Where is culture in Cross Cultural Research?

Smith. Using definitions of Culture in management. The main focus of level-oriented cross cultural research has been around the level of analysis. The measurement of cultural values and practices by the GLOBE project (House et al.. Wellington. 2006. 2006. Can individual-level scales be used for cross cultural studies analyzed at the country level? How should items be phrased to measure culture? The continuing debate indicates that these issues are of importance .g. Hanges and Dickson. Peterson and Castro. Matsumoto and Yoo. the proposed model assigns theory a central role in the measurement process in order to align the operationalization and measurement of culture as an empirical construct with theoretical definitions.g. This definition has important implications for cross cultural management research. Dansereau and Yammarino. 2006. New Zealand Culture is often seen as shared meaning system. (b) the practices of unpacking of cultural differences at the individual level. anthropology and psychology as starting point.. 2004) has created one of the most heated and controversial debates in contemporary cross cultural management research ( e. mainly addressing the question of whether psychological constructs show the same structure at individual and nation levels (e. 1987). 2006. The application of this process to two core areas of cross cultural management research is discussed: (a) the measurement of cultural dimensions. The meaning of GLOBE dimensions and the adequacy of their analysis remain in dispute. Peterson and Castro. 2006) and how to use culture to explain differences in work attitudes and behavior (e. and Centre for Applied Cross Cultural Research. The model is based on developments in multilevel research. Leung and Van de Vijver. 2008.g. Fischer. Leung and Bond. Poortinga and Van de Vijver. Smith . 2006. 2006. Hofstede. Peterson and Castro..g. 2006. 1989. Javidan et al. 2006. The proposed model therefore integrates the two streams of cross cultural management research and outlines a single research process that can be followed when measuring culture as a shared meaning system. There has also been some debate about how to measure culture appropriately (e. Fischer et al. 2005.Summary Ronald Fischer Victoria University Wellington. 2008. 2002.

Defining culture has remained a formidable challenge. as consumers of management research. however economic or educational differences at the culture level may influence difference between groups of applicants (Lubke et al. The application to cross cultural management research in the form of a research process model may be seen as novel and controversial at the same time. especially when operationalizing cultural variables. culture is typically defined as a ‘collective’ phenomena that is approximately ‘shared’ among members of a culture (e. A second characteristic of most contemporary definitions of culture in modern (American) anthropology (Kuper. The article is written in this spirit. knowledge. At the individual level may reflect individual (generic) differences.g. it is important to critically question both our theoretical approach as well as the adequacy of our current tools and methods. Morris et al. 2001. The model is then applied to the two aforementioned areas of cross cultural research. first review work on composition model as a tool to operationalize multilevel constructs. 1984. 2008. Cultural variables in management research typically fall into this latter category.for both management researchers as well as practioners. To discuss all of the different processes. 1998)? Are observed differences in conflict strategies a result of cultural variables or individual differences? The framework proposed in this article is based on the assumptions that theories and definitions of culture should take a more central place in cross cultural management research. and values between individuals from one generation to the next. Leung and van de Vijver. in order to highlight these controversial aspects and stimulates discussion. Chinese compared to US employees (e. Composition models ‘specify the functional relationship . Chan’s (1998) work on composition models is useful. The implications for management. Culture is passed within specific groups. 1999) is that culture is learned and not transmitted genetically. any operationalization of culture as a construct should be in line with his shared meaning system definition. 1980. Managers have to motivate employees to exert sufficient effort to ensure organizational success and long-term survival. managers have to select skilled and motivated staff. and to intervene in situations of conflict. Hofstede. Rohner. It may also be possible that researchers have no priori theory of culture and interpret emerging findings post hoc as reflecting cultural processes. If researchers agree with his definition of culture.g. addressing both advantages of the current model as well as limitations.. ideas. 2003). For example. which requires communication of key symbols. First..

