See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228756124

Cultural differences in decision making in project teams

Article in International Journal of Managing Projects in Business · January 2009

DOI: 10.1108/17538370910930527

CITATIONS READS
68 8,650

3 authors, including:

Ralf Müller Konrad Spang

BI Norwegian Business School Universität Kassel
291 PUBLICATIONS 12,671 CITATIONS 26 PUBLICATIONS 544 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ralf Müller on 04 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


IJMPB
2,1
70
Received 18 June 2008
Accepted 4 September 2008
International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business
Vol. 2 No. 1, 2009
pp. 70-93
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1753-8378
DOI 10.1108/17538370910930527
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1753-8378.htm
Cultural differences in decision
making in project teams
Ralf Müller
Umeå School of Business, Malmö, Sweden, and
Konrad Spang and Sinan Ozcan
Faculty for Project Management, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to report on research in cultural differences in
decision-making styles in project teams composed of team members from different nationalities.
Differences in decision making in mainly German teams vs mainly Swedish teams was assessed.
Design/methodology/approach – A sequential mixed-method approach was used, starting with
interviews to develop a grounded theory, followed by survey to test the theory. Factor and regression
analyses allowed for identification of the cultural antecedents of the identified differences in decision making.
Findings – Locus of control differences in decision making were identified, together with factors for
differences in decisions, namely decision-making style, process, and involvement. Correlated cultural
antecedents to these factors, in the form of personal attributes, were found.
Research limitations/implications – Although the research design provides for some credibility
of the results, the scope of the study is limited mainly to the engineering and construction industry in
the two countries.
Practical implications – The study helps team members and project managers to understand the
impact of their cultural differences on decision-making process and style. Through that the study
helps to minimize the potential friction when working on multicultural projects. Recommendations for
practitioners are provided.
Originality/value – The idiosyncrasies of decision making in multicultural projects are researched
using the example of Sweden and Germany. A model is built which extends existing project
management theory. The paper also provides insights into the lived experiences of practicing project
managers in multicultural teams and gives hints on how to overcome cultural barriers.
Keywords Multicultural management, Decision making, Modelling, Project management, Sweden,
Germany
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In this era of globalization, there is a need to understand how national culture
influences work on multi-national projects, particularly as these influences relate to
decision making. In an increasingly interdependent world, it is common for products to
be designed in one culture, manufactured in another, and sold in yet another. This is
why companies are increasingly using transnational project teams, that is, teams with
members working in several countries; between or beyond national boundaries, made
up of several nations or nationalities (Wiktionary, 2008). Improved transportation and
communication systems are enabling companies to realize this type of projects across
national borders, such as between countries like Germany and Sweden.
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the PMI Research Conference in Warsaw, 2008.
Germany and Sweden – a business partnership Cultural
According to the Swedish Chamber of Commerce, Germany is Sweden’s most differences in
important trade partner. In 2004, Sweden’s export business into Germany represented
10.2 percent of the total Swedish export. In comparison, Sweden imported 18.9 percent decision making
of its foreign goods from Germany. The Swedish Chamber of Commerce’s annual
survey on Swedish stakes in Germany indicated that 658 German subsidiaries and
affiliates of Swedish companies operate in Germany. Their turnover amounted to e38 71
billion. Swedish companies currently employ about 144,000 people in Germany. Those
figures imply that a number of these people work together on joint projects. To prevent
the possible culturally related conflicts while implementing joint projects, Swedish and
German organizations should understand the country-specific characteristics which
might influence their cross-cultural cooperation.

Cultural influences and decision making in projects

To understand differences in decision-making styles, and the drivers thereof, we first
need to identify the cultural differences. Numerous studies have been conducted on
cultural differences and commonalities, showing the differences in values and behavior
of people from different national cultures (Hofstede, 1980; Trompenaars, 1993). Results
from the GLOBE study on leadership differences between 22 European countries, for
example, showed significant differences in leadership style between the Nordic cluster
(i.e. Denmark, Sweden, and Finland) and the German cluster (i.e. Germany, Austria,
and Switzerland) (Brodbeck et al., 2000). Even though that study was focused upon
leadership, not decision making, behavioral differences were identified, which indicate
differences in decision-making styles applied in leadership situations.
Project managers in different countries run similar projects in different ways, for
example, by assigning different priorities to success criteria and by communicating in
very different ways (Müller and Turner, 2004, 2007). The differences in decision-making
style among the members of culturally diverse project teams have not been previously
investigated. However, given the different leadership styles in the different cultures
(Suutari, 1996), we can presume that these decision making differences do exist. This
study addresses this presumption with the following research question:
RQ1 What are the cultural differences in decision-making style and processes used
by project teams composed of Swedish and German nationals? What are the
antecedents of these differences?
The aim of this study is to identify the different approaches used by German and
Swedish nationals to make decisions while working with temporary organizations,
such as project teams (Turner and Müller, 2003). This follows Trompenaars (1996,
p. 51) suggestion: “To minimize conflict between cultures, you must first analyse –
measure even – the differences between them.”
The unit of analysis of this study is the multicultural project team including project
managers. The phenomenon addressed is decision making, including the cultural
differences thereof. In the first step, we identify the cultural differences between the
German and Swedish team members, which may have to be bridged when executing
projects. Projects are understood here as temporary organizations, acting as change
agencies to bring about beneficial change (Turner and Müller, 2003). Only projects and
respondents in line with this definition of project are included.
IJMPB In a second step, we identify the different styles and process used to make
2,1 project-related decisions.
In a third step, we identify and model the antecedents of the different
decision-making styles and processes. This enables us to understand the causes of
these differences and can help project team members and project managers recognize
these differences and develop tactics for addressing these.
72 In the next section, we review the literature on cultural divergence and decision
making and then describe our research model. This is followed by the methodology
section. We subsequently analyze the data, discuss the results, and finally, develop our
conclusion.

Literature review
This section reviews literature on differences in national cultures and decision making.
Background subjects, such as project management, teams, leadership, governance, etc.
are not included in order to stay focused on the phenomena under investigation.
Studies on cultural differences became popular in the 1970s and 1980s, mainly through
the work of Hofstede (1980). This has developed into a field of research with increasing
popularity and perceived importance. Related literature can be categorized into those
for cultural differences and those for cultural commonalities. This study addresses the
former group.

