees recognize the positive behavior with
high ratings.
Another possible reason for this result is due to the limiting response choices and
the fact that frequencies were not indicated within the choices. This limitation allows for
similar scores to actually represent different manifestations given that choice definition is
made within the context of each country’s expectation and influenced by cultural
characteristics.
practice in that managers need to be aware of the need for employees of all cultures to
experience the openness to team suggestions.
derived from the HCDF. Brazil was the major contributor to chi-square indicating the
most dependent on country as a variable. Also, employees in Brazil were the most
satisfied with the opportunity for personal development and growth. Analysis did not
support the hypothesis that employees of countries rated higher in individualism would
place more importance on opportunities for personal development and growth.
A possible reason for this response is that employees in countries low in
individualism may hold fewer expectations for opportunities for personal development
and growth. In addition, the cognition that what is good for the group is also what is best
for me may support them having lower expectations and responding to the survey
statement in a more positive manner. Again, the response choice limitation may mask an
appropriate comparison.
practice in that managers need to be aware of cultural characteristics that impact
employee expectations for opportunities for personal development and growth.
Statement 6. Survey responses for Statement 6 were dependent on country. In
addition, the observed and expected responses followed the expectations derived from the
HCDF. Australia was the minor contributor to chi-square indicating the least dependent
on country as a variable. Employees in Brazil and Germany are the most satisfied with
having a clear understanding of the goals and objectives of their department. Analysis did
support the hypothesis that employees of countries rated higher in uncertainty avoidance
would place more importance on clearly stated requirements, defined metrics, and
established tracking sytems that help to better understand department goals and
objectives.
The observation for statement 6 scores raises a question about what leadership
behaviors in Brazil differ from those in the U.S. that would bring about a large gap in
response scores. The U.S. scored a country low of 35% and Brazil scored a high of 61%.
In addition, the question might be more appropriately stated as whether it is a leadership
behavior or employee perspective that differs and results in the score gap. Different levels
of employee expectations between countries may also explain results.
A possible reason for this response is that employees in countries high in
uncertainty avoidance prefer clearly defined processes and objectives. This preference is
manifested in engrained in management practices that are intended to positively influence
employee behaviors toward achieving company goals and objectives.
practice in that managers need to be made aware of employee preferences regarding rigid
rules and defined processes. A manager must be aware of their management style in order
to positively influence their employees. A management style of managing by the “seat of
your pants” may be suitable and effective for employees in some cultures but may not be
suitable and effective in another culture.
Of particular importance is when a manager is from a culture low in uncertainty
avoidance. This manager must recognize that employees of cultures high in uncertainty
avoidance possess differing expectations and their motivation and effectiveness depend
on management techniques suited for their preferences. A manager from Brazil may
become ineffective and alienate employees in Australia if he/she fails to recognize the
differences in expectations regarding workplace aspects such as highly defined processes
and rigorous tracking systems.
derived from the HCDF. This is of particular interest since the HCDF power distance
scores for the U.S., Germany, and Australia were quite similar to one another. Germany
and Brazil were the major contributors to chi-square indicating the most dependent on
country as a variable. Employees in the U.S. and Brazil were the most satisfied with their
involvement in decisions that affect their job. Analysis did not support the hypothesis that
employees of countries rated lower in power distance would place more importance on
inclusion in decision making.
A possible reason for this response is that employees in countries with low power
distance, may judge or rate managers more harshly than employees higher in power
distance. In this case, employees in Brazil may actually experience more inclusion in
decision making or their scoring is more liberal. Another possibility is that these four
countries may actually have a similar level of inclusion of decision making but the survey
response choice limitation masks an actual representation. An example is an employee in
the U.S. responds “agree” when their manager includes them in decision making nearly
every day and an employee in Brazil responds “agree” when their manager includes them
in decision making only once per month. The survey response limitations cannot always
reflect a similar manager behavior.