Composition models are concerned wit both the content of dimensions and the phrasing of items. therefore. agreement within groups and variability between groups. If there is inconsistency across composition models then more research is needed to examine the source and meaning of the constructs. Selig et al. Equivalence issues have been studied in situations where a limited number of samples were available. Cross cultural researchers have been concerned with issues of equivalence. metric equivalence (do the items have the same factor loadings across cultural groups?) and full score equivalence. and equivalence can be estimated using multi group means and covariance structure analysis (Cheung and Rensvold.among phenomena or constructs at different levels of analysis. In some cases. Researchers can start off with defining the construct (Culture as a shared meaning system). van de Vijver and Leung. Composition models were developed to address conceptual issues associated with measuring aggregate constructs. sufficient variability across cultural groups needs to be shown. culture is mathematically treated as fixed variable. when groups are too large and individual members might not be aware of the larger ‘overall picture’. In summary. 2000. . 2005. and can help provide conceptual precision in construct development and measurement. the organizational literature would suggest that cultural variables should be operationalized using referent-shift models. therefore.. structural equivalence (can we use the same items to measure the construct?). it may be difficult to use referent-shift models (e. operationalizing items to measure constructs (using the most appropriate composition models) and evaluating necessary statistics for the composition model (most importantly. The same rationale could be applied to measuring culture as a shared meaning system. Theories of culture also imply that cultural constructs differentiate between groups of people. Four types of equivalence can be distinguished (Fontaine. 2008. 2000.g. The phrasing would need to be changed and within-group agreement would need to be estimated to capture team-efficacy as a collective construct. 1997): functional equivalence (does the construct have the same functions across cultural samples?). Hofstede (1980) explicitly states that culture is ‘a collective programming of the mind’ where values are used as key components of such mental programming. little.

For example. suggest that new cross cultural research projects start with a definition of culture that is relevant for the research process. Summary of research process model firstly. and that may account for differences in behavior across groups. has helped to elucidate the possible dimensions along which groups of people can be ordered. For example. This is a challenge for any managerial survey conducted across cultural groups. a researcher would need to consider which cultural variables could be responsible for the difference and then measure them in an empirical study to see whether they actually explain the observed difference. (2006). Equivalence needs to be tested. Using an example from a public domain data set. For example. (2008) reported that collectivism explained differences in organizational commitment across samples of Romanian. analyses must proceed at the individual level. this use is theoretically problematic. cultural process variables can be used in regression analyses or analysis of covariance to examine whether they mediate differences in samples. These findings may reflect universal psychological processes. If researchers have only a limited number of cultural groups. and Flefe et al. Japanese and US managers were completely explained by cultural values. The central question that arises is: to what extent do these explanatory variables actually capture culturally shared meanings systems? Using definitions of culture as a shared meaning system. using all Likert-type items from the European Social Survey. The current discussion is based on recent developments in the methodological and statistical literature. but not culture as a shared meaning system.. Identifying broad aspects of culture. This unpackaging approach is becoming increasingly popular. Tinsley (2001) found that differences in the conflict management strategies of German.Javidan et al. if we observe a difference in participation across cultural groups. German and Chinese employees. At the individual level. . and possibly isomorphism (if large number of samples are available). Such findings may indicate cultural processes worth exploring in more depth. such as individualism –collectivism or power distance. both direct consensus and referent shift models are available.

These differing representations can lead to miscommunication and misunderstandings between individuals from diverse backgrounds. 2008) also opens avenues for managerial practice. but it is possible to include his dimensions in multilevel analysis at the country level. In contrast. 2006. leadership. Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions cannot be applied at the individual level. climate.) from different cultural groups. but more research is clearly needed. .. in press. The purpose of this article is to argue for a theory-driven examination of culture and to integrate developments in multilevel research into an overarching research framework that helps in the operationalization and measurement of cultural variables in current cross cultural management research.. In this spirit. These findings concerning the validity of referentshift models are promising. 2008). The finding of interaction process in equivalence and isomorphism research (Fontaine.A second limitation is that statistical procedure of examining equivalence in a large number of cultural samples.. Shteynberg et al. equivalence and isomorphism should be central concerns for managers whenever they deal with measurements (personality. ability. the debate about the meaning of the GLOBE practice versus values scales will probably continue unless their data are made available for reanalyses. etc. which in turn would require managers to recognize the contextual conditions that explain differences in the psychological make-up of individuals. research also suggest that referent-group models predict variance at both the individual (Fischer. Concerning data discussed in management research. In summary. in press) and the cultural levels (Heine et al. it is hoped that this article has inspired some discussion and reflection in our struggle to make further inroads in the study of culture and how it affects management. Fischer et al. Concerning outputs.