Cultural divergence
Among the most quoted list of differences are those by Hofstede (1980), Hall (1989), and
Trompenaars (1993). In agreement with many other researchers, the work of Hofstede
is seen as the most influential and often cited scholarly work (Müller and Turner, 2004).
Hofstede (2007, p. 413) defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind,
which distinguishes the member of one human group from another.” He identified five
major dimensions to explain differences among cultures and measured each on a scale
from 1 to 100. These are:
(1) Power distance (PDI). The extent to which individuals in cultures accept the
unequal distribution of power. Individuals in large PDI cultures accept
hierarchical order and their position in it. In small PDI cultures, people strive for
equalization and demand justification for power inequalities (Hofstede, 1984).
PDI has been found to be quite similar in Germany (G) and Sweden (S)
(PDI-points by Hofstede: G: 35, S: 31).
(2) Individualism vs collectivism (IDV). People in individualist cultures are
supposed to take care of themselves and their immediate family. In collectivist
cultures, individuals can expect their relatives, clan, or other groups to look
after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty (Hofstede, 1984). On
Hofstede’s individualism dimension both Germany and Sweden are also quite
similar (IDV-points by Hofstede: G: 67, S: 71).
(3) Uncertainty avoidance (UAI). The extent to which individuals in a culture feel
uncomfortable with uncertainty or ambiguity. Cultures with strong UAI
maintain rigid codes of belief and behavior and are intolerant towards aberrant
persons or ideas. Weak UAI cultures are more tolerant towards deviants and
practice counts more than principles (Hofstede, 1984). On the scale Germany
 scored higher than Sweden in Hofstede’s study (UAI-points by Hofstede: Cultural
G: 65, S: 29). differences in
(4) Masculinity vs femininity (MAS). Masculinity represents a cultural preference decision making
for achievement, heroism, assertiveness, and material success. Femininity
represents a preference for relationship, modesty, caring for the weak, and
quality-of-life (Hofstede, 1984). Germany scored much higher than Sweden on
masculinity (MAS-points by Hofstede: G: 66, S: 5) (Hofstede, 1984). 73
Under the influence of the Chinese culture connection, Hofstede developed a
fifth dimension.
(5) Long-term orientation (LTO). This is the degree to which a culture embraces
long-term devotion to traditional values. High long-term oriented cultures
prescribe long-term commitments and respect for traditions. In cultures ranking
low on this dimension, change occurs more rapidly (Hofstede, 2004). LTO has
been found to be quite similar in Germany and Sweden (LTO-points by
Hofstede: G: 31, S: 33).

Figure 1 summarizes the cultural differences between Germany and Sweden as

described above. The largest differences are in masculinity and UAI; both dimensions
are potent in the German culture. In PDI, individualism, and LTO, the differences are
minor.
Trompenaars (1993) argued that culture is the way in which a group of people solve
problems and that it allows them to survive in their particular environment. Together,
with Hampden-Turner (1993, cited by Tylee, 2001) he used seven value dilemmas to
illustrate cultural differences. Figure 2 shows five of these, depicting the largest
differences between Sweden and Germany as those involving inner- vs outer-directed.
This measures how an individual prefers to live in harmony with their environment
(outer-directed) or use the environment to pursue their goals (inner-directed).
Germany scores higher in the latter. A further difference lies in the analytical- vs
integrative-approaches used in addressing complex issues, perspectives which either
look at an entire system to discern its holistic, integrative functionality or analyze
a system to understand its component parts. Sweden scores higher in analysis.

Germany Sweden
Masculinity

Uncertainty
Avoidance

Power Distance

Individualism

Long-Term Figure 1.
Orientation Differences by Hofstede’s
five dimensions
0 20 40 60 80 100
IJMPB Germany Sweden
2,1 Inner directed (vs. outer
directed)

Analysis (vs. Integration)

74 Achieved status (vs.

ascribed status)

Individualism (vs.
Figure 2. Communitariasm)
Differences by five of
Hampden-Turner and Universalism (vs.
Trompenaars’ (1993) Particularism)
seven dimensions
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

A third area of difference is in the attitude towards status. Here, Swedish nationals
tend more towards achieved status (as opposed to ascribed status) than German
nationals. Two further dimensions (not shown in Figure 2) identified that both cultures
prefer flat hierarchies and that the perception of time varies significantly between
the two cultures. While the Swedish culture perceives time in a way that the past, the
present, and the future are distinct and do not overlap, the German culture perceives
past, present, and future as overlapping, with the future being most significant and the
past being least significant. Except for the first dimension, there are only minor
differences between Germany and Sweden.
One focus area prevalent in Trompenaars (1996) is the link between culture and
internal vs external locus of control. Locus of control is often defined as the extent people
adapt to their environment and feel externally steered (i.e. external locus of control) or
feel self-steered and use the environment to pursue their own objectives (i.e. internal
locus of control). In the paper by Smith et al. (1995), they used a scale developed by Rotter
(1966) to measure the extent to which people had an internal locus of control, which is
typical of successful Americans, as compared to an external locus of control, which
is “typical of relatively less successful Americans, disadvantaged by circumstances or
shaped by the competitive efforts of their rivals” (Trompenaars, 1996, p. 65). Smith et al.
(1995) identified the locus of control scale of 43 countries, with measures of externality
totaling 8.35 for Western Germany and 11.07 for Sweden. Thus, the Swedish culture
allows for more external steering of the individual than in the German culture.
Recent work by Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (2006) developed knowledge of
cultural differences further into cultural intelligence, a needed and credible capacity
of managers. They proposed a paradigm shift from absolute cultural differences, such
as those proposed by dimensions of cultural differences, to a relative difference. In this
relative difference, the traditional dimensions of cultural differences still exist, but in a
way that a culture shows a preference for one side of a dimension (e.g. individualism)
yet still maintains the opposite (e.g. collectivism) on a smaller scale. This explains,
among others, the strong entrepreneurial movement in a communitarian culture like
China, and the high church attendance in an individualistic culture like North America.
Cultural intelligence, then, requires that both aspects are respected simultaneously,
as well as the movements between them. Tying this to Hofstede’s results, it may Cultural
suggest for the present study the presence of a small, but opposite force to German’s differences in
high value of masculinity and UAI, which may explains the German preference for
gemütlichkeit (i.e. coziness and sociability). decision making
Studies that focused more on the differences within Europe include, for example,
Suutari (1996). He analyzed the experiences of Finnish expatriates working in four
European countries, including Germany and Sweden. This study shows a variation in 75
manager-subordinate interaction, that is, in the leadership behavior of managers
across countries. Suutari found that German managers are less active (i.e. less
personally and actively involved) than their Swedish counterparts in matters related to
decision participation and autonomy delegation. The present study builds on this
observation (P1) and identifies the factors leading to these differences.
Hall and Hall (1990, p. 3) say that “Culture is Communication.” Cultural differences
express themselves in differences in communication (Hall, 1989). He distinguished
between low-context and high-context communication. In this view, low-context
communication is explicit in its expressions (such as in North America) and
high-context communication is typically implicit, referring to shared knowledge of
sender and receiver (such as in Japan).
Related work in project management looked at the cultural differences in the way
project owners communicate with project managers (Müller and Turner, 2004), using
the Hall (1989) and Hofstede (1984) dimensions. Müller and Turner’s study found
that German nationals communicate in very detailed ways, using all possible media at
pre-scheduled dates. In comparison, Swedish nationals prefer very frequent
communication through verbal updates over the phone. These differences in
preferred communication media and frequency are likely to influence:
.
Decision-making style, because decision making over the phone (preferred by
Swedish nationals) allows for much lesser exchange of information cues than
face-to-face meetings (preferred by German nationals). Information cues are
information entities per time unit, including, among others, those of body
language and immediate feedback (Müller, 2003). Higher exchange of cues in
face-to-face meetings allows for a more detailed information exchange on the side
of German nationals (Müller and Turner, 2004).
.
Decision-making processes, because of the different time windows within which
the steps leading to a decision are to be taken. A verbal update over the phone is
likely to go faster through the steps of decision making than a scheduled
face-to-face meeting with prepared material and time set aside for the meeting
(Kiesler and Sproull, 1992). In line with the higher frequency the decision taken at
frequent verbal updates are likely to be more isolated from other decisions, when
compared to decisions in face-to-face meetings, where the time window allows
for a more holistic evaluation of the situation.

