Term Paper Cross Cultural Leadership

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 1

Cross-Cultural Leadership Research: GLOBE Project

Study Program Master of Business Administration (MBA)

Module: Soft Skills & Leadership Qualities Assignment: No. 2/2 Course Instructor: Professor Dr. Ulrike Hellert Author: Salma Souktani Student ID Number: 234263 2nd Academic Semester 2009/2010 Place, Date Regensburg, 15th January 2010


Table of Contents

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 2 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 3 List of Tables.............................................................................................................................. 3 Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 4 1 Introduction of the GLOBE Project ........................................................................................ 4 2 Operationalization of Research Instruments ........................................................................... 5

2.1 Culture .............................................................................................................................. 5 2.1.1 Operationalization of Culture.................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Clustering of Societal Collectivities.......................................................................... 8

2.2 Leadership ........................................................................................................................ 9 2.2.1 Operationalization of Leadership ............................................................................ 10

3 GLOBE’s Major Findings..................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Universally Desirable/Undesirable Leadership Attributes............................................. 10 3.2 Culturally Endorsed Leadership Theory Dimensions (CLTs) ....................................... 10 3.3 Cluster’s Leadership Profiles ......................................................................................... 11

Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 13 Bibliography............................................................................................................................. 15 Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. 16 Appendix B .............................................................................................................................. 17 Appendix C .............................................................................................................................. 19


List of Figures

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

List of Tables

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


Abstract

Globalization as the increased economic, social, technical and political

interdependence between various nations has been advancing throughout the world.

It created an urgent need for effective global leader and managers to operate in

multinational organizations.

House (House, Sully de Luque, Dorfman, & Javidan, 2006) stated that

leadership ‘lies in the eye of the beholder’1. In other words leadership is contingent

upon the culture in which the leader operates. Many empirical comparative

researches in the field of cross-cultural leadership attempted, over the years, to offer

a theoretical construct for explaining cross-cultural differences in leadership

behaviors. GLOBE was one of the most extensive and most comprehensive research

programs to date. Harry Triandis, one of the titans in the field of cross-cultural

research, referred to the GLOBE project as “the Manhattan Project of the study of the

relationship of culture to conceptions of leadership”2.

GLOBE’s findings present highly useful guideline to global leader and

manager regarding how to adapt their behaviors to differences in cultures in order to

be perceived as effective.

This paper intends to provide a brief introduction of GLOBE research program,

its methodology and findings.

1 Introduction of the GLOBE Project

The acronym ‘GLOBE’ stands for ‘Global Leadership and Organizational

Behavior Effectiveness’. GLOBE is a cross-cultural research study whose goal is to

examine the interrelationship between societal culture, organizational culture, and

organizational leadership3. Robert J. House the principal investigator, who was joined

by other notorious principal co-investigators, initially conceived the concept of the

GLOBE project in the summer of 1991. Later on 170 social scientists and

management scholars were recruited to develop a network of country co-

investigators spanning the world.

1 (House, Sully de Luque, Dorfman, & Javidan, 2006) 2 (House et al., 2004) 3 (House, Javidan, & Dorfman, 2001)


The ultimate goal of the GLOBE’s researches was to ‘develop an empirical

based theory to describe, understand, and predict the impact of specific cultural

variables on leadership and organizational processes and the effectiveness of these

processes’4.

The GLOBE’s researchers set as initial hypothesis that societal and

organizational culture influences the kind of Leadership found to be acceptable and

effective by the members of the respective culture5. This hypothesis was confirmed

by the end of an eleven-years research program.

2 Operationalization of Research Instruments

To conduct the research program successfully, GLOBE had at first to develop

a collective understanding of the project by establishing a consensual operational

definition of the concepts of culture and leadership and more importantly by

establishing a set of measurable variables of these two concepts.

2.1 Culture

One of the first obstacles GLOBE’s researchers encountered was establishing

a consensual definition of the concept of ‘Culture’. Culture was over last decades

variously defined. However, most of the issued definitions have in common the notion

of ‘sharedness among collectivities’ in terms of shared values, beliefs, identities,

ways of thinking and reacting.

GLOBE’s researchers consensually adopted a working definition of the

concept of culture. They defined it ‘as shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and

interpretations or meanings of significant events that result from common

experiences of collectives’ members and are transmitted across age generations’ 6.