Leadership Behaviors around the World The Relative Importance of Gender versus Cultural Background .

there is much research on leadership in North America and Europe. House et al. Smith et al. and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of organizations of which they are members (Chhokar et al. In addition.. 1990. 2002). Chhokar et al. Belgium Hein Wendt Hay Group. 2004. 2002. Becker et al. Shaw. consideration and initiating structure were chosen because many of the studies aimed at gender difference in leadership focused on these Ohio State dimensions (e. 2001. Brodbeck et al. Hofstede. Lewis and Fagenson. Leadership behaviors refer to the abilities of an individual to influence. The main aims of the current study are to examine the relative importance of gender and cultural profile when explaining leadership behaviors in a worldwide sample of managers. but an enduring question remains to what extent these western research findings are generalizable to other cultures (Javidan and Dale.. 2000. Gender and cultural background are among the aspects that have received most attention. there has been notable interest in the study of background characteristics and leadership behaviors of managers.Eland. 1994.. 2005).Summary IJ.g. Cultural background is commonly found to have a pervasive influence on leader behaviors (Van de Vliert. The Netherlands Martin C. Over the years. 2007. This analysis is relevant for scientists and practitioners. motivate. 1998). 2007. 2006) and various studies have shown that a country’s culture helps to explain leadership behaviors (e. For the present study. Day and Stogdill. 1972. Hetty van Emmerik Utrecht University.. These types of leadership behaviors are particularly . The Netherlands This study examined the associations of gender and cultural clusters with two classical leadership styles: consideration and initiating structure... Gerstner and Day. Euwema Lewen University.g. 2004). House et al..

understanding) and more inclined to use the consideration leadership style. and close supervision (see for instance Hofstede. helpful. power. The study of Konrad et al. Van de Vliert.g. and challenge. but this may differ according to their cultural background. Hypothesis 2b: Societal culture is significantly associated with an initiating structure leadership style of managers. Inglehart. 1995. dominant. differences in leadership behaviors of men and women originate in socialization processes. the leadership behaviors of women include more consideration. (2000) showed that women attached greater importance to prestige. Men are believed to be more forceful. 1990). According to the gender perspective. Differences in cultural background characteristics may result in different leadership behaviors. Hypothesis 2a: Societal culture is significantly associated with a consideration leadership style of managers. 2006. According to this gender perspective. whereas the leadership behaviors of men consist of more initiating structure behaviors (Carless. Gender-role . women are believed to be more concerned with others (e. 1990). whereby individuals learn to conform to societal expectations about their gender role. 2001. These job attributes seem more consistent with masculine than with feminine preferences. Eagly and Johnson. Leadership behaviors are expected to differ in societies that have different cultural profiles. and motivated to master their environment and more inclined to use the initiating structure leadership style. Hypothesis 1a: Female managers score higher on consideration than male managers. such as the different use of superiority. In contrast. 2006). Hypothesis 1b: Female manager’s score lower on initiating structure than male managers.relevant to the study of gender and cultural background differences because of the documented stereotypes people hold concerning these behaviors for male and female managers (Eagly and Johnson. more kind. Triandis. 1998. Female managers are often perceived as sensitive to employees’ needs because they are socialized to be nurturing.

. We postulate that the relative importance of societal culture in explaining leadership behaviors is more substantial than the role of gender. For males. (2) Relies on what he/she learns through personal contact with employees to use each person’s talent most effectively. and (5) Devotes a great deal of time to employees’ job security and fringe benefits. reflecting socialization and gender stereotypes (Costa et al. using the so-called application mode of translation (Van de Vijver and Tanzer. The five items used to measure consideration were: (1) frequently demonstrates concern for employees. we . Accordingly. Studies comparing the role of gender and cultural background can provide evidence on the relative importance of biological and cultural factors. Hypothesis 3a: The association of gender with consideration by managers is moderated by societal culture. Hypothesis 3b: The association of gender with initiating structure by managers is moderated by societal culture. whereas the image of females differs largely. Data collection was part of the assessment of management training programs within each of the organizations and this guaranteed a response rate of almost 100%. Hypothesis 4b: Societal culture is expected to explain more initiating structure by managers than gender. 2004). (3) Works hard to ease tensions whenever they arise in work group. there was a consistency in stereotyping across cultures. Hypothesis 4a: Societal culture is expected to explain more consideration by managers than gender. Information on the relative importance of these two factors on leadership behavior is lacking. the items were all translated from English into the languages of the participating countries by native speakers. (4) Encourages employees to talk to him/her about personal problems. Language issues are always a major concern in cross cultural studies. Gender differences in leadership are more frequently defined as a political issue.stereotyping by females varied across cultures. As independent variables. This study used data from the database of a worldwide operating consulting firm (Hay Group). 2001).