The above indicates differences between German and Swedish nationals in their
preferred decision-making styles. This is set out in P1, in order to identify the drivers
thereof. The differences in decision-making processes, including media, frequency and
time windows, should be observable by the members of mixed German-Swedish teams.
This is set out in P2, in order to identify the awareness of the team members that these
differences exist and how they deal with it.
IJMPB The affect of project manager’s national culture on their perception of project
2,1 success criteria and project success was analyzed by Müller and Turner (2007). Their
comparison of North America, Europe, Asia, and Rest-of-World clusters found that the
importance which a project manager assigns to success criteria – as well as the project
success – varies by national culture.
The review confirms the existence of cultural differences between German and
76 Swedish nationals, but not the drivers thereof. Within projects, this means that people
are working differently, depending on their cultural background, and that they
potentially expect others to work in accordance with their own culture. This can be a
cause of conflict and friction.
Having reviewed the culture literature as it relates to the research question,
we now turn to the decision-making literature.

Decision making
In traditional judgment and decision-making literature, a decision is treated mainly as
a cognitive phenomenon and conceptualized as the goal or end point for a more or less
complex process of deliberation, which includes an assessment of consequences and
uncertainties. Parkin (1996) defined the variables of a personal decision process
consisting of five stages:
(1) problem definition;
(2) thought;
(3) judgment;
(4) decision; and
(5) action.

Parkin identified the influences which typically affect this process, influences such as
behavioral history, situational beliefs, personal values, social and occupational norms,
personality, and environmental constraints. The present study looks especially at
influences through social norms.
Not only does the process for decision making differ, but also the nature of the
decision itself. Svenson (1996) distinguished four levels of decision making. The first
level of decision processes includes the many quick and largely automatic and
unconscious decisions. Decisions made with reference to one or a few attributes
favouring the chosen candidate belong to second-level decisions. The third level implies
that decision making is a process referring to one’s choices between alternatives in
relation to goal conflicts. Most of the existing decision research literature treats
problems at this level. In real-life decision making, the search and creation of decision
alternatives plays a significant role. The fourth level of decision processes – or the set of
decision alternatives – is not fixed. At this level, problem solving constitutes an
important sub-process in decision making. It is important to point out that decision
makers often use processes at different levels in the same decision process.
A further inherent attribute of decision making was addressed by Tyszka (1998)
when showing that decision making consists of resolving two conflicts. One is the
conflict between the desire to make an accurate decision and the desire to minimize the
effort of decision making. The second conflict is between the desire to make an
accurate decision and the desire for a decision that is unequivocal.
 Looking broadly at decision-making literature, we see three broad categories. Cultural
The first is a body of knowledge that describes axiomatically based decision theories differences in
from operations research, welfare economies, decision analysis, and the various forms
of multi-attribute utility theory. Some of them were addressed above. The second decision making
group includes models of real human judgment and decision behavior derived from
psychological research. This includes the well-known theories on:
.
Bounded rationality, which describes humans intended, but limited rationality in 77
decision making (Simon, 1957).
.
Utility theory, which implies that humans tend to maximize their utility using
rational comparisons between choices, taking into account final outcomes and
their probabilities (Von Neuman and Morgenstern, 1947).
.
Prospect theory, which values gains and losses in decisions rather than final
assets, and replaces probabilities with decision weights (Kahnemean and
Tversky, 1979).