2.1.1 Operationalization of Culture

The concept of culture is, as seen above, a quite vague concept. In order to

distinguish between the various societal collectivities in term of cultural differences,

researchers needed to define measurable cultural variables. First of all GLOBE’s

4 (House et al., 2004) 5 (Grove, Leadership Style Variantions Across Cultures: Overview of GLOBE Research Findings, 2005) 6 (House et al., 2004)


researchers defined a set of measurable variables in order to capture the similarities

and the dissimilarities in values, beliefs and practices among various societal

collectivities.

Based partly on previous works on measurement of culture relevant to cross-

cultural and leadership theory GLOBE established nine cultural dimensions, six of

which adopted from Hofstede’s work (Hofstede, 1994)7: (1) Uncertainty Avoidance

(Hofstede) , (2) Power Distance (Hofstede) , (3) Collectivism I (Hofstede), (4)

Collectivism II (Hofstede), (5) Gender Egalitarianism (Hofstede), (6) Assertiveness

(Hofstede), (7) Future Orientation, (8) Performance Orientation, (9) Humane

Orientation.

The table below (Table 1) summarizes the definition given by the GLOBE to

each of the six dimensions8.

Power distance

The degree to which members of a collective expect power to be

distributed equally.

Uncertainty avoidance

The extent to which a society, organization, or group relies on social

norms, rules & procedures to alleviate unpredictability of future events.

Humane orientation The degree to which a collective encourages & rewards individuals for

being fair, altruistic, generous, caring & kind to others.

Collectivism I

The degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices

encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and

collective action

Collectivism II

The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty and

cohesiveness in their organizations or families.

Assertiveness

The degree to which individuals are assertive, dominant & demanding

in their relationships with others.

Gender egalitarianism The degree to which a collective minimizes gender inequality.

Future orientation

The extent to which a collective encourages future-oriented behaviors

such as delaying gratification, planning & investing in the future.

Performance orientation

The degree to which a collective encourages & reward group members

for performance improvement & excellence.

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

7 (Hofstede, 1994) 8 (House et al., 2004) 9 (House et. al, 2004)


GLOBE’s researchers established a 7-step Likert-type scale questionnaire

item to each dimension, which allowed a refined differentiating between the various

societal collectivities (Figure1). The extent to which a culture endorses a certain

dimension could be thereby, within the realms of possibility, accurately described.

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

Since GLOBE’s scope is to assess the impact of both societal and

organizational culture on leadership effectiveness, societies and organizations were

considered as separate measurable unities. Therefore, the nine dimensions were

used to measure culture within the larger society and the specific organization

(operating within the respective society).

GLOBE conceptualized the nine dimensions further by distinguishing between

the two ways in which culture manifests itself within a society or an organization.

Javidan and House (Javidan & House, 2001) stated that ‘to understand a culture, we

need to know what cultural practices and people’s aspirations are’11.

Essentially culture manifests itself in term of values and in term of practices,

where values depict the aspirations of collectivities’ members of how things ‘should

be’; and practices as how things are actually being reported ‘As is’. Accordingly

questionnaire items were established as ‘quartet’ (Figure 2): for all nine dimensions

across two unities of analysis (society and organization) in respect of the two

manifestations of culture values (should be) and culture practices (As is)12.

10 (Grove, Leadership Style Variantions Across Cultures: Overview of GLOBE Research Findings, 2005) 11 (Javidan & House, 2001) 12 (Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson, 2000)

Non-Assertive Assertive

1 Greatly non-

Assertive 2

Somewhat Non-Assertive

3

Slightly Non-Assertive

4

Neither Assertive

nor Non-Assertive

5

Slightly Assertive

6

Somewhat Assertive

7 Greatly

Assertive


So

ciet

al

Nine dimensions of culture Nine dimensions of culture

Uni

ties

of A

naly

sis

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Nine dimensions of culture Nine dimensions of culture

As Is Should be

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

2.1.2 Clustering of Societal Collectivities

Based on factors like common language, geography, ethnicity, religion and

history, the GLOBE’s researchers assigned 62 societal collectivities to 10 distinctive

cultural categories referred to as ‘clusters’ (Figure 3). The clustering concept was

adopted based on prior works, e.g. (Ronen & Shenkar, 1985)14.

The empirical pertinence of the proposed clustering was confirmed afterwards

when tested statically using the ‘discriminant analysis’15. The clustering of different

societal collectivities was proven to be a very useful method to summarize the

similarities and dissimilarities between the various clusters and to make significant

generalization about culture and leadership16.

Cultural similarity is greatest among societies of the same cluster; cultural

dissimilarity increases the further clusters are situated apart in the figure below

(Figure 3). For instance the dissimilarity between the ‘Germanic Europe’ cluster and

the ‘Middle East’ cluster is not as great as the dissimilarity between the ‘Germanic

Europe’ cluster and the ‘Confucian Asia’ cluster.

13 (Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson, 2000) 14 (Ronen & Shenkar, 1985) 15 (Gupta, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002) 16 (House, Hanges, & Javidan, 2004)


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

2.2 Leadership

Alike the concept of ‘Culture’ there is no agreed-upon definition of

‘Leadership’. The concept of leadership was variously defined over the years

however almost all definitions in the literature mention the role of leaders to exercise

influence on members of a group in order to accomplish a shared goal18.

The GLOBE’s researchers consent to a common definition of organizational

leadership: ‘the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to

contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they

are members’19. Their definition emphasizes on the leader’s main task of inducing

effectiveness and success of given organizations.

17 (House e. a., 2004) 18 (Yukl, 2009) 19 (House et al., 2004)


2.2.1 Operationalization of Leadership

To measure the different perceptions of leadership’s effectiveness, GLOBE’s

researchers used at first 7-step Likert-type scale questionnaire items probing

respondent about 112 behavioral and attribute descriptors. Respondents were asked

to which extent each attribute is regarded as conducive to an outstanding leadership

or as impediment to an effective leadership.

3 GLOBE’s Major Findings

3.1 Universally Desirable/Undesirable Leadership Attributes

The aforementioned 112 behavioral and attribute descriptors of an outstanding

were used to probe 17,300 middle managers in 951 organizations from the 62

societal collectivities20. The analysis of the responses led the GLOBE’s researchers

to identify 22 attributes (Appendix A, Table A.1), which are universally perceived to

be conducive to an outstanding leadership, like “honest”, and “motivator”. They were

also able to identify 8 attributes (Appendix A, Table A.2), which are universally

perceived as impediment to an outstanding leadership, like “irritable” and “asocial”.

Yet, some attributes (Appendix A, Table A.3) were identified to be culturally

contingent; that is perceived as conducive to an outstanding leadership in some

societal collectivities while impediment to leadership effectiveness in other societal

collectivities.

Hence GLOBE’s initial hypothesis, that societal and organizational culture

influences the kind of Leadership regarded as acceptable and effective by the

members of the respective culture, was empirically proven to be accurate.

3.2 Culturally Endorsed Leadership Theory Dimensions (CLTs)

CLOBE’s researchers were able to empirically reduce the number of 112

behavioral and attribute descriptors into a simplified grouping of 21 “primary

leadership dimensions” which are perceived –with varying extents- in all societal

collectivities as leadership effectiveness related.

These “primary leadership dimensions” were statically categorized into 6

common categories referred to as “Culturally endorsed Leadership Theory

dimensions” or in short “CLT dimensions”. CLT dimensions are perceived as the 20 (House et al., 2004)


summary indicators of the characteristics, skills and abilities that are culturally

perceived as conducive or as impediment to an outstanding organizational

leadership. In brief they depict different leadership ‘styles’. The following table (Table

4) summarizes the definitions of the six CLT dimensions.

Charismatic/Value Based Reflects the ability to inspire, to motivate, and to expect high performance

outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core beliefs.

Team Oriented Emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a common

purpose or goal among team members.

Participative Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making and

implementing decisions.

Humane Orientation Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also includes

compassion and generosity.

Autonomous Refers to independent and individualistic leadership.

Self-Protective Focuses on ensuring the safety and security of the individual. It is self-

centered and face saving in its approach.

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

3.3 Cluster’s Leadership Profiles

As seen above GLOBE’s researchers were able to empirically prove that

societal and organizational culture influences the kind of Leadership regarded as

acceptable by the members of a given culture; their next step was to investigate the

ways in which cultural characteristics were related to differences in leadership

approaches.

The GLOBE’s researchers were able to relate empirically each of the CLT

dimensions to each of the cultural dimensions. The table below (Table 3.2) shows the

summarized relationship between cultural dimensions and the ‘Autonomous’ CLT

dimension. In other words it shows the relative contribution of each cultural

dimension toward the ‘Autonomous’ CTL dimension. Nine other tables summarizing

the relationship between cultural dimensions and the remaining CLT dimensions are

to be found in Appendix B.

21 (House et al., 2004)


Autonomous CLT

Cultural Dimensions Values Leadership attributes

Performance Orientation

Positively

related

Humane orientation

Institutional Collectivism

Negatively

related

• Individualistic

• Independent

• Autonomous

• Unique

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

The empirical investigation also revealed how the 10 cultural clusters’ scores

on the different CLT dimensions. The polar diagram below (Figure 4) summarizes the

cultural clusters’ scores on the different CLT dimensions, for instance Participative

CLT receives the higher score in ‘Germanic cluster’ and the lowest score in the

‘Middle East’ cluster.

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

22 (House et al., 2004)


The major achievement of the GLOBE project was the identification of

‘Leadership Profile’ for each cluster. The profile describes the relative importance and

desirability that different cultural clusters attribute to the different leadership

behaviors. The figure bellow (Figure 5) shows the profile for the Germanic Europe

cluster.

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

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

Appendix C.

Conclusion

Julius Caesar said that experience “is the teacher of all things”24, this is still an

universally accurate adage. For leaders, work experience and international

assignment are by far the most valuable sources for developping global leadership

skills25. However the GLOBE project’s findings provide ‘soon-to-be’ global leaders

with a platform to sharpen their awareness of differences in culture throughout the

world and differences in leadership behaviors it entails. GLOBE provides a large

amount of information on cross-cultural leadership and specific country cultural

characteristics and leadership profiles. All the findings of the project were edited in an

800 pages book: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the

Globe Study of 62 Societies.26 (House e. a., 2004)

23 (House et al., 2004) 24 Julius Caesar: Roman leader (100-44 BC) 25 (Conner, 2000) 26


GLOBE project is an extraordinary effort and a significant contribution to the

organizational behavior literature; House (House R. J., 1998) summarized the

achievement the GLOBE project by saying: “[…] a major contribution to the

organizational behavior and leadership literature. To date more than 90% of the

organizational behavior literature reflects U.S.-based research and theory. Hopefully

GLOBE will be able to liberate organizational behavior from the U.S. hegemony"27.

27 (House R. J., 1998)


Bibliography

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


Appendix A

Universally Desirable Leadership Attributes

Trustworthy Just Honest

Foresight Plans ahead Encouraging

Positive Dynamic Motive arouser

Confidence builder Motivational Dependable

Intelligent Decisive Effective bargainer

Win-win problem solver Communicative Informed

Administrative skilled Coordinator Team builder

Excellence oriented

Table A.1: Universally Desirable Leadership Attributes Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.28

Universally Undesirable Leadership attributes

Loner Asocial Non-cooperative

Irritable Indirect/Non-explicit Egocentric

Ruthless Dictatorial

Table A.2: Universally Undesirable Leadership Attributes

Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.29

Culturally Contingent Leadership Attributes

Anticipatory Intuitive Ambitious

Logical Autonomous Micro-manager

Cautions Orderly Class conscious

Procedural Compassionate Provocateur

Cunning Risk taker Domineering

Ruler Elitist Self-effacing

Enthusiastic Self-sacrificial Evasive

Sensitive Formal Sincere

Habitual Status-conscious Independent

Subdued Indirect Unique

Individualistic Willful Intra-group competitor

Worldly Intra-group conflict avoider

Table A.3: Culturally Contingent Leadership Attributes


28 (House et al, 2004) 29 (House et al, 2004) 30 (House et al, 2004)


Appendix B

Charismatic/Value-Based Leadership CLT


Performance Oriented

In-Group Collectivism

Gender Egalitarianism

Future Orientation

Human Orientation

Positively

related

Power Distance

Negatively

related

• Visionary

• Inspirational

• Self-sacrifice

• Integrity

• Decisive

• Performance oriented

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

Team-Oriented Leadership CLT



In-Group-Collectivism

Humane Orientation


Future Orientation

Positively

related

/

Negatively

related

• Collaborative team

orientation

• Team integration

• Diplomatic

• Malevolent (reverse-

scored)

• Administratively competent

Table B.2: Cultural Dimension Value Drivers of the Team-Oriented CTL


31 (House et al, 2004) 32 (House et al, 2004)


Participative Leadership CLT




Humane Orientation

Positively

related


Power Distance

Assertiveness

Negatively

related

• Participative

• Autocratic (reverse-scored)

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

Humane Oriented CLT


Humane orientation

Uncertainty Avoidance

Assertiveness


Future Orientation

Positively

related

/

Negatively

related • Modesty

• Humane oriented

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

Self-Protective Leadership CLT


Power Distance

Uncertainty Avoidance

Positively

related


In-Group Collectivism


Negatively

related

• Self centered

• Status conscious

• Conflict inducer

• Face saver

• Procedural

Table B.5: Cultural Dimensions Drivers of the Self-Protective CTL




Appendix C

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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


Documents

Term Paper Cross Cultural Leadership