The gender effect is present in the Anglo. this stereotype is sometimes advocated as a ‘female approach to leadership’. predicting that cultural background is related to consideration. Hypothesis 1a. These results provide support for the suggestion of diminishing gender stereotypes. To summarize the findings for Hypotheses 3a and 3b. Hypothesis 2a. Except for the overall European and Anglo clusters. therefore is supported. Overall. Hypothesis 1b. Germanic. Nordic. Hypothesis 2b.used gender and the GLOBE clusters. The results of this study show that. Hypothesis 4b was supported. . we conclude that both hypotheses are supported. Nordic. Panel A shows relatively low scores on consideration for the Latin-Europe. Hypothesis 4a predicts that the relative contribution of societal culture to consideration by managers is greater than for gender. conclude that Hypothesis 2a is supported. Panel B shows relatively low scores on initiating structure as rated by the subordinates of male and female managers in the Nordic and Eastern-Europe clusters for the male managers as compared to the female managers in these clusters. In addition. as they deploy both more consideration and more initiating structure. driving on ‘soft powers’. and Eastern-European clusters. from the subordinates’ point of view. predicting that male managers will score higher on initiating structure. especially when we take into account the fact that female managers exhibit (somewhat) more initiating structure than male managers do. predicting that cultural background is related to initiating structure. the differences between the scores of the male and female managers are also quite marginal. One might speculate that female managers actually do a better job worldwide. female managers score higher on consideration and – unexpectedly – score higher on initiating structure than male managers. This outcome contradicts stereotypical images of female leadership as being more oriented towards relations and being less task-directed. was not supported. is also supported. and Germanic male managers as compared to female managers in these clusters. predicting that female managers score higher on consideration. the differences between the scores of the male and female managers are marginal. This hypothesis was not supported. It is possible that compared to the Anglo culture. the Chinese Confucian culture has a different conceptualization of leadership styles.

With the increase of foreign subsidiaries and multinational companies. This study ignores differences in corporate culture. we recommend future studies to include the organizational culture concept in the analysis as well (see also Slangen.These summarized findings support the suggestion of convergence in the leadership behaviors of women and men in the traditionally masculine domain of management (Eagly and JohannesenSchmidt. while many studies explored differences between different countries. More specifically. 2001).038 subordinates assessing the leadership styles of 13. A unique finding of this study was that culture has a significant impact on initiating structure. Finally.595 male and female managers across 42 countries. In addition. the results of this study are useful to explore and overcome stereotyped thinking regarding both gender differences and cultural differences in leadership styles. results should be helpful in understanding different managerial behaviors in country clusters. 2006). One of the strengths of this study is the sample size of 64. Such differences are also important in crossborder acquisitions. whereas it only marginally contributed to consideration. The implicit assumption in the present study is that cultural cluster is a proxy for culture. it is perhaps more useful for future studies to examine cultural similarities from the convergence point of view. . The results of this study can be useful for managerial training programs focusing on international management and leadership.

Is National Culture Still Relevant to Management in a Global Context? The Case of Switzerland .

which may account for what is shared and what is not. When moving away from the traditional views of national culture as shared values and looking at political culture. in their behavior and opinions. the relevance of culture at the national level can be questioned. Most research in cross-cultural management uses country-level analyses to study cultures. which accounts for what very different people. The challenge is to define at each level a consistent approach to culture. In the Swiss case. The Swiss people themselves underline the diversity of the country and a common culture cannot be expected. This national political culture. however as borders and boundaries get blurred with globalization. Switzerland is characterized much more by multiple regional cultures than by cultural unity. a closer analysis shows that the Swiss people share a common political culture based upon attachment to local communities and institutions. namely political culture. the cultural unity of diversified countries may appear. . the article shows that management practices are embedded in national political cultures.Summary Sylvie Chevrier Universite de Paris-Est. still share in a given country. The purpose of this article is to propose an alternative approach to national culture. This article advocates that national cultures should be considered even in the global economic context. France For over 20 years researchers have urged international managers to take culture into account. to government through consensus and to conflict solving by resorting to arbitration and pragmatism. which relies on frames of meaning. deeply impacts the dynamics of organizations and should be considered by managers on international assignments as well as those wishing to transfer management practices from one country to another. The Swiss example is particularly demonstrative because at first sight. This article addresses this challenge at the national level and demonstrates why and when this level is still relevant for managers faced with global business. Switzerland is a country with multiple internal cultures and borders.