Because of the nature of psychological research these models are usually restricted to
explanations of individual’s behavior and are therefore not included in the present
study. Decision making in organizations, the third category, is mainly described by
sociologists (Parkin, 1996). This third category relates to the present study, as we look
into decision making in temporary organizations.
A central theme in organization theory is the attempt to understand the
decision-making processes used by individuals, groups, and organizations. For
example, groups frequently make important decisions with far-reaching consequences
that affect businesses, projects, politics, or public administration. Because of this, much
research deals with the question of which factors determine the quality of group
decision making and how to improve it. Along with that, Davis (1973, cited by Parks
and Kerr, 1999) addressed the question of how individuals, with disparate sets of
personal preferences, reach consensus. Hart (1998) pointed out that quality in decision
making depends on the underlying assumptions about the role which decision-making
groups play in organizations. Considering conflict management and social support as
the main functions of the decision-making group obviously leads to different criteria
for good group decision processes than seeing the group as an agent for organizational
action (Schulz-Hardt et al., 2002). Often decisions are made by individuals after
consulting with, and being influenced by, others. In order to model such
decision-making structures, research on advice-giving and advice-taking during
decisions was launched. In general, using advice has been found to increase decision
accuracy (Bonaccio and Dalal, 2006). Social factors can also play a role in a variety of
personal decisions, but it is the collective, coordinated action by a group of individuals
that generates a choice, judgment, and opinion (Davis, 1992).
Given the cultural differences outlined in the above section, questions arise whether
the role of and style in decision making (as outlined in the paragraph above) differs
between German and Swedish team members. This is set out in P1. The extent these
differences are visible is addressed in P2.
Technological changes help people cross physical, social, and psychological
boundaries; these also have secondary effects on group behavior and decision making.
Experiments show that compared with a face-to-face meeting, a computer-mediated
discussion leads to delays, more explicit and outspoken advocacy, flaming more equal
IJMPB participation among group members, and in extreme situations, unconventional or
2,1 risky decisions. People in organizations spend much time attending in meetings and
contributing to group decision making. Managers spend most of their time in this way.
If a decision is necessary, people converge on it, discarding options through discussion.
People prefer options that have obvious popularity. Often, one can predict the decision
just by knowing who dominates the discussion. Five decades of research on group
78 behavior have addressed why and how group decision making is predictable (Kiesler
and Sproull, 1992). This links to the differences in decision-making styles and
processes caused by cultural differences in preference for communication media and
frequency as discussed above. Decision-making styles and processes in face-to-face
meetings tend to be longer, more deliberate, even less risky than decisions made over
the phone. The role of cultural influences on this is explored through P1.
In international projects, decisions could be more critical than in national projects,
because of the often higher amounts that are at stake compared with those in national
projects. On such projects, project managers are critical to project success and have a
significant impact on the performance of their project teams (Müller and Turner, 2007;
Parker and Skitmore, 2005). Managers often need to make decisions in loosely
structured situations where there may be an absence of relevant information (leading
to uncertainty) or where time is compelling them to act quickly. In such situations,
managers may call upon their intuitive decision-making skills and improvisatory
capabilities. Improvisation has been identified as a combination of intuition and
creativity that is driven by time pressures. In a project context, improvisation involves
moving away from an agreed plan in order to accelerate the implementation of
actions. Intuition may be defined as a cognitive conclusion, where the decision maker’s
previous experiences and emotional inputs are used as the basis for decisions
(Leybourne and Sadler-Smith, 2006).
Connecting culture to projects, Henrie and Sousa-Poza (2005) found that the most
popular project management topics in researched journals and books were project
management in general, and time scheduling and phasing. They found only eight
articles about decision making.
The literature review shows a gap in the knowledge about the impact of German or
Swedish national culture on the decision making in project teams. The literature does
indicate, however, differences in other contexts. But missing are cases showing clear
guidance and insight for managing mixed project teams of German and Swedish
nationals.
The next section describes our research model, which we derived from our literature
review.

Research model
Figure 3 shows the research model with national culture as independent variable,
decision-making style as dependent variable.
Independent variable – national culture: this variable indicates the cultural origin of
the actors investigated. It is assessed at the level of the unit of analysis, which is the
project team, including the project manager. It allows identification of project teams as
either of German or of Swedish national culture, or as mixed German-Swedish teams.
Dependent variable – decision-making style: this variable indicates the way
decisions are made and implemented within the two cultures. It is assessed at the
level of differences in decision-making styles. Therefore, we assessed only those Cultural
decision-making styles that are different between the two cultures. differences in
The underlying propositions of the study are:
decision making
P1. There are differences in decision-making styles between teams of German and
Swedish national culture.
P2. These differences are observable by project team members and are perceived 79
as impacting project work in joint German-Swedish teams.
The results of the qualitative study became the hypotheses of the quantitative study.
The following section outlines the methodology and analyses used for the study.

Methodology and analysis

We used a sequential mixed-method approach, starting with an inductive study to
develop hypotheses, which were tested deductively in subsequent quantitative study.

The qualitative study methodology

The qualitative study followed Yin’s (1994) four design tests for:
(1) construct validity;
(2) internal validity;
(3) external validity; and
(4) reliability.

Construct validity was achieved through the use of different sources of evidence, such
as respondents from different national cultures (not only German and Swedish
nationals, but also others), different industries, and different types of projects, as well
as open-ended questions during the interviews. Questions about the interviewees’
observed and experienced decision-making style in working with teams of German or
Swedish nationals provided the context in terms of cultural perspective.
Internal validity was achieved through template analysis with subsequent
explanation building (Saunders et al., 2007). Reliability was achieved through use of
protocols in semi structured interviews with pre-determined questions, use of
interview notes, as well as a common filing system for the interviews. Three
researchers, acting as a two person team in Germany and a single researcher in Sweden
performed the interviews. The underlying assumption was that each interview would

Independent Dependent
Variable Variable

Decision
National
making
culture
style
Figure 3.
Research model
IJMPB create new knowledge and improved understanding towards answering the research
2,1 question. The process continued until theoretical saturation was reached.
External validity was achieved by selecting companies and interviewsee with
diverse national cultures so as to filter out any possible bias related to ethnocentrism,
as well as influences from specific company and industry cultures. Influences through
ethnocentrism and local company culture were minimized by:
80 .
Seeking respondents from other national cultures than Germany or Sweden.
.
Including not only the market leading manufacturer and brand names, but also
suppliers to the industries investigated.

We conducted twelve interviews, using a self-developed set of open-ended questions.

Our existing personal network was used to identify possible companies. Within these
selected companies, our personal contacts were used to direct us towards possible
projects and interviewees. During interviews we asked interviewees about real incidents
or situations they had encountered on their projects. The questions included:
(1) Six questions on experiences with German and Swedish teams and on observed
differences in their work and behavior. These covered observable differences,
extent of impact of these differences on project work, positive and negative
examples for German-Swedish collaboration, possible advice to new project
managers, and differences in management styles.
(2) Nine questions on experiences with the differences in decision-making style.
Interviewees perceived best practices in decision-making processes and
structures, as well as interviewees’ advice to new project managers. These
questions covered such differences as:
.
Working on teams of just one national culture vs working in mixed teams.
.
Decision-making processes, decision-making criteria, and decision acceptance.
.
Critical cultural factors to consider during decision making in cross-cultural
projects.
(3) Six questions on interviewee demographics, covering the interviewees industry,
company, type of projects, international experience working abroad and
working with German and Swedish teams, as well as with team from their own
national culture.

Table I shows the industry, country, role, and nationality of the interviewees. Of the 12
interviews, five worked in the automotive industry, five in information and
communications technology (ICT), and two in engineering. Six of the companies
interviewed were of German origin, of which five were interviewed in Germany and
one in Sweden. Five companies were of Swedish origin, whereof three were interviewed
in Germany and two in Sweden, one company of Canadian origin was interviewed in
Germany.
The majority of interviewees worked on projects where one country organization
was responsible for a new product or service, whereas the other country
organization supplied consulting services or subject matter expertise. One Swedish
organization moved a German national to Sweden to improve the communication
between Headquarter in Sweden and the supplier organization in Germany.
 Cultural
Company’s origin and National culture
Interview Industry interview location Role of interviewee of interviewee differences in
1 Automotive German in Germany Project manager German
decision making
2 Automotive German in Germany Project manager German
3 Automotive German in Germany Project consultant German
4 Engineering Canadian in Germany Engineering manager German 81
5 ICT German in Germany Project manager German
6 ICT Swedish in Germany Project manager Danish
7 ICT German in Germany Consultant English
8 ICT Swedish in Germany Project manager Dutch
9 ICT Swedish in Germany Project manager German
10 Automotive German in Sweden Engineer Swedish
11 Automotive Swedish in Sweden Engineer Swedish Table I.
12 Engineering Swedish in Sweden Project manager English Interviews

We held our interviews between August and November 2006; each interview lasted
between 30 min and 1 h. Five of the interviews were conducted as face-to-face meetings
at the interviewees’ location; the others were conducted as phone interviews. For all of
our interviews, we took notes, which we used during our subsequent analysis.