practice in that managers should practice self-monitoring in areas such as inclusion in
decision making to insure that all employees’ input is regarding in decision making to
enable innovation and effectiveness in the workplace.
derived from the HCDF. Germany and Brazil were the major contributors to chi-square
indicating the most dependent on country as a variable. Overall employees in Brazil and
the U.S. were the most satisfied with the recognition received for doing a good job.
Analysis did not support the hypothesis that employees of countries rated higher in
individualism would place more importance on receiving recognition.
A possible reason for this response may again be the result of survey response
design not allowing for choices to indicate the demonstrated observation frequency of the
statement situation.
practice in that managers should receive training in many aspects of motivating
employees with emphasis on cultural preferences and tendencies.
The statements that received the highest response percentages in the “agree” or
“very satisfied” categories were statements 4 and 6, which are respectively “when
employees in my group have suggestions for change, our immediate supervisor is usually
open to our suggestions” and “I have a clear understanding of the goals and objectives of
my department.”
Although statements 7 and 8 used a different response category than statements 1
through 6, it seems important to point out that statements 7 and 8 resulted in an
observation of the lowest overall scores across all countries, which are 44% and 45% for
a total of the four countries’ “very satisfied” scores.
Although statements 2 and 3 were not included in the development of the
hypotheses, the results supported the positive response tendencies exhibited by the other
statements. Employees in Brazil believed their supervisors managed people well and
most positively responded that their supervisors demonstrated company core values.
National Culture and Company Culture
The research data used in this study was conducted within one company, the
Kahuna Company. A multinational company like Kahuna is impacted by a company
culture as well as the national culture of the host country. National culture provides the
foundation for business aspects such as definitions for fair competition, ethical practices,
and concepts of desirable leadership traits. Other cultural aspects that impact the
workplace include beliefs, attitudes, education level, religion, and technology level.
Individual behavior or the manifestation of these cultural aspects influence the workplace
and bring about a company culture or personality.
Although national culture takes precedence over company culture, it must be
recognized that the results of the survey could be impacted by a strong company culture
that may not reflect other companies within the same country. Assuming that the
population sample is representative of the national culture in the aspect of the dimensions
characteristics, one might expect the survey results to show no significant difference
when framework scores were similar.
When conducting a workplace assessment, even similar responses may be the
result of differently manifested behaviors. The survey statements can be translated
differently among respondents within one culture as well as between cultures. The
statement translation can be a very subjective matter. Since survey responses were not
associated with a numerical frequency of observations, similar scores between countries
may actually represent different experiences.
Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn (2000) report that matters like achievement,
personal development and growth are based on the values and attitudes of an individual’s
culture. In addition to the social system influence on these values and attitudes, an
individual preference impacts them as well. Speculation might be made about the
differences in culture and the personal nature of expectations, involvement, self-
actualization and the basic needs as theorized by Maslow (1970) and how these needs are
manifested in the workplace. This level of need may be reflected in differing perceptions
in the workplace and thus impact survey scores as well.
Cultural Impact on Business
Past studies have revealed the success rate for business ventures between cultures
that are more distant in characteristics has been shown to be even lower than for cultures
that are more similar (Barkema, Bell, & Pennings, 1996; Kogut & Singh, 1988; Li &
Guisinger, 1991).
A study conducted in Great Britain (“Managers Input,” 2002) determined that the
relationship between an individual and his or her direct manager or supervisor was the
most important factor influencing the work environment. In addition, the study
recognized the impact a manager’s input had on creating employment relationships. As
discussed by Lord (2000), research has focused on the role that leader and member
cognitions play in the organization. Cognitions of both leaders and followers may be
impacted by their individual views as well as the social system in which events are
presented.
A manager responsible for individuals of various cultures needs to understand
their employees’ desire and expectation to have their input recognized. Some countries
have a higher expectation of this than others as determined by Dos Santos-Pearson (1995)
in a study on negotiating styles. This study revealed individuals from Brazil to withdraw
and accommodate as opposed to the preference of individuals from the U.S. to compete.
This research data reveals that both countries believe their immediate supervisor is open
to suggestions. The difference may be reflected in the following discussion and ultimate
decision outcome.
A supervisor who is open to the suggestions of their team is demonstrating the
efforts that create a high-performing team. Budke (2002) reports that a high-performing
team could be positively influenced through focus on interpersonal skills training and
diversity training to bring about exceptional organizational outcomes, improved
efficiencies, and increased revenues.