including a category designed to account for the specific context. Each society is faced with irreducible tensions. Swiss population has its roots in Germany. Switzerland is located in the centre of Europe and belongs both to the Germanic world and the Latin world as well as to the Mediterranean and Atlantic Europe. The symbolic approach could be applied to any cultural level. In line with Turner (1967). presented in this article.The concept of national political culture. Geertz (1973) and. and it develops its own way of managing them. The most obvious ones are linguistic borders between French. culture can be defined as a context of meanings. Switzerland is divided by various internal borders. The political culture approach. such as the need to conciliate individual freedom and social integration. which is quite close to the conceptualization of national political culture. 1995. Barsoux and Schneider. are necessarily affected by these cultural representations of acceptable ways of organizing and regulating social life. German and Italian speaking Switzerland. Switzerland is also split between several religions. the most significant shared templates for management activities are about the appropriate way to organize social life. Institutional theory provides a framework. they directly entail appropriate ways to exert authority and possible forms of autonomy in work organization (Hickson and Pugh. the national scale appears to be a relevant unit of analysis because political cultures can be closely related to nation-states. The degree of cultural integration varies from one society to another. another part in France and another in Italy. like micro human societies. symbolic anthropology. 2003). . more generally. borrow from symbolic anthropology the general conceptualization of culture as frames of meaning rather than values. When drawing upon such a definition of culture. all well known in Swiss communities. Companies. When thinking of Switzerland. At the national level. Switzerland appears to have a series of vivid stories about the founding of the nation. differs from the widespread definition of national culture based on values and also from the majority of definitions focused on meanings. diversity and contrasts first come to mind and suggest that one can brush aside the national level and study smaller homogenous units of culture such as the canton. The Swiss nation progressively constituted itself through the aggregation of small communities attached to local life.

and social order (d’Iribarne. Switzerland is a community of different people who have a sense of their unity. Quality refers to the consideration granted not only to the core solution but to every detail. it is associated with high standard supplies and up-market components. it is a political activity. wherever required. People cannot work together successfully if they do not share some basic conceptions of justice.). independent from any powerful neighbor eager to absorb them. they are also attached to the confederation. Performance of the state-of-the-art materials is evaluated through its reliability. by federal institutions. but the Swiss people share a feeling of belonging to the canton. clean presentation of working documents about the project. equality. etc. which necessarily goes through consultation processes before making any decision. sustained.Myths about the country’s founding illustrate several fundamental elements of the Swiss political culture. This agreement. human dignity. The cantons all have their specificities. has been a model for similar agreements in other industries. which exist to ensure equality between the members. known in Switzerland as the ‘peace at work’. In July 1937. Egalitarianism leads to consensus. The quest for equality legitimates collegial power or the authority of a primus inter pares. The leitmotiv of Swiss myths puts the emphasis on a strong will to maintain small communities. as the presidents of the numerous councils ruling Swiss political life actually do. Switzerland is representative of nation-states that have a diversified population including . quality first relies on technical aspects of the products. Management consists of making men and women work together on a collective project. employers and the metal industries’ union signed an agreement through which they engaged to solve all their eventual conflicts through conciliation. 2000). Any analysis at the local level puts the emphasis on diversity but national cohesion is grounded in a strongly shared political culture. Swiss people have a strong feeling of belonging to their district and their canton. liberty. The history of social relations in Switzerland reveals a long experience of social dialogue. In the Swiss employees’ speech. endeavors to conciliate views. and search for concord. whether it be the precision of the final product – the painting of the plant for example – or the respect of rules in the working process itself (clear organization of the working place. Swiss people all have in common a conception of social life as rooted in local institutions.