Qualitative study analysis

Together, as a team, we coded and classified the interviews. We identified the
culture-specific behaviors and decision-making styles through a continuous
comparison of the interview results, following each interview (Straus and Corbin,
1990). Our work of data collection and analysis was guided by the questions “What are
the differences in teams of German and Swedish national culture?” and “What are the
differences in decision-making styles between German and Swedish teams?”

General cultural differences

We clustered twelve identified categories of cultural differences into three main
categories:
(1) Team and consensus orientation. This includes consensus orientation,
individualism vs team-orientation, and partnership collaboration. We found
differences in a higher consensus and partnership orientation of the Swedish team
members. Higher consensus orientation is expressed in the preference of Swedish
members for more meetings and communication and for joint decision making.
That includes a longer decision-making process. This roughly resembles Hofstede’s
dimensions of PDI and LTO, as well as Trompenaars Universalist vs Particularist
dimensions.
(2) Organization. This comprises leadership with or without authority, flexibility in
executing work, confident appearance, structured working, and consequence
orientation. The interviewees described German organizations as generally
more mechanistic than Swedish organizations. Mechanistic structures focus on
efficiency, achieved through work specialization in a hierarchical relationship.
They execute more control over the members of an organization and are
IJMPB generally less flexible than organic structures (Burns and Stalker, 1994).
2,1 This links to Hofstede’s UAI and Trompenaars specific vs diffuse dimensions.
(3) Individualism includes such factors as significance of private life, open-minded
communication orientation, identification with project results, and finally,
solution and problem-orientation. Differences here were mainly in:
.
Open mindedness. Here, Swedish team members are perceived as being more
82 open-minded during discussions, compared with their German counterparts.
This includes an open self-critique and a questioning of the approach and
status-quo in general, as well as a relaxed and less formal communication
style and a greater willingness to communicate in English.
.
Value of outside work life. Swedish team members are perceived as placing a
higher value on outside work activities, as compared with the German members.
Deadlines and appointments of outside work activities are kept up by Swedish
team members, while their counterparts frequently sacrifice outside work
activities in order to complete work. The interviews indicated that this is caused
by a greater consequence orientation among German team members. German
members are more worried about the consequences arising from their behavior,
for example, of not finishing a task by a deadline. This includes consequences at
various levels, such as the impact on the individual’s position, the project, and
the wider organization. This, in turn, leads German team members to possess a
stronger focus on delivering the project outcome exactly as planned.

This resembles the masculinity and individualism dimension of Hofstede, and the
different values assigned to time (past, presence, and future) shown by Trompenaars.
These outcomes are supported by Turner and Müller’s (2006) research on project
manager personalities. Their study showed that the ability to find a good balance
between work life and private life is a major factor in Swedish companies. Swedish
managers assign project managers to projects based on their ability to balance their
project workload with their private life.
This section shows a major difference in orientation between German and Swedish
team members. While German team members are consequence-oriented, their Swedish
colleagues are consensus-oriented. It supports Trompenaars (1996) argument of the
differences in locus of control: while the German culture relates to a stronger internal
locus of control, which involves using the environment to achieve personal goals, the
Swedish culture relates to an external locus of control, which involves a higher
adaptation to the environment. This also explains the differences in preferences for
group decisions in Sweden (i.e. lower level of masculinity and individual’s willingness
to adapt to the environment) and expert decisions in Germany (i.e. higher levels of UAI
and individual’s desire to impact on the environment).

Decision-making style differences

Categories on decision-making style were clustered into two main categories:
(1) Decision-making process. This includes three sub-categories:
. Speed in decision making. Decisions involving Swedish teams take generally
longer than decisions within German teams, due to the consensus orientation
of the Swedish members.
 .
Group vs expert decision. Here, Swedish teams prefer consensus among the Cultural
entire team, while German teams prefer decisions to be made by experts in
the decision-related subject area.
differences in
.
Decision process formalism. Swedish teams prefer pragmatic and
decision making
transparent decision making, based on open communication. German
teams prefer a more formal decision-making style, based on formal authority
and clear roles. 83
(2) Decision-making style, includes the sub-categories for:
.
Decision acceptance. German teams find it easier to accept decisions made
in the hierarchy (outside the team). They are also more committed to a
decision and their implementation, which links back to the consequence
orientation mentioned earlier. Swedish teams accept decisions easier when
they are made within the team. The team decisions lead to higher
acceptance of decisions made, but to a lesser acceptance of unpopular
decisions.
.
Decision changes. German team members accept unpopular decisions more
easily.
Decision-making processes refer to the steps followed to come to a decision (i.e. asking
an expert or calling a group meeting). Decision-making style refers to the mental
attitude towards the decisions contents, which includes, among others, the origin of the
decision. This potentially impacts an individual’s level of acceptance of and
commitment to a decision. Decision-making process and style describe and link
together action flow and decision contents. The identified categories were
hypothesized as the differences in decision-making styles and processes
between German and Swedish culture. These hypotheses were tested in the
quantitative study.
Differences by industry
Interviewees came from three different industries, namely automobile, ICT, and
engineering. The results show that the differences identified above are not equally
perceived across the industries. The perceived cultural differences in decision making
in the automobile industry are mostly related to the decision-making process. The ICT
industry shows more concern for differences at the level of individuals and their
behavior. Here, the consensus finding is once again a major differentiator between
cultures, but also the people’s appearance and identification with the project results,
together with the transparency of decisions. A possible impact of an industry’s specific
ontology on the perception of cultural differences may be indicated. This is in line with
Müller et al. (2007), who identified differences in perceived project complexity, based on
industry specific ontology. This warrants further investigation.