Having a manager who is open to suggestions helps create a team that works well
together. This is especially true in cross-cultural business situations. Li (2002)
determined that many international joint ventures fail due to the inability of the top
management team to work well together. Cultural factors were also found to impact the
success of Latin American business activities (“The changing face,” 2002).
The need for a manager to understand their employees’ expectation of inclusion in
decision making is essential in keeping employees engaged in business goals. Ethical
decision making has been determined to be more individual than consensual in cultures
with higher individualism. Nakano (1997) found ethical perception differences between
U.S. and Japanese managers. Cultural influence on values, or feelings of right and wrong,
has been shown to differ among senior executives between U.S. and European countries
(Schlegelmilch & Robertson, 1995).
A clear understanding of department goals and objectives supports the
organizational identification that ties the successes of the company with employee
personal well being. In addition, an association was determined between organizational
identification and positive manager ratings by employees (Martin & Epitropaki, 2001).
Employees with high organizational identification were also more likely to report more
job satisfaction, intention to stay with the company, and well being.
When managers make the effort to encourage employees, a stronger bond or
relationship is formed between them. A focus on close manager and employee
relationships (LMX) is stronger in cultures of low masculinity versus high masculinity.
Allinson, Armstrong, and Hayes (2001) suggest that more emphasis be placed on aspects
of the relationship between supervisor and subordinate instead of the relationship
between organizational components and subordinates having based their research on the
LMX concept.
A study conducted by Hofstede, Van Deusen, Meuller, and Charles (2002) on
business leaders’ roles revealed that perceptions of desirable leadership traits were
significantly correlated with cultural dimensions. This study, along with the various
studies mentioned above, support the need for continued cross-cultural exploration into
the leadership practices that lead to effective global business management.
As Marquardt and Reynolds (1994) stated, a country’s culture is the way of life shared by
its people through values and practices that are reflected in their thinking and doing. The
personality of a country or culture is shaped through centuries of experiences shared by
members and can provide guidelines on how best to interact with specific culture
members (Harris & Moran, 2000). Not all members will behave the same but will share
some basic values and attitudes that influence behaviors.
Conclusions
The focus of this study was to investigate employee perspectives of management
behavior within a multinational organization to determine if there was a difference in the
employee perspectives across the four different countries studied. This study used the
secondary data results of a global employee survey conducted at one multinational
company, along with the behavior theory associated with Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
Framework (HCDF), to determine if survey responses were independent of country
culture.
This study included statistical analysis of the responses of a globally administered
employee survey to determine if employee expectations and perceptions differed across
cultures when cultural framework characteristics were taken into consideration. In
addition, an understanding of the cultural characteristics framework was used in
hypothesis development. The recommendations as a result of this case study are intended
to provide a real-world understanding of cross-cultural employee expectations and cross-
cultural management practices.
The implications for global and cross-cultural management practice include a
thorough knowledge of the cultural characteristics of the employees to be managed. This
is particularly important if the culture is different from one’s own culture. These
differences may impact a manager’s ability to effectively manage due to employee
expectations relative to decision making, personal development, and recognition.
In addition, a GNC like Kahuna is able to take these results and delve into the
reasons why managers in one country demonstrate specific behaviors more or less than
managers in another country; at least through the perspective of those countries’
employees. Kahuna can put forth effort to determine if managers in Brazil are truly far
more open to employee suggestions than their counterparts in Germany. Does this data
represent a real situation for improvement or do employees in Brazil rate their managers
more liberally?
The data in this study showed that employee responses to particular statements
could not always be rationalized based on that country’s cultural characteristic utilizing
the measurement indicated on the HCDF. Expectations of responses as stated in the

hypotheses were determined on workplace tendencies as determined through the cultural
characteristics descriptions.
The results of this study can assist global human resource management
practitioners to better prepare leaders managing employees in other cultures by providing
these managers with knowledge of behavior foundations. The overall case study design
and data analyses process used within this research were selected with this purpose. The
research questions were developed for use in a multinational organization’s survey,
Employee Environment Assessment Survey (EEAS), to better understand their
employees’ behavior.
Ideal leadership traits and employee perspectives of these traits vary across
cultures. An ideal leadership prototype has not been determined to be of practical use
across all cultures. One particular management style might be suitable and effective in
one or many business environments but the various expectations as determined through
cultural nurturing may make some management behaviors ineffective.
The leadership traits implicitly recognized by one culture to include goal
efficiency or interpersonal competence may be overshadowed by the traits of versatility
and personal morality of another culture. The leadership strategies as taught and applied
based on Western management theories cannot be considered to be universal in nature.
A successful leader is affected by the interaction of many business environment
variables including tasks, time constraints, organizational structure, employee values, and
leader priorities. In order for a manager to influence a desired behavior and subsequent
business result, they must understand the employee’s value foundation that leads to the
desired behavior.
The political, economical, and technical systems the make up a global business
can be understood in a somewhat operational or measurable manner. The cultural system,
however, is more abstract and is less easily understood and measurable. Cultural
dimensions include attitudes, beliefs, and values that affect manager and employee
behaviors in everyday interactions. These interactions impact subordinate and manager
relationships, inclusion in decision making, strategy development, customer relationships,
and career development. Since these interactions make up the foundation of an
organization, every attempt must be made to optimize them through better awareness and
understanding.
One building block of a business foundation that varies across cultures is
negotiating styles. In a business setting, it is important to understand those individuals
involved in a transaction from the perspective of cultural preference in negotiating. Some
cultures prefer to accommodate rather than compete. In addition, ethical practices
recognized in one culture are not necessarily considered ethical in another. This lack of
understanding can lead to business failures.
When looking to embark in a new area of the globe to conduct business, a
perspective of global organizational learning would lead to a best practice currently
working for a successful company. A high-performance organization should be modeled
to provide a starting point for management practices and business policies.

Recent literature on the need for more effective cultural and behavioral
understanding supports the need for studies that bring forward useful and practical focal
points for improving business practices, human resource development, and managerial
training programs (Dessler, 1998; Gioia, 2002; Hofstede, Van Deusen, Mueller, &
Charles, 2002; Kanter, 1997; Lord, 2000). This in turn supports the effective
communication that enables employees to better understand and support the goals and
overall direction of the multinational company in addition to harmonious work relations
for an effective and innovative workforce.
Additional recent literature reveals that expatriate adjustment is a primary topic in
international management research and expatriates’ methods for adjustment to a new
environment and norms of interaction are investigated to gain a higher awareness
(Zimmermann, Holman, & Sparrow, 2003).
As reported by Freedman (2003), managers working abroad need to have cross-
cultural agility and credibility in order to gain the trust of those employees in the host
workplace. Freedman also states that in order to develop future global leaders, deliberate
steps must be taken to create the corporate systems to support and retain these future
leaders.
In consideration of the rapid pace of global business, one would expect intense
focus to expatriate training. However, Hutchings (2003) reports that although much
academic literature exists on the subject of cross-cultural or intercultural effectiveness,
companies provide little in the way of preparation to expatriates’ awareness.

To further state the need for effective manager cross-cultural awareness, Melles
(2004) relates that failure in international assignments is generally the result of the
expatriate’s inability to adapt to the foreign culture and not due to the lack of business
skills.
Safety is an issue for all businesses and in particular to the airlines industry.
Thomas (2004) reports that many airlines have a high percentage of cross-cultural pilot
groups and have reported cockpit disharmony. This has led one Asia-based airlines to
institute the most aggressive and successful crew resource management training program.
The key findings of this study indicated that varying levels of cultural
characteristics could not definitely predict employee perception differences indicated
through survey administration. The study demonstrated that differing cultural
characteristics did not always play a role in determining employees’ perspectives
regarding leadership practices. However, the results of the study did show significant
difference between four country scores as tested using statistical analysis.
A better understanding of employees’ culturally based behaviors will lead to
enhanced business objective communications of a base MNE company and its
subsidiaries. Through a better understanding of what drives specific behaviors, better
management practices and policies can be developed and applied.
The results of this study realize some limitations. A preconception or expectation
of results is not always supported through data analysis. Future studies may be
undertaken to present additional meaningful interpretation of the data used in this study.
An overall summary of this study indicates that country cultural characteristics
can sometimes play a role in employee perspectives. In the case of an employee survey,
these differences would be manifested in various responses that can help to better
understand employee behaviors and necessary management practices to deal with the
specific behavior.
Using Hofstede’s integrative concept of organizational culture provides an
understanding of culture from a more global perspective. The research described in this
study is another step in adding to the understanding of global culture. Finally, this
research supports the understanding within organizations and between leaders and
followers.
Recommendations
In a broad sense, this case study was an exploration of the role that culture plays
in employee perceptions of management behavior and expectations regarding
management behavior. The results of this study were meant to augment the existing
information on cross-cultural leadership behaviors, specifically from the perspective of
the employee, as well as to build on the current literature of cross-cultural organizational
psychology.
The following recommendations should be considered in studying the effects of
employee workplace attitudes. This study relates findings that reflect employee
workplace attitudes with one MNC located in four countries, which has added to the field
of organizational psychology in general with its finding. This study also helps explain
leadership behaviors across various cultures as determined through employees’ input

acquired through an administered workplace environment survey. Based on the data
analysis, recommendations have been formulated that can enhance global human
resource strategies relative to manager and expatriate training, particularly for those
managers who manage people of cultures other than their own.
In addition, findings from this study will provide a means of a learning process
for the survey administrators in those survey statement translations and responses are
better understood for future survey development. Survey administrators, as well as other
organizational researchers, can broaden their knowledge of workplace behaviors,
employee expectations, diversity, and leadership behaviors across cultures through the
results of this study.
Recommendation 1: Some possible outcomes of this study’s observations include
future research expanding on cultural dimensions framework and other cultural
foundation theories and what they contribute to current cross-cultural organizational
psychology theory. In addition, current human resources practices can align management
training, particularly for cross-cultural assignments, to better understand the values that
influence behaviors and an awareness of the various attitudes that employees hold of their
workplace. It is important to understand that large organizations must interpret and
evaluate their survey scores in the context of the diverse countries and cultures in which
their employees live and work. Burns (2000) stated that work environment in which the
majority of employees are the same ethnic group creates the illusion that all employees
are alike, therein distorting individual uniqueness and causing workplace identify
conflicts.
Recommendation 2: Another outcome is a better understanding of workplace
practices and leadership behaviors, as stated in the survey statements, and the associated
overall perception level that employees rate these practices and behaviors. Future
research may also include variations of this study to determine if particular cultural
characteristics are manifested in significantly different behaviors. This type of research
can add to current organizational management theory.
Recommendation 3: To further the results of this study, survey questions could
be specifically developed using MCDF characteristics as the basis for rationale and
hypothesis development. In addition, survey response choices can include frequency of
observation in order to provide quantifiable data the more accurately reflects the actual
workplace. An example of response choices that would bring about more quantifiable
results would include: my manager demonstrates this behavior (a) every day, (b) every
week, (c) every month, (d) never. When conducting a workplace assessment, even similar
responses may be the result of differently manifested behaviors or similar behaviors
reported differently. An example is a woman is 5’4” and considered tall in her family
while considered short in her husband’s family. The survey statements can be translated
differently among respondents within one culture as well as between cultures. The
statement translation can be a very subjective matter. Also, statements can more clearly
reflect the importance of a specific management behavior by stating, for example: how
important is it that your manager demonstrates inclusion in decision making. The
response choices as presented in this study could not adequately reflect expectations of
employees and employee responses were affected by those expectations and perceptions.
Recommendation 4: Further research could be focused on the question raised
through statement 6. The observation for statement 6 scores raises a question about what
leadership behaviors in Brazil differ from those in the U.S. that would bring about a large
gap in response scores in the “favor” choice category. The U.S. scored a country low of
35% and Brazil scored a high of 61%. In addition, the question might be more
appropriately stated as whether it is a leadership behavior or employee perspective that
differs and results in the score gap. Another study aspect could be focused on why people
in Brazil tend to respond more positively than people in the other countries studied.
Recommendation 5: Further cultural research can focus on other aspects of the
business environment to determine employee perspectives on communication, respect,
cooperation, learning and development, commitment, processes, continuous
improvement, safety, business outcomes, customer focus, company reputation, and
business performance using the HCDF as a model or another cultural characteristics
model.
Recommendation 6: Include in management training for cross-cultural
assignments or for management in general, an awareness training program on cultural
relativism. Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn (2000) define cultural relativism as the
belief that no one culture is of higher standing or more superior to another. Using this
thought process, individuals can better understand the differences of various cultures
without judging and comparing especially with one’s own culture.
Recommendation 7: To further cultural perspectives research in the business
world, focus on how fair competition and ethical priorities differ across cultures. Cultural
influence on values, or feelings of right and wrong, has been shown to differ among
senior executives between U.S. and European countries (Schlegelmilch & Robertson,
1995).
Recommendation 8: Further research can be undertaken to identify which
management behaviors or characteristics employees consider reflective of company core
values. What, if any, cultural characteristic, impacts the perspectives of employees so
dramatically as to result in a survey response of 13% of those surveyed in Germany as
compared to 48% in Brazil for statement 3. These scores were from the statement “my
immediate supervisor demonstrates the company’s core values.” Does a higher score in
power distance or another cultural dimension influence employees to hold their managers
in higher esteem? Does collectivism or another cultural dimension influence employees
to rate managers higher due to the overall feeling that the manager knows what is best for
the whole company and behaves accordingly? This statement, statement 3, presented the
widest range of “agree” responses and thus chosen as an example for possible future
research.
Recommendation 9: Future research can be undertaken to focus on survey
formats and response patterns particularly between different cultures.
Recommendation 10: Conduct global leadership behaviors research to determine
what leadership behaviors are desirable and what leadership behaviors an individual’s
supervisor demonstrates. It has been determined that many international joint ventures
fail due to the inability of the top management team to work well together and that
multinational corporations found that cultural factors impacted their success of certain
global business activities. Further research is required to determine causes and future
actions to prevent such situations. In addition to manager skills training, peer interaction
training programs should be implemented to support success at various levels of
interaction. To support better cross-cultural training, a better understanding of negotiating
styles is required. Situations involving collectivist and individualist can result in poor
outcomes due to the cultural preference to accommodate versus compete.
Recommendation 11: Research can be conducted to further understand cultural
aspects of the time orientations of monochromic and polychromic which is manifested in
the way that people prioritize events and rigid schedules over people and transactions.
Recommendation 12: Although this study included all salary employees as the
pool for participants, the response rate among the four countries varied vastly. It is not
clear to the author what survey administration practice or workplace structure brought
about the differences in response rates as administration procedures are identical as a
company policy per information from the resource person. A recommendation for future
studies suggests an analysis of this phenomenon.

REFERENCES
Adler, N. (1986). International dimensions of organizational behavior. Boston: Kent.
Allinson, C.W., Armstrong, S.J., & Hayes, J. (2001). The effects of cognitive style on
leader-member exchange: A study of manager-subordinate dyads. Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 201-223. Retrieved
November 14, 2002, from the EBSCOhost database.
Ayman, R., & Chemers, M.M. (1983). The relationship of leader behavior of
questionnaire ratings of leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 21, 27.
Baker, H.K., & Veik, E.T. (1998). A comparison of ethics of investment professionals:
North America versus Pacific Rim nations. Journal of Business Ethics. 17(8),
917-937.
Barbuto, J.E., Jr. (2000). Influence triggers: A framework for understanding follower
compliance. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 365-388. Retrieved November 14, 2002,
from the EBSCOhost database.
Barkema, H.G., & Vermeulen, F. (1997). What differences in the cultural backgrounds of
partners are detrimental for international joint ventures? Journal of International
Business Studies, 28(4), 845-64.
Barkema, H.G., Bell, H.J., & Pennings, M. (1996). Foreign entry, cultural barriers, and
learning. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 151-66.
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. .
Beldona, S. (1997). Effect of national culture, subsidiary characteristics, and industry

characteristics on management control: Implications for MNCs. (Doctoral
dissertation, Temple University, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58,
398.
Berrin, E., Kraimer, M.L. & Liden, R.C. (2002). Person-organization fit and work
attitudes: The moderating role of leader-member exchange. Academy of
Management Proceedings, 1, 6-15.
Blake, R.R., & McCanse, A.A. (1991). Leadership dilemmas – Grid solutions. Houston,
TX: Gulf.
Blassingame, K.M. (2002). Strangers in strange lands. Employee Benefit News, 16, 8.
Boghan, R. & Taylor, S. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The

search for meaning. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Brewer, M.G. (1986). The role of ethnocentrism in intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel &
W.G. Austin (Eds.). Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.). Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
Budke, D.A. (2002). Peak-performing work teams: Organizational character and the
leadership challenge. (Doctoral dissertation, Fielding Graduate Institute, 2002).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 212.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1996). First, break all the rules: What the world’s
greatest managers do differently. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Certo, S.C. (2000). Modern management: Diversity, quality, ethics, and the global
environment (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dessler, G. (1998). Management: Leading people and organizations in the 21st century.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dos Santos-Pearson, V.M. (1995). Cross-cultural differences in styles of negotiation

between North Americans (United States) and South Americans (Brazil)
(Doctoral dissertation, New Mexico State University, 1995). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 56, 191.
Earley, P.C., & Erez, M. (1997). The transplanted executive: Why you need to
understand how workers in other countries see the world differently. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational

support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 51-59.
Employee satisfaction in the world’s 10 largest economies: Globalisation or diversity?

Retrieved January 10, 2003, from www.internationalsurveyresearch.com.
Enderle, G. (1997). Worldwide survey of business ethics in the 1990s. Journal of

Business Ethics, 16(14), 1475-83.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Flaherty, K.E., & Pappas, J.M. (2000). The role of trust in salesperson-sales manager
relationships. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management. 20, 271-78.
Gebelein, S.H., Stevens, L.A., Skube, C.J., Lee, D.G., Davis, B.L., & Hellervik, L.W.
(2000). Successful manager’s handbook - Development suggestions for today’s
managers. Edina, MN: Personnel Decisions International.
George, J.M., & Jones, G.R. (2002). Organizational Behavior (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gerstner, C.R., & Day, D.V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange
theory: correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6),
827-45.
Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods (real world research). London:
Continuum.
Gioia, J. (2002). Globalization presents new HR challenges. The Workforce Stability

Institute. Retrieved on October 1, 2003 from http://www.employee.org/.
Gundling, E. (2003). Working GlobeSmart: 12 people skills for doing business across
borders. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Harris, P.R., & Moran, R.T. (2000). Managing cultural differences (5th ed.). Houston,
TX: Gulf Publishing.
Hersey, P. (1992). The Situational leader. Escondido, CA: Center for Leadership Studies.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1993). Management of organizational behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Leadership and organization: Do American theories apply abroad?

Organizational Dynamics, 42.
Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of

cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Man & Organization,
13, 46-74.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories.

Journal of International Business Studies, 75-89.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Hofstede, G., Van Deusen, C., Mueller, C., & Charles, T. (2002). What goals do business
leaders pursue? A study of fifteen countries. Journal of International Business
Studies, 33(4), 785-804.
House, R.J., & Aditya, R.N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo Vadis?
Journal of Management, 23, 409-73.
Kanter, R.M. (1997). Rosabeth Moss Kanter on the frontiers of management. Harvard
Press.
Katz, J.P., Swanson, D.L., & Nelson, L.K. (2001). Culture-based expectations of
corporate citizenship: A prepositional framework and comparison of four
cultures. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(2), 149-71.
Kluckhohn, F., & Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL:
Row Peterson.
Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry
mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19, 411-32.
Koopman, P.L., den Hartog, D.N., & Konrad, E. (1999). National cultures and leadership
profiles in Europe. European Journal of Work and Organization Psychology,
8(4), 503-20.
Lam, S.S.K., Chen, X.P., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Participative decision making and
employee performance in different cultures: The moderating effects of
allocentrism/idiocentrism and efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5),
905-914.
Li, J. (2000). Multi-cultural leadership teams and organizational identification in

international joint ventures. International Journal of Human Resource
Mangement, 13(2), 320-337. Retrieved on October 22, 2002 from
ephost@epnet.com
Li, J., & Guisinger, S. (1991). Comparative business failures of foreign-controlled firms
in the United States. Journal of International Business Studies, 22, 209-24.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., & Shore, L.M. (1997). Perceived organizational support and
leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 40(1), 82-112.
Ling, W., Chia, R.C., & Fang, L. (2000). Chinese implicit leadership theory. Journal of
Social Psychology, 140(6), 729-40.
Lord, R.G. (2000). Thinking outside the box by looking inside the box: Extending the
cognitive revolution in leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 551-61.
Luo, Y. (1999). Time-based experience and international expansion: The case of an

emerging economy. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 505-34.
Madzar, S. (2001). Subordinates’ information inquiry: Exploring the effect of perceived

leadership style and individual differences. Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, 74(2), 221-33.
Managers input makes all the difference to work environment (2002). Personnel Today,
63.
Marquardt, M., & Reynolds, A. (1994). The Global Learning Organization. Burr Ridge,
NY: Irwin Professional Publishing.
Martin, R., & Epitropaki, O. (2001). Role of organizational identification on Implicit

Leadership Theories (ILTs), transformational leadership and work attitudes.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4(3), 247-63.
Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). NY: Harper & Row.
McDonald, G.M., & Kan, P.C. (1997) Ethical perceptions of expatriate and local
managers in Hong Kong. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(15), 1605-23.
Nakano, C. (1997). A survey study on Japanese managers’ views of business ethics.

Journal of Business Ethics, 16(16), 727-35.
Offermann, L.R., Kennedy, J.K., & Wirtz, P.W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories:
Content, structure, and generalizability. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 43.
Ollila, S. (2000). Creativity and innovativeness through reflective project leadership.

Creativity & Innovation Management, 9(3), 195-201. Retrieved November 14,
2002, from the EBSCOhost database.
Oskamp, S., & Schultz, P.W. (1998). Applied social psychology (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Simon & Schuster.
Priem, R., Worrell, D., & Walters, B. (1998). Moral judgment and values in a developed
and developing nation: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(5),
491-501.
Robbins, S.P. (1992). Essentials of organizational behavior. (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rushing, J.A. (2001). Managers, strategic choice and time: A study of the influence of
time orientation upon strategic choice by managers (Doctoral dissertation, Nova
Southeastern University, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 232.
Schlegelmilch, B.B., & Robertson, D.C. (1995). The influence of country and industry on
ethical perceptions of senior executives in the U.S. and Europe. Journal of
International Business Studies, 26(4), 859-81.
Scott, S.G., & Bruce, R.A. (1998). Following the leader in R&D: the joint effect of
subordinate problem-solving style and leader-member relations on innovative
behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45(1), 3-11.
Seelye, H.N., & Seelye-James, A. (1995). Culture clash: Managing in a multicultural

world. Chicago: NTC Business Books.
Senge, P.M. (1999). Dance of change. New York: Doubleday.
Schermerhorn, J.R., Jr., Hunt, J.G., & Obsorn, R.N. (2000). Organizational behavior (7th
ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member

exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 522-53.
Stevenson, T.H., & Bodkin, C.D. (1998). A cross-national comparison of university

students’ perceptions regarding the ethics of acceptability of sales practices.
Journal of Business Ethics, 17(1), 45-55.
Tejeda, M.J. (2001). The MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties and recommendations.
Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 31-53.
The changing face of strategic alliances in Latin America. Retrieved September, 11,
2002, from http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/s+b/091102.html.
Trompenaars, F. (1996). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in

business. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Turban, D.B., & Jones, A.P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate similarity: Types, effects and
mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 238-44.
Vitiello, M. (2000). Cultural adaptation and socialization in a multi-cultural

organizational setting: Observations from information services professionals
(Doctoral dissertation, The Fielding Institute, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 61, 164.
Wan-Huggins, V., Riordan, C., & Griffeth, R. (1998). The development and longitudinal
test of a model of organizational identification. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 28(8), 724-51.
Whitcomb, L.L., Erdener, C.B., & Chen, L. (1998). Business ethical values in China and
the U.S. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(8), 839-52.
Yin, R. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Zunker, V. (1998). Career counseling: Applied concepts of life planning. Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks-Cole.

Leadership

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leadership

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CULTURE-BASED LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS AS

DETERMINED THROUGH AN EMPLOYEE ENVIRONMENT

SURVEY OF A MULTINATIONAL COMPANY

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

UMI Microform 3178453

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

of workplace attitudes across various cultures. Many companies operate in a global

understanding of what management behaviors influence people of various cultures, it is

important to understand the overall differences between cultures when considering

motivators, common practices, relationships with superiors, leader competencies, and

assessed using a workplace assessment tool to determine areas of improvement. The

benefits of achieving an engaged workforce through a positive relationship between

Australia, Germany, and Brazil.

understanding and helpfulness in achieving this goal. To my parents, Roseanne and

William Lengyel, who raised me to be hardworking and persistent in reaching my goals.

Table of Contents iii

Background of the Study 1

Statement of the Problem 1

Purpose of the Study 2

Significance of the Study 3

Assumptions and Limitations 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Current Literature on Cross-Cultural Issues 8

Cultural Dimensions Framework 15

Four Country Cultural Dimensions Comparison 19

Culture of United States 24

Cross-Cultural Characteristics in the Workplace 26

Cross-Cultural Views of Implicit Leadership Theories 30

Understanding Culture Supports Business Goals 38

Conclusions on Cross-Cultural Leadership Issues 40

Organizational Identification Theory 44

Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) 45

LMX Reflected in Organizational Performance 47

Conclusions of Leadership Theories 50

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN

Significance of Case Study Research 53

CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSES

Survey Statements Data Analysis and Hypotheses Decisions 64

Table 1 Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Framework Scores 16

Table 2a Employee Environment Survey Statement Response

Table 2b Employee Environment Survey Statement Response

Table 3 Survey Statement Chi-Square Contingency Test for Independence Results 66

Table 4 Chi-Square Contingency Table Tests for Independence for Statement 5 68

Table 5 Chi-Square Contingency Table Tests for Independence for Statement 8 69

Table 6 Chi-Square Contingency Table Tests for Independence for Statement 4 72

Table 7 Chi-Square Contingency Table Tests for Independence for Statement 7 74

Table 8 Chi-Square Contingency Table Tests for Independence for Statement 6 76

Table 9 Chi-Square Contingency Table Tests for Independence for Statement 1 79

Table 10a Chi-Square Contingency Table Tests for Independence for

Table 10b Chi-Square Contingency Table Tests for Independence for

Table 11 Summary of Hypotheses 80

Background of the Study

The unlimited boundaries of today’s global business environment bring new

challenges to managers. When conducting business across various cultures, it is crucial to

employees so that a common corporate direction is shared (Barbuto, 2000). Managers on

rotational assignments as well as special project assignments working with members of

impacted by cross-cultural influences in a global business environment.

Cultural characteristics influence employee expectations regarding leadership

practices, policies, attitudes, customer focus, ethical behavior, and commitment to

employees impact business outcomes through their behavior. Through an assessment,

When operating a global business, the importance of understanding workplace