In both cases. India or the United States. Research on cultures and management has been criticized for not being able to adequately account for individual differences or organizational choices. Some cross-cultural transfers of management practices turn into ‘ceremonial adoption’ rather than effective implementation (Kostova and Roth.several minorities and a long history of internal stability. some much bigger than Switzerland. Switzerland. Developing knowledge of national political cultures is more difficult than applying lists of do’s and dont’s. The point is to identify the phenomenon that resists globalization. managers have to find out about behaviors or to design tools that not only respect legal constraints but also fit the cultural context. but more powerful. Two cross-cultural situations in organizations especially call for cultural understanding: international assignees who have to manage local employees and managers in charge of cross-cultural transfer of management practices. This unity also appears in heterogeneous countries as long as their institutions have been stable enough to diffuse a collective imaginary. quality management became problematic when French engineers advocated an approach which insisted more on the global consistency of the products than on the meticulous contribution of individuals. It provides a key element for interpreting social practices and meanings and. which has enabled them to build shared institutions. leaves room for innovation. unlike directive guides. such as China. . also share a political culture. This article moves forward by opening the black box of cultural constraints that shape management practices. Therefore the case of Switzerland is not unique. Diverse countries.2002). where there are large minorities. National political cultures are of interest to managers in several respects.

3/84.338 %0 82-4.0..420 9423/.3/90.07 424034:8 :39841.784: .894900/9077.5574..70438 $907.422:3908.0  9903..:9:708.90/390. .17.1700/42.99.705708039.943.7894-0.9081472.943  . 0 3433$88.1..:80/4320.943.43..0994.943 41 3.3.843 .3/ /.3/.2084120..412.3/ !:   .3/8:0899.3.890300/94...3 -0.8.943.349075./0/-.:7450 $88545:.0981.30/07     03 /7..3.:9:7.9079.059:./:..708174243084..480 94 90 .8981789.110.3/9/0.943. 0.943 .88 -0..0.39..059 41 3.0397041:7450 ..84147..:9:708:..3/ 5488-0 14728 41 .4:8 4308 .-47/078 %02489 4-.3 850.549. .9347/.3 :543 8:.-0.30.. 549.349073 9.:9:70. .3 $907.4:/ -0.9430.8/0903.398..943 41 82.70 3:89.3/ 9.7.4390941 20.33. 0.10   .0 .422:3908 0393341$907...0.:9:70 %0/070041.4397.43909  .39:3941.:80549..943. /013943 41 ...9047574.43.:9:7..8.550.3/. 0.3.0908 .94 47. 82-4.3.943 .7937.43.84 1742 90 2.-09038438 8:.9039.80/ 43 .3/ .943 5747088./08.479 41 /013943814...:08  3309%:7307   0079  .059:.059..3/ .:/3..1090/70.0789.74:839073.5574.557457.3-7:8.80..90 3/..79.3/8.3943 $907. 80708 41 ..0/9770/:.:9:70  90 3.550.:94342 3 47 47.02039.3/70:.9438 41.2047 3.3/-0438-499490072.3/ 9.43. .  072.3 .3/ 24700307.:9:70 -.3907.0 . 57080390/398..:9479 .7030.:9:70.78 94 .3..3.04589843..:9:70  -4774 1742 82-4.3907../ 894708 . -47/078 -09003 703.43899:90/ 9801 974: 90 .4:39 147 90 850.9. .943 89.3/8/.480 70.3/84.3....%0 .07.943.3084.-4:990..:9:7..-4:990 14:3/3 41 90 3.84.550/94./ /013943 41 3.308 02..908. .90/943.700..3/ $..943.3902   425.890.74:2.:9:70.088.47/.. 8 6:90 .70/9025.3974544 .  %0 $88 3..908 %0549.9384.0/944.90.0 /11078174290 /08570.3-0/0130/.:08 .70. .943.90.3974544 90 0307.90/-9080.9047 /0830/ 94 .84859-0900380.338 3899:943.3.70.3/89:/ 82.557457.94341.384.8 94 0079 .337.10 ..817.3/  $907..898744983072..0  902489831..3 .34907   $907.