The quantitative study methodology

The quantitative study used the same set of questions in both countries, with a
web-based questionnaire in Sweden and paper-based questionnaire in Germany.
Questions with five-point Likert scales from totally disagree to totally agree were used
to assess respondents’ opinion on the hypotheses drawn from the qualitative study and
provided entry fields for free text to add new factors or opinions. Some of the questions
IJMPB were inverted in scale to prevent from stereotype answers. Table II shows the three
2,1 groups of questions asked. The questions covered:
.
differences in decision-making style;
.
differences in decision-making process; and
.
possible antecedents for these differences.
84 The questionnaire was tested with nine respondents. No changes were made. The
sampling frame was taken from the member list of the German Chamber in Commerce
in Sweden (406 names) and the Swedish Chamber of Commerce in Germany (300
names). The sampling frame in Sweden was reduced to 371, due to 35 non reachable
email addresses; 60 responses were obtained, of which 23 (38 percent) were from
Sweden and 35 (58 percent) were from Germany, and 2 (3 percent) from other countries.
Nine respondents (15 percent) were female and 51 (85 percent) male. The response rate
was 16 percent.
Of the respondents, 1 (1.7 percent) came from the ICT industry, 19 (32 percent) from
engineering, 3 (5 percent) from automobile, 9 (15 percent) from construction, and 26
(26 percent) from other industries. Two (3 percent) did not answer this question.
Age distribution showed 2 (3 percent) were 30 years or younger, 18 (30 percent) were
between 31 and 40, 18 (30 percent) between 41 and 50, 17 (28 percent) between 51 and
60, and 5 (8 percent) older than 60.

When comparing German
teams with Swedish teams, the
...
. . . decisions are made faster in
project teams from Germany:
. . . formality of the
decision-making process is
higher in German teams:
. . . decision-making process is
less transparent in German
teams:
. . . decisions are preferably
made by individual subject
matter experts, and not as
group decisions, in German
teams:
From your experince, which
other factor distinguishes
decision making in German
teams from decision making in
Swedish teams:
Table II.
Questions
When comparing German When working with mixed
teams with Swedish teams, the German and Swedish project
... teams, the main difference
between the members lies in:
. . . Swedish teams have it The process of doing the work
easier to accept decisions made
in groups than those made by
experts:
. . . changes to existing The personalities of the
decisions are easier accepted in individuals
Swedish teams:
. . . commitment to implement The attitude towards work
existing decisions is higher in
Swedish teams:
. . . unpopular decisions are The demand from the home
easier accepted by Swedish organization
teams:
. . . responsibilites of Other, please specify:
individuals affected by a
decision are clearer in Swedish
teams:
From your experince, which
other factor distinguishes
decision implementation in
German and Swedish teams:
The quantitative study analysis Cultural
Analysis was done in three steps:
differences in
(1) Examination of data and identification of differences by respondent
demographics.
decision making
(2) Identification of the underlying psychological patterns of responses, that is, the
groupings of variables using factor analysis.
85
(3) Identification of the antecedents of differences in decision-making style and
process, using regression analyses.

That allowed for confirmation of the underlying assumption of differences in

decision-making style and processes, as well as the identification of the impact of
possible causes for these differences.
Table III shows the descriptive statistics of the data collected. Examination of the
data showed eligibility of the data for the planned analysis techniques.
A number of ANOVAs with post hoc Scheffe tests were done to identify differences in
the responses based on demographics. No differences by demographics were found, except:
.
Differences by nationality. German nationals were significantly higher than
Swedish nationals in their opinion that decision are taken faster by German team
members ( p , 0.000). Swedish nationals were significantly higher than German
nationals in their opinion that decision processes are less transparent in German
teams than in Swedish teams ( p ¼ 0.014).
.
Differences by industry. Respondents from the engineering industry were
significantly higher than construction ( p ¼ 0.011) and other industries
( p ¼ 0.041) in their opinion that decisions are easier changed in Germany than in
Sweden. Respondents from construction, significantly more than other industries
( p ¼ 0.025), found that differences in decision-making stem from different work
processes in the different countries.
In Step 2, we completed a Varimax rotated confirmatory factor analysis to examine the
variables for differences in decision-making style and decision-making process.
This type of factor analysis identifies the possible congruence between the
hypothesized thinking patterns of respondents and their real patterns. A KMO of
0.542 showed adequacy of the data for factor analysis.
Three factors were extracted before Eigenvalue reached 1, which explained
57 percent of the variance. Factor loadings under 0.55 were ignored. Table IV shows
the factors and their loadings. The factors components are:
.
Factor 1 (explaining 22 percent of variance): decision-making style: consisting of
the variables for decisions made faster in Germany, decision changes easier to
implement in Germany, unpopular decisions are easier accepted in Germany, and
individual’s responsibilities clearer in Germany.
.
Factor 2 (explaining 20 percent of variance): decision process: consisting of
decision process not transparent in Germany, decision made by experts in
Germany, and decision process more formal in Germany.
.
Factor 3 (explaining 15 percent of variance): involvement in decision making:
consisting of the variable for decisions made by groups in Sweden, and
commitment to a decision higher in Sweden.
 2,1

86
IJMPB

Table III.
Descriptive statistics
Skewness Kurtosis
N statistic Range statistic Minimum statistic Maximam statistic Mean statistic SD Statistic SE Statistic SE

dec_fast_G 60 4 1 5 3.48 1.157 20.501 0.309 20.723 0.608

dec_cha_G 60 4 1 5 2.58 0.926 0.675 0.309 0.146 0.608
dec_unpopacc_G 59 4 1 5 3.20 1.047 20.144 0.311 20.906 0.613
dec_ntrans_G 60 4 1 5 2.85 1.005 0.001 0.309 20.645 0.608
dec_form_G 60 4 1 5 3.70 0.997 20.738 0.309 20.079 0.608
dec_exp_G 60 4 1 5 3.53 1.016 21.146 0.309 0.773 0.608
dec_grp_S 60 3 2 5 3.77 0.831 20.0450 0.309 20.136 0.608
dec_com_G 60 3 2 5 3.08 0.907 0.395 0.309 20.686 0.608
resp_clear_S 59 4 1 5 2.66 0.958 0.374 0.311 20.175 0.613
diff_process 60 3 2 5 3.70 0.830 20.118 0.309 20.505 0.608
diff_personalities 60 3 2 5 3.57 0.767 0.001 0.309 20.299 0.608
diff_attitude_wk 60 4 1 5 3.70 0.850 20.916 0.309 1.954 0.608
dif_demhome 59 3 2 5 3.58 0.700 20.125 0.311 20.099 0.613
Valid N (listwise) 59
 Cultural
Component
1 2 3 differences in
dec_fast_G 0.717
decision making
dec_cha_G 0.648
dec_unpopacc_G 0.621
resp_clear_G 0.595 87
dec_ntrans_G 0.784
dec_exp_G 0.634
dec_form_G 0.586
dec_grp_S 0.796 Table IV.
dec_com_S 0.629 Rotated component
matrix for
Note: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: varimax with Kaiser decision-making style
normalization; a rotation converged in seven iterations and process

A similar factor analysis was done on the possible reasons for these differences. KMO
of 0.536 and acceptable anti-image correlations allowed for this technique. Two factors
were extracted, explaining 58 percent of the variance. Table V shows the factors and
loadings, with loading under 0.55 suppressed. The factors are:
.
Factor 1 (explaining 31 percent of variance): person: consisting of variables for
differences in personalities, differences in attitudes towards work, and different
processes used for executing work.
.
Factor 2 (explaining 27 percent of variance): demand: consisting of the variable
for different demands from home organization.

The factor analyses (from the quantitative study) confirmed, for the most part,
the assumed structural difference in decision-making style and process (from the
qualitative study), and added involvement in decision making as a further stand-alone
structural difference. It also identified personality and external demands (by peoples
home organization) as the two factors representing the possible antecedents for
differences in decision-making style and process.
Step 3 of the quantitative analysis was a multivariate regression analysis with
the two antecedent factors (person, demand) as independent variables and

Component
1 2

diff_personalities 0.707
diff_attitude_wk 0.648
diff_process 0.551
dif_demhome 0.911
Table V.
Note: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: varimax with Kaiser Rotated component
normalization; a rotation converged in three iterations matrix for antecedents
IJMPB the three decision-making factors (style, process, involvement) as dependent
2,1 variables.
A significant multivariate model at p ¼ 0.046 with a power of 52 percent was found.
The significant positive correlation was between person as independent variable and
decision-making style as dependent variable (R 2 ¼ 0.069; Adj. R 2 ¼ 0.052, constant
1.347e 2 16, B/b ¼ 0.262). The model indicates that increasing personality differences
88 are correlated (antecedent) to increasing differences in decision-making style.
Simultaneously, it indicates that differences in demands from a person’s home
organization do not impact decision-making style, process, or involvement in the
decision. Furthermore, it shows that neither the differences in the decision-making
process nor involvement are impacted by any of the independent variables.

Conclusions
This study investigated the cultural differences in decision-making style in German
and Swedish teams. A sequential mixed-methods approach with 12 interviews for a
qualitative study and 60 responses to a web- and paper-based questionnaire in
a quantitative study was applied. The results supported the initial research
propositions that:
.
There are differences in decision-making styles between teams of German and
Swedish national culture.
.
These differences are observable by project team members and are perceived as
impacting project work in joint German-Swedish teams.
The research question asked about the differences in decision-making style and
processes in teams of Swedish and German nationals, and the antecedents thereof.
Findings can be grouped into three categories:
(1) General cultural differences: in terms of higher team orientation, flatter
organizational hierarchies, and more open-minded and informal work attitudes
among Swedish teams.
(2) Decision-making style differences: the German team members were perceived as
being faster in decision making, have clearer responsibilities for the individual,
and are more willing to accept a changed or unpopular decision.
(3) Decision-making process differences: on Swedish teams, the decision-making
process seems more transparent, and less formal. On German teams, the process
is largely dominated by the decision authority of an expert in the field. This is in
contrast to the group decision-making style used in Swedish teams.

The differences in decision-making style were attributed to differences in the

personality of individuals. Here, differences in personality, work processes and attitude
towards work cause different decision-making styles in terms of decision-making
speed, acceptance of changes and unpopular decisions, as well as clearness of
responsibilities. It indicates that the value system (i.e. the national culture) being
learned and adapted during upbringing and childhood molds the personality of
individuals to a degree that it is not completely overwritten by foreign values when
working aboard. Figure 4 shows the final model.
 Independent Dependent Cultural
Variable Variable
differences in
decision making
Decision making
style differences:
Personal differences: • decision speed 89
• Personality • acceptance of change
• Attitude towards work • acceptance of
• Work processes unpopular decision
• Clearness of
responsibilities Figure 4.
Final model

The results of the present study also showed that team members observe these
differences to the degree that they are aware of them. People interviewed were
conscious that cultural differences in decision making exist, that these differences
are based on different personalities, and that both taken together lead to different
decision-making styles in projects.

Theoretical implications
The results support a number of previous studies, for example, those on top management
styles in Europe (Myers et al., 1995) which showed that there is no single European
management style and that significant differences between German and Swedish
management styles exist. Myers et al. identified four management style categories in
Europe, of which Sweden belonged to the consensus category (team driven) and Germany
to the towards a common goal category (expert driven). This is supported through the
present study’ results. Furthermore, the results support Suutari’s (1996) findings of lower
participation in meetings and less autonomy delegation in German teams.
The study links into the recently developed nine schools of project management.
This concept distinguishes between nine paradigms in project management research,
namely those for:
(1) optimization;
(2) modeling;
(3) governance;
(4) behavior;
(5) success;
(6) decision;
(7) process;
(8) contingency; and
(9) marketing (Bredillet et al., 2007a, b, c, 2008a, b).

The present study mainly contributes to the decision school through identification of
antecedents of decisions and better understanding of the processes and decision style
IJMPB implications in different cultures. Minor contributions are to the contingency school,
2,1 by showing the influence of culture on project management; as well as the modeling
school, by providing a qualitative and quantitative model of cultural influences on
project management (Figure 4).

90 Managerial implications
Project team members, project managers, and managers assigning project managers to
projects should be aware of the differences identified in this paper in order to avoid
cultural clashes and other conflicts arising from these differences.
Training programs for project managers should address the cultural differences
and prepare managers and team members alike on ways to deal with decision making
in teams of mixed cultural background.
The strength of the study lies in its mixed-methods approach and the involvement
of interviewees from within and outside of the national culture assessed. That adds to
the objectivity of the findings.
The results, however, have to be interpreted in the context of a small sample size of
12 interviews and 60 responses to a questionnaire. Care should be taken in generalizing
the results.
As with all studies on culture, there are a number of aspects that need to be taken
into account when interpreting the results or adopting them to real-life situations. This
study was dominated by a national-culture perspective. Indications for differences by
industry culture were encountered in the qualitative study, but were not pursued in the
quantitative study. Other cultures, such as company culture, professional culture, etc.
were also ignored. That was done for parsimony of the research model. The results are
therefore constraint by the national perspective taken. It should be noted that average
values were used for measures and preferences. Behavior and preferences can differ
widely within national cultures, industries, companies, families, etc. The results from
above should therefore only be a starting point for actions within international teams.
The results should not be blindly applied, but thoughtfully tested in each individual
project.
Future research should, therefore, aim for further quantitative validation of this
study’s results in order to build a more robust and generalizable theory. Another area
of future research may be the impact of industry type on the perception of cultural
differences. The current study indicated the possible decision-making differences by
industry, which should be further investigated.
The study looked at nationals of Sweden and Germany only. It is, however, very
likely that further nationalities meet within transnational projects. That complicates the
interaction. The present study helps to understand one of the possible dyads between
different nationalities. To that end it is a first step and further studies should follow.
The value of the present study lies in better understanding the main cultural
differences in the decision-making style and process used by German and Swedish
project teams. It also identified the associated antecedents of the differences in
decision-making style. Applying these results will provide for smoother collaboration
and better project results, thus helping project managers better serve individuals,
organizations, and the society at large.
References Cultural
Bonaccio, S. and Dalal, R.S. (2006), “Advice taking and decision making: an integrative literature differences in
review, and implications for the organizational sciences”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 127-51. decision making
Bredillet, C., Turner, J.R. and Anbari, F. (2007a), “Exploring research in project management –
nine schools of project management (part 1)”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 3-4. 91
Bredillet, C., Turner, J.R. and Anbari, F. (2007b), “Exploring research in project management –
nine schools of project management (part 2)”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 3-5.
Bredillet, C., Turner, J.R. and Anbari, F. (2007c), “Exploring research in project management –
nine schools of project management (part 3)”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 4,
pp. 2-4.
Bredillet, C., Turner, J.R. and Anbari, F. (2008a), “Exploring research in project management –
nine schools of project management (part 4)”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 2-6.
Bredillet, C., Turner, J.R. and Anbari, F. (2008b), “Exploring research in project management –
nine schools of project management (part 5)”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 2-4.
Brodbeck, F.C., Frese, M., Ackerblom, S., Audia, G., Bakacsi, G. and Bendova, H. (2000), “Cultural
variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 1-29.
Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1994), The Management of Innovation, 2nd ed., Oxford University
Press, New York, NY.
Davis, J.H. (1973), “Group decision and social interaction: a theory of social decision schemes”,
Psychological Review, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 97-125.
Davis, J.H. (1992), “Introduction to the special issue on group decision making”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-2.
Hall, E.T. (1989), Beyond Culture, Anchor Books, New York, NY.
Hall, E.T. and Hall, M.R. (1990), Understanding Cultural Differences, Intercultural Press,
Yarmouth, ME.
Hampden-Turner, C. and Trompenaars, F. (1993), The Seven Cultures of Capitalism, Piatkus,
London.
Hampden-Turner, C. and Trompenaars, F. (2006), “Cultural intelligence: is such a capacity
credible?”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 56-63.
Hart, P. (1998), “Preventing groupthink revisited: evaluating and reforming groups in
government”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 73 Nos 2/3,
pp. 306-26.
Henrie, M. and Sousa-Poza, A. (2005), “Project management. A cultural literature review”, Project
Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 5-14.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hofstede, G. (1984), “Cultural dimensions in management and planning”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 81-99.
Hofstede, G. (2004), “Geert Hofstede cultural dimensions”, available at: www.geert-hofstede.com
(accessed March 3, 2004).
IJMPB Hofstede, G. (2007), “Asian management in the 21st century”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 411-20.
2,1 Kahnemean, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), “Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk”,
Econometrica, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 263-92.
Kiesler, S. and Sproull, L. (1992), “Group decision making and communication technology”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 96-123.
92 Leybourne, S. and Sadler-Smith, E. (2006), “The role of intuition and improvisation in project
management”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 483-92.
Müller, R. (2003), Communication between IT Project Sponsor and Manager in Buyer-Seller
Relationships, Universal Publishers, Parkland, FL.
Müller, R. and Turner, J.R. (2004), “Cultural differences in project owner-project manager
communications”, in Slevin, D.P., Cleland, D.I. and Pinto, J.K. (Eds), Innovations: Project
Management Research 2004, Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA,
pp. 403-17, Chapter 24.
Müller, R. and Turner, J.R. (2007), “The influence of project managers on project success criteria
and project success by type of project”, European Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 289-309.
Müller, R., Geraldi, J. and Turner, J.R. (2007), “Linking complexity and leadership competences of
project managers”, Proceedings of IRNOP VIII (International Research Network for
Organizing by Projects) Conference, Brighton, UK, CD-ROM.
Myers, A., Kakabadse, A., McMahon, T. and Spony, G. (1995), “Top management styles in
Europe: implications for business and cross-national teams”, European Business Journal,
Vol. 1 No. 7, pp. 17-27.
Parker, S.K. and Skitmore, M. (2005), “Project management turnover: causes and effects on
project performance”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 205-14.
Parkin, J. (1996), “Organizational decision making and the project manager”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 257-63.
Parks, C.D. and Kerr, N.L. (1999), “Twenty-five years of social decision scheme theory”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 1-2.
Rotter, J.B. (1966), “Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement”, Psychological Monographs, Vol. 80 No. 609, pp. 1-28.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007), Research Methods for Business Students, 4th ed.,
Pearson Education Limited, Harlow.
Simon, H. (1957), Models of Man Social and Rational: Mathematical Essays on Rational Human
Behavior in a Social Setting, Wiley, New York, NY.
Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M. and Frey, D. (2002), “Productive conflict in group decision making:
genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 563-86.
Smith, P.B., Trompenaars, F. and Dugan, S. (1995), “The rotter locus of control scale in 43
countries: a test of cultural relativity”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 377-400.
Straus, A.L. and Corbin, J.M. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Suutari, V. (1996), “Variation in the average leadership behaviour of managers across countries:
Finnish expatriates’ experiences from Germany, Sweden, France and Great Britain”,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 677-707.
Svenson, O. (1996), “Decision making and the search for fundamental psychological regularities: Cultural
what can be learned from a process perspective?”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 252-67. differences in
Trompenaars, F. (1993), Riding the Waves of Culture, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London. decision making
Trompenaars, F. (1996), “Resolving international conflict: culture and business strategy”,
Business Strategy Review, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 51-68.
Turner, J.R. and Müller, R. (2003), “On the nature of the project as a temporary organization”, 93
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Turner, J.R. and Müller, R. (2006), Choosing Appropriate Project Managers: Matching their
Leadership Style to the Type of Project, Project Management Institute, Newton Square, PA.
Tylee, J. (2001), “Cultural issues relating to access perceptions and learning styles in the online
environment”, available at: www.education4skills.com/jtylee/culture.html#Apendix2
(accessed October 24, 2007).
Tyszka, T. (1998), “Two pairs of conflicting motives in decision making”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 189-211.
Von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1947), Theory of Games and Economic Behavior,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Wiktionary (2008), http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transnational (accessed September 2, 2008).
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, London.

Corresponding author
Ralf Müller can be contacted at: ralf.mueller@usbe.umu.se

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats