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

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 2  

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

List of Figures

Figure 1: The 7-step scale of the cultural dimension ‘Assertiveness’ ........................................7  

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

List of Tables

Table 1: GLOBE’s nine cultural dimensions and their definition ................................................6  

Table 3.1: Definition of the CLT dimensions ............................................................................11  
Table 3.2: Cultural Dimension Drivers of Autonomous CTL ....................................................12  
Table A.1: Universally Desirable Leadership Attributes...........................................................16  
Table A.2: Universally Undesirable Leadership Attributes.......................................................16  
Table A.3: Culturally Contingent Leadership Attributes ...........................................................16  
Table B.1: Cultural Dimension Value Drivers of the Charismatic/Value-Based CTL ...............17  
Table B.2: Cultural Dimension Value Drivers of the Team-Oriented CTL................................17  
Table B.3: Cultural Dimension Drivers of the Participative CTL ..............................................18  
Table B.4: Cultural Dimension Drivers of the Humane Oriented CTL......................................18  
Table B.5: Cultural Dimensions Drivers of the Self-Protective CTL.........................................18  
Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 4

Abstract

Globalization as the increased economic, social, technical and political

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

1 Introduction of the GLOBE Project

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

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

1
(House, Sully de Luque, Dorfman, & Javidan, 2006)
2
(House et al., 2004)
3
(House, Javidan, & Dorfman, 2001)
Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 5

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)
Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 6

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.

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

Power distance distributed equally.
The extent to which a society, organization, or group relies on social
Uncertainty avoidance norms, rules & procedures to alleviate unpredictability of future events.

The degree to which a collective encourages & rewards individuals for

Humane orientation being fair, altruistic, generous, caring & kind to others.
The degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices
encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and
Collectivism I
collective action
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty and
Collectivism II cohesiveness in their organizations or families.
The degree to which individuals are assertive, dominant & demanding
Assertiveness in their relationships with others.
Gender egalitarianism The degree to which a collective minimizes gender inequality.
The extent to which a collective encourages future-oriented behaviors
Future orientation such as delaying gratification, planning & investing in the future.
The degree to which a collective encourages & reward group members
Performance orientation for performance improvement & excellence.
Table 1: GLOBE’s nine cultural dimensions and their definition
9
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

7
(Hofstede, 1994)
8
(House et al., 2004)
9
(House et. al, 2004)
Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 7

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

item to each dimension, which allowed a refined differentiating between the various
societal collectivities (Figure1). The extent to which a culture endorses a certain
dimension could be thereby, within the realms of possibility, accurately described.
Non-Assertive Assertive

1 7
Greatly non- Greatly
Assertive
2 6 Assertive

Somewhat Non- 3 5
4 Somewhat
Assertive Assertive
Slightly Slightly
Non-Assertive Neither Assertive
Assertive
nor
Non-Assertive

Figure 1: The 7-step scale of the cultural dimension ‘Assertiveness’

Source: Grove, C. N. (2005). Worldwide Differences in Business Values and Practices: Overview of GLOBE
Research Findings.10

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

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

10
(Grove, Leadership Style Variantions Across Cultures: Overview of GLOBE Research Findings, 2005)
11
(Javidan & House, 2001)
12
(Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson, 2000)
Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 8

Unities of Analysis

Societal

Nine dimensions of culture Nine dimensions of culture

Organizational

Nine dimensions of culture Nine dimensions of culture

As Is Should be

Manifestation of Culture

Figure 2: Assessment items construct ‘quartet’

Source: Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P., & Peterson, M. F. (2000). Handbook of Organizational Culture and
13
Climate.

2.1.2 Clustering of Societal Collectivities

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

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

13
(Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson, 2000)
14
(Ronen & Shenkar, 1985)
15
(Gupta, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002)
16
(House, Hanges, & Javidan, 2004)
Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 9

Figure 3: Cultural Clusters of Societal Collectivities

17
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

2.2 Leadership

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

‘Leadership’. The concept of leadership was variously defined over the years
however almost all definitions in the literature mention the role of leaders to exercise
influence on members of a group in order to accomplish a shared goal18.
The GLOBE’s researchers consent to a common definition of organizational
leadership: ‘the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to
contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they
are members’19. Their definition emphasizes on the leader’s main task of inducing
effectiveness and success of given organizations.

17
(House e. a., 2004)
18
(Yukl, 2009)
19
(House et al., 2004)
Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 10

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)
Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 11

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.

Reflects the ability to inspire, to motivate, and to expect high performance

Charismatic/Value Based
outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core beliefs.
Emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a common
Team Oriented
purpose or goal among team members.
Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making and
Participative
implementing decisions.
Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also includes
Humane Orientation
compassion and generosity.
Autonomous Refers to independent and individualistic leadership.
Focuses on ensuring the safety and security of the individual. It is self-
Self-Protective
centered and face saving in its approach.
Table 3.1: Definition of the CLT dimensions
21
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

3.3 Cluster’s Leadership Profiles

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

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

21
(House et al., 2004)
Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 12

Autonomous CLT

Cultural Dimensions Values Leadership attributes

Positively
Performance Orientation

related
• Individualistic
• Independent
related • Autonomous
Negatively
Humane orientation
Institutional Collectivism • Unique

Table 3.2: Cultural Dimension Drivers of Autonomous CTL

22
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

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

Figure 4: Cultural Clusters’ scores on the different CLT dimensions

22
Adapted from House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

22
(House et al., 2004)
Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 13

The major achievement of the GLOBE project was the identification of

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

Figure 5: The Germanic Europe Cluster’s Leadership Profile

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
Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 14

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)
Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 15

Bibliography

Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P., & Peterson, M. F. (2000). Handbook of Organizational

Culture and Climate. Sage Pubn Inc.

Conner, J. (2000). Developing the global leaders of tomorrow. Human Resource Management
Journal , Vol 39, 146-157.

Grove, C. N. (2005). Leadership Style Variantions Across Cultures: Overview of GLOBE

Research Findings. Retrieved 12 10th, 2009, from www. grovewell.com:
http://www.grovewell.com/pub-GLOBE-leadership.html

Grove, C. N. (2005). Worldwide Differences in Business Values and Practices: Overview of

GLOBE Research Findings. Retrieved 12 10th, 2009, from www.grovewell.com:
http://www.grovewell.com/pub-GLOBE-dimensions.html

Gupta, V., Hanges, P. J., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Culture Clusters: Methodology and Findings.
Journal of World Business (37), 11-15.

Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Profile Books.

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

House, R. J. (1998). A brief history of GLOBE. Journal of managerial Psychology , Vol 13

(3/4), 230-240.

House, R. J., Sully de Luque, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Javidan, M. (February 2006). In the eye
of the Beholder: Cross-Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of
Management Persprctives , 67-90.

House, R., Javidan, M., & Dorfman, P. (2001). Project GLOBE: An Introduction. Applied
Psychology: An International Review , 50 (4), 489-505.

Javidan, M., & House, R. J. (2001). Cultural Acumen for the Global Manager: Lessons from
Project GLOBE. Organizational Dynamics , 29, 289-305.

ROBBINS, S. P. (2005). Essentials Of Organizational Behavior (8th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review
and synthesis. The Academy of Management Review , Vol 10, 435-454.

Yukl, G. (2009). Leadership in Organisations (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 16

Appendix A

Universally Desirable Leadership Attributes

Trustworthy 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
28
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Universally Undesirable Leadership attributes

Loner Asocial Non-cooperative
Irritable Indirect/Non-explicit Egocentric
Ruthless Dictatorial
Table A.2: Universally Undesirable Leadership Attributes
29
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Culturally Contingent Leadership Attributes

Anticipatory 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
30
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

28
(House et al, 2004)
29
(House et al, 2004)
30
(House et al, 2004)
Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 17

Appendix B

Charismatic/Value-Based Leadership CLT

Cultural Dimensions Values Leadership attributes

Positively
Performance Oriented related

In-Group Collectivism • Visionary

Gender Egalitarianism • Inspirational
Future Orientation • Self-sacrifice
Human Orientation • Integrity
• Decisive
related
Negatively

Power Distance
• Performance oriented

Table B.1: Cultural Dimension Value Drivers of the Charismatic/Value-Based CTL

31
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Team-Oriented Leadership CLT

Cultural Dimensions Values Leadership attributes

Positively

Uncertainty avoidance
related

• Collaborative team
In-Group-Collectivism
orientation
Humane Orientation
• Team integration
Performance Orientation
• Diplomatic
Future Orientation
• Malevolent (reverse-
related
Negatively

/ scored)
• Administratively competent

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

32
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

31
(House et al, 2004)
32
(House et al, 2004)
Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 18

Participative Leadership CLT

Cultural Dimensions Values Leadership attributes

Positively
Performance Orientation

related
Gender Egalitarianism
Humane Orientation • Participative

related • Autocratic (reverse-scored)

Negatively
Uncertainty avoidance
Power Distance
Assertiveness

Table B.3: Cultural Dimension Drivers of the Participative CTL

33
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Humane Oriented CLT

Cultural Dimensions Values Leadership attributes

related
Positively

Humane orientation
Uncertainty Avoidance
Assertiveness
Performance Orientation • Modesty
Future Orientation • Humane oriented
related
Negatively

Table B.4: Cultural Dimension Drivers of the Humane Oriented CTL

34
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Self-Protective Leadership CLT

Cultural Dimensions Values Leadership attributes

Positively

Power Distance
related

• Self centered
Uncertainty Avoidance
• Status conscious
• Conflict inducer
related
Negatively

Gender Egalitarianism • Face saver

In-Group Collectivism • Procedural
Performance Orientation

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

35
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

33
(House et al, 2004)
34
(House et al, 2004)
35
(House et al, 2004)
Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 19

Appendix C

Figure C.1: Middle East Cluster’s Leadership Profile

36
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Figure C.2: Latin Europe Cluster’s Leadership Profile

37
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Figure C.3: Latin America Cluster’s Leadership Profile

38
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

36
(House et al, 2004)
37
(House et al, 2004)
38
(House et al, 2004)
Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 20

Figure C.4: Confucian Asian Cluster’s Leadership Profile

39
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Figure C.5: Nordic Europe Cluster’s Leadership Profile

40
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Figure C.6: Eastern Europe Cluster’s Leadership Profile

41
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

39
(House et al, 2004)
40
(House et al, 2004)
41
(House et al, 2004)
Term paper: Cross Cultural Leadership 21

Figure C.7: Anglo Cluster’s Leadership Profile

42
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Figure C.8: Sub-Saharan Africa Cluster’s Leadership Profile

43
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

Figure C.9: Southern Asia Cluster’s Leadership Profile

44
Source: House, et al. (2004). Cultures, Leadership, and Organizations: the Globe Study of 62 Societies.

42
(House et al, 2004)
43
(House et al, 2004)
44
(House et al, 2004)