07.0/ 94 84.98 974: .7..3.3.943574.10. .30/  070. 549.943.-4:990 5740.3/ 4203 4794090743 .1.43.943 41 473 /4.43.  0907 9 -0 90 570.88 43 .0907850.250  47 90 70850. 89743 8. .943 89.3 5708039.3943 90 .088 9801 . 0..3 54071: 30-47 0.70020398349073/:89708   .90/ 9  89.438:9..943  $907.431.9 9 8 .7002039  343 3 $907.7/ 8:5508 .3943   %06:08914706:. 147 . ..54074790.4310/07.9437. 3899:9438  .. 41 $88 298 5:98 90 025.0 :2.0 .9. 30..-847- 902  %0 .393 41 90 5..03.9:.0  .40.843 41 90 13..874490/3 4./4 .40843 8 74:3/0/ 3 . 3899:9438  8:89.9  90 5.438/07.890 50.8.9 .100341-04339490..43.43050703.3.039:.0.438898 41 2.1:3/..7 47..3 .3/70..90 .:/3 . 907 0.39..0789 -:9 3.08  ../.708 .94383$907.07 /09.8038041907:39 3.422:3941/1107039504504.9 ..947 ..70/549.07810/ 545:.9 41 7:08 3 90 473 574.88.884.79 2.24/014782. .572:839075.0 .:9:70  %0 09249.39 147 0.3/ 90 209.3.3 82.0 41 90 89.3/8.88 43 /..478 94 .:20398 .10.7.9 90 4.04184.3/39 06:.8... 89743 1003 41 -0433 94 907 /897.-4:990.059434184.:.9  09.47/  $88 50450 .-9 ":.:947941.088.47/07 / 7-.00203984190$88549.730  390 $880254008 8500.0 .70 8420 -.8-003.908 9.422:3908  3/0503/039 1742 ..87:3$88549.943 41 90 473 5..850..880.3/.943 3.02039 .908 -:990$88504508. 3/:89708  :343 830/ .3/ :5 2.3349 47 940907 8:.2039.390/34943 94 90 .0.0 5:98 90 025. . ..943  %8 . 574/:.984190574/:..0 41 3.843 .0.39438 .709 ..425430398  !071472.9.90 41 90 .43.3 203 .9. /..8905708/039841 903:2074:8.0/ 94 90 .97010789490.70.43.84 . .0 5740.9-0900390202-078   %089474184. 6:.3/ 80.9080.3.3/ 8 705708039.3820.4:0 3:   0254078 .9178970084390.9 -079 .0881: 1 90 /4 349 8.4:397 814:3/3:897.470 84:943 -:9 94 0.7.:9:70 $8850450./894.07 706:70/  - 10/07.42243.907.7408974:.3/ 907 .. $907...98.9.9898.70 ..4:3.07 94 .40. 90 03. 089 94 038:70 06:..438038:8  03/0. .70.0.. 89743  94 2.908.99.3/84.7002039 974: .0.3/.90/974:9870.05943841:89.9092.08808-014702...9  !0450 .3...3/0.

90 ../08 .:99.0 24... .02039-0..943.9.9 2.03703.9438347. 47 90 &390/$ $907...338.50 2.0 4.3/.478 47 94 /083 94489.97088984-.553 898 41 /4 8 .-0 94 .7..908 0709070.:9:7..08  3 -49 . .. /110703.4.070243.4.0/ 147 349 -03 ..3.7488 .98  %4 .943..0780 ..3 0110..:9:70   .80 41 $907./45943  7.3.4:39708  8420 2:.02039 ..-4:9 -0.9./.3.943   #080.9..9.94380850.90.3 43 90 209.783090740304:8. 41 90 574/:.943.9..4388903.:9:7.078 3 .381078 41 2.3/  8:..:9:7. 89:.8 3. -4 41.08  $420 .43897.3.943 4894.7/ -4503390 -..20574-02..:9:708 .0 2.0:/08 0. 0254008 .3/ 8 349 :36:0  ..9.843.3.79.98 9.70. . 97.0453340/0413..3.3/339073..70.:9:7..848. 97.07.943.07.8 -003 .5574.0 2502039.02039 57..0330078..078 3 80.4397-:943 41 3/. .702347908 .7488 .:9:708 .3/ :30/70.3/  6:. 70850.84.70 41 3907089 94 2.38890/ 2470 43 90 4-..398-:9.3/ 2.  3/.:9:7.7488 ..3/ /439 8  -:9 2470 54071:  9 574.08.549..08 147.3.3.-0/90294-:/8.-0 034: 94 /11:80 .3/#49   %05439894/0391905034203439.-9 ..:4:8 . . .08  .4389474139073..078 ./:.89.3.89073899:9438.38107 41 2.80.549.43897.2347908.0 -003 89.3.907 9.3/ 2.70/ 3899:9438  %8:39.943 %8 .3.08 9:73 394 .3.. 57.3989.4:39708.3 $907.8 0./:..0 94 2...803. 0 002039 147 390757093 84.:9:7..90/.79.841990.9.808  2. 549.:3/0789. 43 .147.08 47 47. -07 9.3.0 94 13/ 4:9 .3/20.7  %0701470 90 ..02039 57.02039 57./06:..4:39 147 3/.70 41 ..550.8830084 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful