Module 7 - The Ideas of Fons Trompenaars Country Profiles & Onlin.docx

Module 7 - The Ideas of Fons Trompenaars: Country Profiles &
Online Information Sources
Objectives
The aim of this assignment is to expose learners to the
information offered by the Canadian Centre for Inter-Cultural
Learning and apply this information to the ideas of Fons
Trompenaars.
Instructor Comments
When completing these assignments do consider that
Kwintessential.com and the Centre for Inter-Cultural Learning
websites offer fairly comprehensive insight into national
cultures. Based on these insights consider the similarities and
difference between Holland and France and then think about
Malaysia and Pakistan. The dominant religion in both of these
latter two countries in Islam. Despite being separated
geographically by thousands of miles, do the cultures of these
two countries appear more similar then France and Holland, two
countries that share a border?
Although the role of religion has not been the focus of this
course, it is important. At this point, you will be completing
your seventh assignment. Think back on the countries whose
cultures you have studied. Aside from the ideas of Trompenaars
and Hofstede, is there another important dimension at play?
Could it be the role of the dominant religion of the country? In
your mind is there a connection? Although not the subject of
this or the following assignments, it is worth considering.
Assignment
This assignment seeks to help you understand the answer to a
broader concern and that is, "How might the ideas of Fons
Trompenaars be applied in real life?" You should base your
responses to the following questions on the country cultural
descriptions found on the website of the Canadian Centre for
Inter Cultural Learning and the National Cultural Profiles found
on the Telegraph.co.uk website.

In order to complete the assignment, please recall that
Trompenaars defines a national culture in terms of seven
dimensions: achievement vs. ascription, individualism vs.
collectivism, internal vs. external, neutral vs. emotional,
specific vs. diffuse, time orientation, and universalism vs.
particularism.
Please base your responses to the following questions on your
analysis of the article and the series of websites noted below.
· Fons Trompenaars Trade Culture Dimensions.
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/seven-dimensions.htm
· Fons Trompenaars and Peter Wooliams: A new framework for
managing change across cultures, Journal of Change
Management 2003 3(4) 361 - 375
· Country Insights found on Centre for Inter-Cultural Learning
website.
http://www.intercultures.ca/cil-cai/countryinsights-apercuspays-
eng.asp
· Country Etiquette Guides found on Kwintessential's website.
http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/country-
profiles.html and http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/etiquette/doi
ng-business-in.html
Please complete the following exercises:
· To the best of your ability please briefly describe the national
culture of Singapore using Trompenaars seven cultural
dimensions.
culture of Sweden using Trompenaars seven cultural
dimensions.
culture of Egypt using Trompenaars seven cultural dimensions.
culture of India using Trompenaars seven cultural dimensions.
Hint: Please look carefully at the descriptions of the inter-
cultural issues and the thinking patterns. This should help the
matching exercise.
Please limit your response to this assignment to three single

spaced, typed pages. Please cite your sources in the text and
please reference them at the end of your assignment. Please end
your write-up with one paragraph that summarizes what you
think is the importance of this assignment.
Module 4 - The Ideas of Geert Hofstede: Canada and the World
Objectives
The aim of this assignment is to suggest the role played by
management scholars in developing new ideas useful to
individuals interested in cross cultural management.
Specifically this assignment addresses the ideas and frameworks
of Geert Hofstede.
Instructor Comments
To understand the influence of Geert Hofstede, consider the
comments of John Bing (2004: 2). "Hofstede is the most cited
Dutch author and the ninth most cited European in the 2001
Social Science Citation Index. Over time Hofstede's influence
has become so persuasive, and his work has developed so many
offshoots, that even those who don't agree with his theory or
conclusions must at least acknowledge his work. Debates within
the field are an expected part of the process of theory building,
testing, and questioning which characterizes modern science.
What is clear is that Hofstede designed the architecture that has
characterized much of contemporary cross-cultural quantitative
research; and his is the standard to which others must make
reference. It would be easier for caravans to cross the desert
without touching sand than it would be for researchers and
practitioners in this field to avoid Hofstede's work."
Despite his influence, his research is often misused or
misunderstood. "A common error to which practitioners may be
prone involves predicting individual cultural preferences by
inference from Hofstede's country scores. Merely because, for
example, Chileans have a high uncertainty avoidance score does
not mean that individual Chileans share that quality. they may
or may not. Most populations are normal curves, and an

individual may be found at one extreme or in the center. That
individual's cultural preference cannot be predicted from the
country scores. However, as a whole population, the group
tendency is in a specific direction, and that is how Hofstede's
scores are derived." (Bing, 2004: 2). Consider these points as
you complete this assignment.
Assignment
broader concern and that is, "How similar or different is the
culture of Canada to other countries?" You should base your
responses to the following questions on your analysis of the
ideas of Geert Hofstede.
In order to complete this assignment, you will need to access
the country profiles based on Hofstede's cultural dimensions
using the following website: http://www.geert-hofstede.com
Please complete the following exercises.
· How is the national culture of English Canada similar or
different from that of Australia?
different from that of Burkina Faso?
different from that of South Korea?
different from that of the Brazil?
different from that of Malaysia?
Hint: The country profiles described in terms of Hofstede's
cultural dimensions http://www.geert-hofstede.com may be of
great value when completing this assignment.

Module 3 - The Ideas of Geert Hofstede: Similar Countries
Objectives
of Geert Hofstede.
Instructor Comments
Hofstede's dimensions play fascinating roles in helping us
understand different societies. Take for instance countries or
cultures where both scores associated with Uncertainty
Avoidance and Power Distance are high. In these instances, the
result is the creation of "societies that are highly rule-oriented
with laws, rules, regulations, and controls in order to reduce the
amount of uncertainty, while inequalities of power and wealth
have been allowed to grow within the society. These cultures
are more likely to follow a caste system that does not allow
significant upward mobility of its citizens.
Further, "when these two dimensions are combined, it creates a
situation where leaders have virtually ultimate power and
authority, and the rules, laws and regulations developed by
those in power, reinforce their own leadership and control. It is
not unusual for new leadership to arise from armed insurrection
- the ultimate power, rather than from diplomatic or democratic
change. "Understanding the meanings associated with these
dimensions helps to explain why Pakistan is why it is. It also
helps to explain why Canada is not similar.
Assignment
broader concern and that is, "How are some national cultures
similar?" You should base your responses to the following
questions on your analysis of the ideas of Geert Hofstede.

Please identify five countries that are similar in terms of Power
Distance. Please summarize in your own words why they are
similar.
Please identify five countries that are similar in terms of
Individualism. Please summarize in your own words why they
are similar.
Masculinity/Femininity. Please summarize in your own words
why they are similar.
Uncertainty Avoidance. Please summarize in your own words
Temporal Orientation. Please summarize in your own words
Module 2 - The Ideas of Geert Hofstede: Cultural Dimensions
Objectives
of Geert Hofstede.
Instructor Comments
Think about a country and its people. Now think about
describing the culture or worldview of these people using five
dimensions. This exercise explores the culture of a number of

countries doing just that. This idea and its framework created
through the years of research are controversial. While the ideas
are powerful, many would suggest that they oversimplify the
concept of culture. How can a culture, built up over hundreds or
thousands of years be clarified or understood through such
uncomplicated themes? The answer to this question is yours to
create.
Concepts such as Hofstede's five cultural dimensions serve an
important role and that is to help managers, observers, travelers
and others make sense of complex environments. Surprising and
annoying to some is that these dimensions are also empirically
derived. Statistical analysis of thousands of data points brought
these dimensions to the fore. They represent the interaction of
science with the abstract world of values. beliefs and
worldviews.
Assignment
broader concern and that is, "How do cultural dimensions differ
across countries?" You should base your responses to the
following questions on your analysis of the ideas of Geert
Hofstede.
Please define Power Distance in one sentence and summarize
the differences (if any) in Power Distance among Russia,
Venezuala, Japan and Bhutan.
Please define Individualism in one sentence and summarize the
differences (if any) in Individualism among Russia, Venezuala,
Japan and Bhutan.
Please define Masculinity/Femininity in one sentence and
summarize the differences (if any) in Masculinity/Femininity
among Russia, Venezuala, Japan and Bhutan.
Please define Uncertainty Avoidance in one sentence and
summarize the differences (if any) in Uncertainty Avoidance

Please define Temporal Orientation in one sentence and
summarize the differences (if any) in Temporal Orientation
involved in achieving or sustaining the
change, and (ii) they tend to want to
discard the current situation in favour of
a new future, thus throwing out the best
of what already exists.
After an extended period of research
over many years and developing dilemma
theory with Hampden-Turner (1992), the
authors have come to a different view
based on extensive evidence collected
INTRODUCTION
Many researchers have suggested models
for change which seek to embrace
culture change within organisations
(corporate culture), while others have
alluded to issues of change across
(national) cultural boundaries. Most
models, however, can be criticised for

two principal and recurring reasons: (i)
they tend to underestimate the difficulty
� Henry Stewart Publications 1469-7017 (2003) Vol. 3, 4, 361–
375 Journal of Change Management 361
A new framework for managing change
across cultures
Received: 18th February, 2003
Fons Trompenaars
is founder of the Centre for International Business Studies,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands,
Director of THT Consulting and Van Russum Professor at the
Solvay Business School,
Brussels, Belgium.
Peter Woolliams
is Professor of International Business, Ashcroft International
Business School, Anglia
University, UK; Visiting Research Fellow at THT Consulting;
and Faculty Member of
Management Centre Europe, Brussels, Belgium.
KEYWORDS: dilemma theory, corporate culture, change
transformation, cross-culture,
opposing values
ABSTRACT A new paradigm for the management of change is
proposed. Most existing
frameworks tend to want to discard the current situation in
favour of a new corporate
culture, thus discarding the best of what already exists. The
authors argue that changing an
organisation’s culture is a contradiction in terms. This is
because cultures act to preserve

themselves and to protect their own living existence. So rather
than seeing change as a
‘thing’ opposing continuity, it is considered as a difference. The
authors believe organisations
seek change to preserve the company, profitability, market
share and core competence. The
reason for changing certain aspects is to avoid changing in other
respects. In short,
organisations must reconcile change with continuity in order to
preserve an evolving identity.
The new methodology is centred on diagnosing the tensions
between the current and ideal
corporate culture. These tensions manifest themselves as a
series of dilemmas. The new
approach for the management of change is to reconcile these
dilemmas. Compromise alone is
insufficient. The authors demonstrate with examples and offer a
new conceptual framework
on how seemingly opposing values deriving from the tensions
arising from change
imperatives can be integrated to achieve a ‘win-win’ outcome.
Fons Trompenaars
Trompenaar
Hampden-Turner, Culture
for Business, A. J.
Ernststraat 595-D,
Amstelveen 1082 LD, The
Netherlands
Tel: �31 20 301 6666;
Fax: �31 20 301 6555;
e-mail:
[email protected]

methodology is neither simply throwing
away the past nor seeking to change a
well-embedded, resistant, self-preserving
corporate culture.
CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND
As Senge (2001) noted, the word
‘change’ means several, often
contradictory, things. Sometimes it
refers to the external world of
technology, customers, competitors and
such like. Sometimes it refers to
internal changes such as practices, styles
and strategies. The authors will refer to
change as the changes in shared
assumptions, values and practices of
organisational actors as they are
stimulated by changes in the
environment. Although executives often
intervene because the pace of internal
change is not keeping up with that of
the external world, it will not be
assumed that all change needs to be
led from the top down. The authors
strongly believe that change processes
where leaders are not involved are like
up-hill skiing: it is possible, but one
needs to be a very good athlete.
Because the focus is on cultural
change, the role of the leader is crucial
because he or she is symbolising the
culture and is the main creator of
culture. The authors believe, like Peter
Senge, however, that cultural change is
not simply the responsibility of the

‘Hero-CEO’. It is striking how the
Anglo-Saxon model of change has
dominated the world of change
management. It is based too often on
a task-oriented culture and the idea
that traditions need to be forgotten as
soon as possible. What is the
alternative? The approach needs to be
amended from a ‘what’ and a ‘why’
process into a ‘through’ process which
takes the existing culture to be
reconciled with the new culture.
across the world from a large number of
diverse organisations. The authors believe
that changing an organisation’s culture is
a contradiction in terms. This is because
cultures act to preserve themselves and to
protect their own living existence. So
rather than seeing change as a ‘thing’
opposing continuity, the authors see it as
a difference. The authors believe
organisations seek change to preserve the
company, profitability, market share and
core competence. The reason for
changing certain aspects is to avoid
changing in other respects. In short,
organisations must reconcile change with
continuity in order to preserve an
evolving identity.
Thus the authors offer a new approach
to change. The overall core framework
requires an assessment of the differences
between the current corporate culture and
some envisaged ‘ideal’ future corporate

culture. But established models for change
then develop a change strategy based on
transforming the organisation from the
current to an ideal culture. In contrast,
this approach considers the contrast
between these extremes. All organisations
need stability and change, tradition and
innovation, public and private interest,
planning and laissez-faire, order and
freedom, growth and decay. These are the
opposites that leaders wrestle with and put
tensions into their world, sharpen their
sensitivities and increase their
self-awareness. The problem of changing
from the ‘current’ to the ‘ideal’ situation
cannot be ‘solved’ in the sense of being
eliminated but can be wisely transcended.
Successful leaders get surges of energy
from the fusing of these opposites.
Thus these differences that generate
tensions are the source of a series of
dilemmas. Managing change in this
methodology is therefore about
reconciling these dilemmas. In this way,
the limitations of current change models
can be overcome because this
362 Journal of Change Management Vol. 3, 4, 361– 375 �
Henry Stewart Publications 1469-7017 (2003)
Trompenaars and Woolliams
of rules and methods which a society or

organisation has evolved to deal with the
regular problems that face it.
Countries and organisations face
dilemmas in dealing with the tension
between the existing set of values and
the desired ones. While cultures differ
markedly in how they approach these
dilemmas, they do not differ in needing
to make some kind of response. They
share the destiny to face up to different
challenges of existence. Once the change
leaders have become aware of the
problem-solving process, they will
reconcile dilemmas more effectively and
therefore will be more successful.
All change processes have in common
the need for a diagnosis of the values in
use (the existing values system) and
mapping the espoused and desired values
(the ideal value system). The change
process is energised by the tension
between the two. Note again that it is
not simply the replacement of the
existing with the desired.
THE PLACE OF CORPORATE
CULTURE IN IMPLEMENTING A NEW
DESIGN
It is becoming more frequently recognised
that change initiatives have failed because
aspects of (corporate) culture have been
ignored. Simply ‘adding’ the culture
component, however, does not suffice.
This explains perhaps why culture is very

often ignored. Values are not artefacts that
can be added. They are continuously
created by interactions between human
actors and not ‘just out there’ as solid
rocks. As such, culture is only meaningful
in the context in which the change
process unfolds.
This approach therefore seeks to
integrate culture in all the steps that need
to be taken in the change process. Even
the sequence of steps is affected by the
dominant culture at hand.
A NEW UNIFIED MODEL FOR
MANAGING CHANGE AS A
‘THROUGH’ PROCESS
Conventional approaches frame the
change problem in terms of ‘what’, ‘why’
and/or ‘how’. To focus solely on ‘why’
may not translate effectively to ‘what’
and/or ‘how’. ‘How’ questions place the
effort on means where diagnosis is
assumed or not even undertaken at all and
therefore the ends sought are not
considered. To focus on ends requires the
posing of ‘what’ questions. What is one
trying to accomplish? What needs to be
changed? What are the critical success
factors? What measure of performance is
one trying to achieve? Ends and means
are relative, however, and whether
something is an end or a means can only
be considered in relation to something
else. Thus often, the ‘true’ ends of a
change effort may be different from those

intended. In this regard, the ‘why’
questions are claimed to be useful.
According to Lewin’s force-field theory,
organisations are in dynamic tension
between forces pushing for change and
forces resistant to change. Established
change management practice has
interpreted this on the basis that it is
management’s task to reduce the resistance
to change and increase the forces for
change. But under the dilemma theory
approach, this is only a compromise
solution. It ignores the fact that increasing
the force for change may increase people’s
resistance, for example. The authors
therefore offer a new approach which
requires a whole new logic. By applying
an inductive analysis to the evidence and
research data, they offer a ‘through’
question approach.
CULTURAL CHANGE AS A
THROUGH-THROUGH PROCESS
Basic to understanding cultural change is
the understanding that culture is a series
A new framework for managing change across cultures
from two related dimensions:

— Task or Person (high versus low
formalisation)
— Hierarchical or Egalitarian (high
versus low centralisation).
Combining these dimensions gives four
possible culture types.
While the authors could have
categorised these orientations using
Cameron and Quinn’s (1998) competing
values framework, or Charles Handy’s
(1993) early ideas on corporate culture,
they found their adapted model more
discriminating (see Table 1).
In their diagnostic phase, the authors
sought to compare the current corporate
culture, as perceived by an organisation’s
members, contrasted with what they
each would consider to be the ideal
corporate culture. Exhaustive data mining
and correspondence analysis of 55,000
cases on corporate culture models reveals
tensions derived from the following
scenarios. (In Table 2, the top six are
ranked from the most frequent to least
frequent.) In fact, all combinations are
found in the extensive database, but
these are the most significant.
Following the proposed methodology,
the management of change therefore
involves answering:

1. What are the dilemmas that will be
faced when seeking to change from
the ‘current’ to the ‘ideal’
organisation?
2. How can these dilemmas be
reconciled?
For each of the above scenarios, different
dilemmas can be expected. Using
Web-based ‘interview’ techniques
(WebCue), the authors have also invited
members of a large number of client
organisations to elicit and delineate their
dilemmas. Over 5,000 such responses
Much of the authors’ inductive
thinking has its origin firstly in their
portfolio of effective diagnostic and
analytical tools and models, and secondly
in the large and reliable database
established which was based on data
collected from these. This enables them
either to facilitate or let organisations
themselves make a diagnosis of the
tensions they are facing.
Structure is a concept that is
frequently used in the analysis of
organisations, and many definitions and
approaches are to be found. The
interest here is in examining the
interpretations employees give to their
relationships with each other and with
the organisation as a whole. Culture is
to the organisation what personality is

to the individual — a hidden yet
unifying theme that provides meaning,
direction and mobilisation that can
exert a decisive influence on the
overall ability of the organisation to
deal with the challenges it faces.
Just as individuals in a culture can
have different personalities while sharing
much in common, so too can groups
and organisations. It is this pattern that is
recognised as ‘corporate culture’. The
authors can distinguish three aspects of
organisational relationships whose
meaning is dependent on the larger
culture in which they emerge:
1. the general relationships between
employees in the organisation
2. the vertical or hierarchical
relationships between employees and
their superiors or subordinates in
particular
3. the relationships of employees in the
organisation as a whole, such as their
views of what makes it tick and what
are its goals.
This model identifies four competing
organisational cultures that are derived

Table 1 The extreme stereotypes of corporate culture
The Incubator The Guided Missile
This culture is like a leaderless team. This
person-oriented culture is characterised by a
low degree of both centralisation and
formalisation. In this culture, the
individualisation of all related individuals is one
of the most important features. The
organisation exists only to serve the needs of its
members.
The organisation has no intrinsic values
beyond these goals. The organisation is an
instrument for the specific needs of the
individuals in the organisation. Responsibilities
and tasks within this type of organisation are
assigned primarily according to the member’s
own preference and needs. Structure is loose
and flexible control takes place through
persuasion and mutual concern for the needs
and values of other members.
Its main characteristics are:
— person oriented
— power of the individual
— self-realisation

— commitment to oneself
— professional recognition
This task-oriented culture has a low degree of
centralisation and a high degree of
formalisation. This rational culture is, in its
ideal type, task and project oriented. ‘Getting
the job done’ with ‘the right man in the right
place’ are favourite expressions. Organisational
relationships are very results oriented, based on
rational/instrumental considerations and limited
to specific functional aspects of the persons
involved.
Achievement and effectiveness are weighed
above the demands of authority, procedures or
people. Authority and responsibility are placed
where the qualifications lie, and they may shift
rapidly as the nature of the [task] changes.
Everything in the Guided Missile culture is
subordinated to an all-encompassing goal.
The management of the organisation is
predominantly seen as a continuous process of
solving problems successfully. The manager is a
team leader, the commander of a commando
unit, in whose hands lie absolute authority. This
[task] oriented culture, because of its flexibility
and dynamism, is highly adaptive but at the
same time is difficult to manage. Decentralised
control and management contribute to the
shortness of channels of communication. The
task-oriented culture is designed for a rapid
reaction to extreme changes. Therefore, matrix
and project types of organisations are favourite
designs for the Guided Missile.

— task orientation
— power of knowledge/expertise
— commitment to (tasks)
— management by objectives
— pay for performance
The Family Culture The Eiffel Tower Culture
The Family Culture is characterised by a high
degree of centralisation and a low degree of
formalisation. It generally reflects a highly
personalised organisation and is predominantly
power oriented.
Employees in the ‘family’ seem to interact
This role-oriented culture is characterised by a
high degree of formalisation together with a
high degree of centralisation and is symbolically
represented by the Eiffel Tower. It is steep,
stately and very robust. Control is exercised
through systems of rules, legalistic procedures,
Table 1 The extreme stereotypes of corporate culture
(continued)
The Family Culture The Eiffel Tower Culture

around the centralised power of father or
mother. The power of the organisation is
based on an autocratic leader who, like a
spider in a web, directs the organisation.
There are not many rules and thus there is
little bureaucracy. Organisational members
tend to be as near to the centre as possible,
as that is the source of power. Hence the
climate inside the organisation is highly
manipulative and full of intrigues. In this
political system, the prime logic of vertical
differentiation is hierarchical differentiation of
power and status.
— power orientation
— personal relationships
— entrepreneurial
— affinity/trust
— power of person
assigned rights and responsibilities.
Bureaucracy and the high degree of
formalisation make this organisation inflexible.
Respect for authority is based on the respect
for functional position and status. The bureau
or desk has depersonalised authority.
In contrast to highly personalised Family,
members in the Eiffel Tower are
continuously subordinated to universally
applicable rules and procedures. Employees
are very precise and meticulous. Order and
predictability are highly valued in the process
of managing the organisation. Duty is an

important concept for an employee in this
role-oriented culture. It is duty one feels
within oneself, rather than an obligation one
feels towards a concrete individual.
Procedures for change tend to be
cumbersome, and the role-oriented
organisation is slow to adapt to change.
— role orientation
— power of position/role
— job description/evaluation
— rules and procedures
— order and predictability
Table 2 Top six ranked tension scenarios
Current Ideal
Guided Missile Incubator Scenario 1
Eiffel Tower Guided Missile Scenario 2
Family Guided Missile Scenario 3
Eiffel Tower Incubator Scenario 4
Family Incubator Scenario 5
Incubator Guided Missile Scenario 6
easily be challenged. In an ideal world,
the authors would go back and
challenge the implicit values behind
each of these explicit constructs in
order to check whether they were still
the best way of delivering and
reinforcing those values. When the
products of culture become ‘sacred

cows’, they can inhibit change. This is
especially important when importing
sacred cows to new cultures.
As the culture of an organisation is
often ‘owned’ and lived at the highest
level, managers can feel they have little
ability to influence or change the real
culture of the organisation in a material
way without some top-down action.
These extremes might be summarised
by saying:
‘On the one hand, we need to change the
corporate culture to be convergent with our
have been collected, but they can be
clustered into a number of recurring
dilemmas. The authors are therefore able
to review these aspects of the change
process based on what they have found
with actual clients. Each of the model
change scenarios discussed is an attempt
to generalise from real change processes
from these clients and avoid issues of
confidence and ethics.
In each of the separate descriptions,
particular steps are highlighted to provide
a good sense of how this works in
consulting practice. Figure 1 is a
representation of the process, but the
entry point one chooses is culturally
dependent.

In some respects, the pervasive
nature of implicit culture can make it
difficult to change. Even at the explicit
level, traditional practices become
enshrined as ‘sacred cows’ that cannot
Figure 1 The
change process
Envisioned future
Current
organisational
culture
Implementing
new design and
define actions
Core values �
Key purpose
Leadership
competence
Ideal

organisational
culture
Reconciliation
process
Business dilemmas
DEPARTURE FROM THE GUIDED
MISSILE
The challenge is obviously what to do
when the surrounding culture is not
compatible with this type of change
logic. The authors remember an
American manager of Eastman Kodak
who had launched a very successful
change programme in Rochester, New
York, and after launching the formula in
Europe, he cried on their shoulders. In
great despair, he said:
‘These French and Germans are unbelievably
inflexible. I have done a whole round in
Europe and within each of the countries
many seemed very much supporting our
vision. Okay, the Germans had some
problems with the process. They wanted to
know all details of the procedures and how
they were connected to the envisioned
change. The French, in turn, were so much
worried about the unions and how to keep
their people motivated. But good, we as
internal consultants and management have

left with the idea that we agreed on the
approach. When I came back some three
months later to check how the
implementation was going, I noticed in
France and Germany nothing had started
yet. Nothing! What a disappointment!’
Anyone with a little sensitivity for
cross-cultural affairs would have predicted
this.
The authors collected and analysed
some 4,000 examples of such critical
incidents. The principal findings are
summarised in Table 3 in terms of the
frequently repeating dilemmas for
differing scenarios.
THE NEW METHODOLOGY IN
PRACTICE
Irrespective of where one chooses to
start, the authors distinguish the
following steps for a change intervention:
new business mission. Or, on the other
hand, to develop a new business mission that
is compatible with our existing corporate
culture.’
In their research and work with clients,
the authors have found that the change
process of an organisation is the essence of
a leader’s raison d’être (discussed in
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner,
2002). In the change process, a leader
essentially is facing dilemmas he or she

needs to reconcile in the areas of people,
time and nature. Successful leaders do not
change from one horn of the dilemma to
its opposite horn. They are not trying to
compromise between extremes of value
orientations, from extreme individualism
to teamwork, from universal rules to
learning exceptions, from performance
expectations to the respect for seniority.
The leader with success tries to integrate
seemingly opposing orientations into a
process that changes the qualities of each
of the orientations.
TYPICAL DILEMMA ORIGINATING
FROM THE QUEST FOR THE GUIDED
MISSILE
It is striking how the Anglo-Saxon
model of change has dominated the
world of change management. A
company formulates a set of new goals,
preferably in the context of a clear
vision, hires some managers for a
marginal $300,000 a year (excluding the
bonus obviously) and dumps the ones
that do not believe in its clearly defined
goals. In this Guided Missile-driven
model, the organisation is interpreted as
a task-oriented instrument at the disposal
of shareholders (remember, people who
never share) and where managers have
an MBA and employees are called
human resources. With that name
brainwashing, it hurts less when one is
kicked out: ‘Gee, I was just a resource.’

to develop a sense of what one stands
for
4. defining the ideal corporate culture
with CCAP embedding core values
and key purpose
5. defining major business dilemmas
caused by the tensions between
1. developing an envisioned future in
order to develop a sense of what to
go for
2. diagnosing the current corporate
culture with the cross-cultural
assessment profiler (CCAP)
3. defining core values and key purpose
Table 3 Repeating dilemmas found for the different scenarios
Current: Guided Missile Ideal: Incubator

Typical dilemmas
Leadership Depersonalised authority versus development of
creative individuals
Reconciliation Attribute the highest authority to those managers
who have innovation
and learning as prime critera in their goals
Management Consistent goal-orientation around task versus the
power of learning
Reconciliation Make learning and innovation part of the task
description
Rewards Extrinsic reward job done versus intrinsic reward self-
development
Reconciliation Describe task in terms of clearly stated
innovation outputs
Current: Guided Missile Ideal: Family
Typical dilemmas
Leadership Depersonalised authority versus authority is
personally ascribed to the
leader
who have made
internalisation of subtle processes a prime criterion in their
goals
Management Consistent goal-orientation around task versus the
power of politics and
know-who
Reconciliation Makes political sensitivity part of the task
description

Rewards Extrinsic reward job done versus reward long-term
loyalty
Reconciliation Describe task in terms of loosely stated long-
term outputs
Current: Guided Missile Ideal: Eiffel Tower
Typical dilemmas
Leadership Depersonalised authority versus authority ascribed
to the role
who have made reliable
application of expertise a prime criterion in their goals
Management Consistent goal-orientation around task versus
expertise and reliability
Reconciliation Make reliable expertise and long-term
commitment part of the task
description
Rewards Contribution to the bottom line versus increasing their
expertise in doing
a reliable job
Reconciliation Describe task in terms of expertise and
reliability in its application

(continued)
Current: Incubator Ideal: Guided Missile
Typical dilemmas
Leadership Development of creative individuals versus
depersonalised authority
who have innovation
and learning as prime criteria in their goals
Management Versus consistent goal-orientation around task
Reconciliation Make learning and innovation part of the task
description
Rewards Intrinsic reward self-development versus extrinsic
reward job done
Reconciliation Describe task in terms of clearly stated
innovation outputs
Current: Incubator Ideal: Family
Typical dilemmas
Leadership Negation of authority versus authority is personally
ascribed to the
leader
Reconciliation Get the support of the leaders so they underline
themselves the
importance of learning and creativity; they become servant
leaders of
learning
Management The power of learning around innovation versus
the power of politics

and know-who
Reconciliation Celebrate the achievements of the present
learning environment, to
take the best practices from them, personalise them and make
them
historical events
Rewards Intrinsic reward self-development versus reward long-
term loyalty
Reconciliation Members are personally held accountable for the
long-term
commitment to the company
Current: Incubator Ideal: Eiffel Tower
Typical dilemmas
Leadership Negation of authority versus authority is ascribed to
the role
Reconciliation To hold the innovators responsible for the
reliability of their output
Management The power of learning around innovation versus
power of expertise
and reliability
Reconciliation Decentralise the organisation into more learning
centres where roles
are described in a very sharp way and aimed at learning and
innovation
Rewards Intrinsic reward self-development versus increasing
their expertise in
doing a reliable job

Reconciliation Use creativity and knowledge to build reliable
systems and procedures
enabling them to become even better in their creations
(continued)
Current: Family Ideal: Incubator
Typical dilemmas
Leadership Authority is personally ascribed to leader versus
development of
creative individuals
Reconciliation To get the support of the leaders so they
underline themselves the
importance of learning and creativity; they become servant
leaders of
learning
Management The power of politics and know-who versus the
power of learning
Reconciliation Take the best practices from the past, codify
them, and apply them to
the present learning environment
Rewards Long-term loyalty versus intrinsic reward self-

development
Reconciliation Members are personally held accountable to
motivate creative
individuals and create learning environments
Current: Family Ideal: Guided Missile
Typical dilemmas
Leadership Authority is personally ascribed to the leader versus
depersonalised
authority
who have made
internalisation of subtle processes a prime criterion in their
goals
Management The power of politics and know-who versus
consistent
goal-orientation around task
Reconciliation Makes political sensitivity part of the task
description
Rewards Reward long-term loyalty versus extrinsic reward job
done
Reconciliation Describe task in terms of loosely stated long-
term outputs
Current: Family Ideal: Eiffel Tower
Typical dilemmas
Leadership Authority is personally ascribed to the leader versus
authority ascribed

to the role
Reconciliation Management needs to understand the technical
aspects of the activities
they manage; they become servant leaders of experts
Management The power of politics and know-who versus
expertise and reliability
Reconciliation Get the support of management for the
implementation of crucial
systems and procedures
Rewards Reward long-term loyalty versus increasing expertise
in doing a
reliable job
Reconciliation Members apply their power to the advantage of
increasing the
expertise of their colleagues
dilemmas their leader(s) are facing in
business. So an Incubator culture is
often the result of a leader who strives
for a core value of entrepreneurship
and innovation while having an
envisioned future of becoming the
most path-breaking organisation in the
field of cross-cultural management
thinking and consulting. A Guided
Missile culture is a much better-suited
context for leaders who want to help
clients gain the highest return on their
investments in the financial service

sector while holding a core value of
integrity and transparency.
But business environments and
challenges are changing continuously.
Once an organisational culture has
established itself, it creates new
dilemmas (or its changing environment
will) on a higher level. For example, a
dominant Incubator culture can create
a business environment where many
innovative ideas are born but where
the management and commercialisation
of these fails on aspects of a more
market-sensitive Guided Missile culture.
Conversely, a dominant Guided Missile
culture can lead to an environment
where employees are so much guided
by their market price that it needs a
Family culture to create a necessary
longer-term vision and commitment.
By asking leaders of organisations to
phrase the major tensions they feel as ‘on
the one hand . . . on the other . . .’, the
authors linguistically programme them to
see both sides of the equation. In order
to facilitate this balance in the approach,
as well as the link to business, a number
of pro-formas are used to elicit the basic
description of their current and ideal
organisational culture profiles,
components they want to retain and
discard, as in the basic framework shown
in Table 4.

It is ensured that the various lists
comprise those that are most crucial to
envisioned future and key purpose
and between current and ideal
corporate cultures
6. reconciling four or five major business
dilemmas
7. diagnosing the current leadership
competence to reconcile major value
dilemmas
8. implementing new design and
defining concrete action points to be
taken as defined by the change agents.
The fifth step is crucial because it
integrates business and cultural
challenges. The authors do not believe
that a change process can be genuine
if strategic business issues and cultural
values are disconnected. Unfortunately,
this is often the case in change
practice. But the key proposition is
that, from the inputs of the envisioned
future, core values and key purpose,
and between current and ideal
corporate cultures, all the ingredients
are available to stimulate management
to think about what basic dilemmas
they need to resolve from their actual
business to the desired one.
The dilemmas are best phrased as

‘on the one hand . . . on the other . . .’.
Participants are often invited to phrase
the tensions they feel in actual business
life and then relate them to the
tensions they feel between current and
ideal cultures. So, for example, as an
actual business tension ‘I feel that our
organization is so much focused on
next quarter results, we don’t have
enough time to be creative and come
up with our next generation of
innovations’. This would be consistent
with the scenario in which the current
corporate culture is a Guided Missile
and the dominant espoused profile is
an Incubator.
It is often found that a certain
organisational culture has developed
because the context best suits the main
axis in order to invite participants to
have the current values and behaviour
dialogue with the ideal ones. This
dialogue is essentially stimulated by
asking the question: ‘How can we,
through the current value or behaviour
that we want to keep, get more of the
ideal value or behaviour we want to

strive for?’. To stick to the previous
examples, the essence of reconciliation is
achieved when one can answer the
question: ‘How can we, through focusing
on our reliable technology, get better
informed by our customers?’ or ‘How
can we, through coaching our young
graduates, increase the income of this
quarter?’. Note that one needs to change
the ‘natural’ mindset quite fundamentally.
The traditional change processes often
enquire about how one can change from
one (current) value or behaviour to
another (desired) set of values or
behaviour. The creative juices that are
flowing from the integration of
seemingly opposing values is astonishing.
But also from a process standpoint,
resistance to change is often broken (at
least conceptually) because of the need to
keep and further develop the values that
are positively graded about the existing
state of the organisation. It is a process
of enriching values through change
rather than replacing one value or
reconcile in view of the envisioned
future. It is ensured that the formulation
of the horns of the dilemma are both
desirable and are linked to business
issues. Examples are: ‘on the one hand
we need to focus on reliable technology
(typical for a dominant Eiffel Tower
culture) while on the other we need to
be constantly informed by our main
customers (typical for dominant Guided

Missile)’, or ‘on the one hand we need
to constantly mentor and coach our
young graduates for constant learning
(Incubator) while on the other hand we
need to focus on the income of this
quarter (Guided Missile)’, or ‘on the one
hand we need to develop and sustain a
loyal workforce and thrive on rapport
(Family) while on the other hand we
need to be able to judge their
performance based on report (Guided
Missile)’.
RECONCILING THE CHANGE
TENSIONS
The introductory and overview nature of
this paper does not allow all the detailed
steps of the reconciliation process to be
covered, but Figure 2 shows the basic
template used to represent the dilemma
graphically.
Essentially, this template uses a dual
Table 4 Basic pro-forma framework
On the one hand, we want more and/or keep the
following values and behaviour of our current
organisation:
On the other hand, we need to develop the following

values and behaviour for supporting our envisioned
future and core values:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Figure 2 The
basic dilemma
template
Table 5 Guidance template for action to be taken
I. In order to reconcile the first dilemma we need to be taking
the following steps in the following areas of
attention:
The Market (think about what you could do in
areas of customers, time-to-market response,
flow of information from and to customers)

Structure and design (consider what could be
done in areas of the design of your
organisation, both formally and informally, basic
flows of materials and information)
Human Resources (consider areas such as
management development, staff planning,
appraisal and rewards)
Strategy and Envisioned Future (review vision of
leaders, mission statements, goals, objectives,
business plans and the like)
Business Systems (what can you do in areas of
IT systems, knowledge management,
manufacturing information, quality systems etc)
Core Values (think about action points that
could enhance the clarity of values, how to
better translate them into behaviour and action
etc)
II. Who is taking action and carries responsibility
(consider for each of the possible action points who is
responsible for the outcome)
III. How to monitor the change process (consider
milestones and qualitative and quantitative measures
of genuine change)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
10/1
Value/behaviour taken
too far
Reconciled value/behaviour
1/10
Value/behaviour
taken too far
Ideal value/behaviour that one needs to further develop
C
ur
re
nt
v
al
ue
/b
eh
av
io
ur

t
ha
t
on
e
w
an
ts
t
o
ke
ep
proactively to ‘fill the gaps’ in their
enquiry. The extensive data from these
multiple sources serve to provide
triangulation to the evidence. The
authors can claim high reliability from
the volume quantitative
questionnaire-based studies and high
validity from in-depth interviewing,
consulting and coaching.
CONCLUSIONS
Through the above methodology, the
authors have helped many client
organisations to reconcile such dilemmas.
Of course, as soon as one is removed,
another pops up. But in today’s rapidly

changing ever oligopolistic world, it is the
very essence of organisations. The aim has
been to raise the debate for a new logic
for the management of change.
REFERENCES
Cameron, K. and Quinn, R. (1998)
Diagnosing and Changing Organizational
Culture: Based on the Competing Values
Framework, Addison-Wesley Series on
Organization Development,
Addison-Wesley, Inc, Reading, MA.
Hampden-Turner, C. (1992) Charting the
Corporate Mind, Blackwell, London.
Handy, C. (1993) Understanding Organisations,
Penguin Business, Penguin Books,
London.
Lewin, K. (1947) Resolving Social Conflicts:
Selected Papers On Group Dynamics, Harper,
New York.
Senge, P. (ed.) (2001) The Dance of Change:
The Challengers to Sustaining momentum in
Learning Organizations, Doubleday, New
York.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C.
(2002) 21 Leaders for the 21st Century,
Capstone, London.
behaviour by another. Be aware that the
spiral starts at the side of the current

value/behaviour axis and goes through
the aspired value to an end somewhere
at 10/10, where both values are
integrated on a higher reconciled state.
Once this position has been achieved
conceptually, it is time for the final
stages.
Once the leader or groups of relevant
leaders are in agreement on the dilemmas
that need to be reconciled, the action
points to be taken evolve naturally. Very
often, it is crucial to know the typical
levers that need to be pulled in an
organisation to increase the effective
actions that need to be taken. This is
very often dependent on the type of
organisational culture that the
organisation currently holds. In
family-oriented cultures, the function of
HR often plays a crucial role, while
marketing and finance dominate in the
Guided Missile cultures. The best levers
to be pulled in the Incubator are often
related to learning systems and intrinsic
rewards, while, in the Eiffel Tower
systems, procedures and manufacturing
often play a crucial role. The template in
Table 5 has been used to give some
guidance for looking at the action points
to be taken.
METHODOLOGY
Throughout this research, a broadly
inductive approach has been adopted
— with both quantitative and

qualitative data collection and analysis.
Data have been accumulated over time
from consulting, as and when it arose
based on client needs, but also the
authors have sought to collect data
Copyright of Journal of Change Management is the property of
Routledge and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for
individual use.
In the Eye of the Beholder:
Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE
Mansour Javidan, Peter W. Dorfman, Mary Sully de Luque, and
Robert J. House*
Executive Overview
Global leadership has been identified as a critical success factor
for large multinational corporations. While
there is much writing on the topic, most seems to be either
general advice (i.e., being open minded and

respectful of other cultures) or very specific information about a
particular country based on a limited case
study (do not show the soles of your shoes when seated as a
guest in an Arab country). Both kinds of
information are certainly useful, but limited from both
theoretical and practical viewpoints on how to lead
in a foreign country. In this paper, findings from the Global
Leadership and Organizational Behavior
Effectiveness (GLOBE) research program are used to provide a
sound basis for conceptualizing worldwide
leadership differences. We use a hypothetical case of an
American executive in charge of four similar teams
in Brazil, France, Egypt, and China to discuss cultural
implications for the American executive. Using the
hypothetical case involving five different countries allows us to
provide in-depth action oriented and
context specific advice, congruent with GLOBE findings, for
effectively interacting with employees from
different cultures. We end the paper with a discussion of the
challenges facing global executives and how
corporations can develop useful global leadership capabilities.
Impact of Globalization
A
lmost no American corporation is immune
from the impact of globalization. The reality
for American corporations is that they must
increasingly cope with diverse cross-cultural em-
ployees, customers, suppliers, competitors, and
creditors, a situation well captured by the follow-
ing quote.
So I was visiting a businessman in downtown Jakarta the
other day and I asked for directions to my next appointment.

His exact instructions were: Go to the building with the
Armani Emporium upstairs—you know, just above the
Hard Rock café—and then turn right at McDonalds. “I just
looked at him and laughed, “Where am’ I?”
Thomas Friedman, New York Times, July 14, 1997
Notwithstanding Tom Friedman’s astonishment
about the global world in Jakarta, the fact is that
people are not generally aware of the tremendous
impact that national culture has on their vision
and interpretation of the world. Because culture
colors nearly every aspect of human behavior, a
working knowledge of culture and its influences
can be useful to executives operating in a multi-
cultural business environment. It is a truism by
now that large corporations need executives with
global mindsets and cross-cultural leadership abil-
ities. Foreign sales by multinational corporations
have exceeded $7 trillion and are growing 20
percent to 30 percent faster than their sales of
exports.1 But while the importance of such busi-
ness grows, 85 percent of Fortune 500 companies
have reported a shortage of global managers with
the necessary skills.2 Some experts have argued
that most U.S. companies are not positioned to
implement global strategies due to a lack of global
leadership capabilities.3
*Mansour Javidan is professor and director of the Garvin Center
for the Cultures and Languages of International Management at
Thunderbird, The Garvin School of International Management
in Arizona. He is on the board of directors of the GLOBE
(Global Leadership
and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) research program.

Contact [email protected]
Peter W. Dorfman is a full Professor in the Department of
Management, New Mexico State University. Contact:
[email protected]
Mary Sully de Luque is an Assistant Professor of Management
and a Research Fellow at Thunderbird, The Garvin School of
International
Management. Contact: [email protected]
Robert J. House holds the Joseph Frank Bernstein endowed
chair of Organizational Studies at the Wharton School of the
University of
Pennsylvania. Contact: [email protected]
2006 67Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, and House
How can companies best use the available in-
formation for executive development and, more-
over, what is the validity and value of such infor-
mation? U.S. and European executives have
plenty of general advice available to them on how
to perform in foreign settings. During the past few
years much has been written about global leader-
ship, including several books.4 Journals are also
getting into the global action as seen in The Hu-
man Resource Management Journal which recently
published a special issue on global leadership.5
Nevertheless, in a recent review of the literature,
Morrison concluded that despite the importance
of global leadership, “relatively little research has
thus far been carried out on global leadership
characteristics, competencies, antecedents, and
developmental strategies.”6
Advice to global managers needs to be specific
enough to help them understand how to act in

different surroundings. For example, managers
with an overseas assignment are frequently ex-
horted to have an open mind and to show respect
for other cultures.7 They may also be told of the
importance of cross-cultural relationship manage-
ment and communication. Some will wrestle with
the idea that they need to develop a global per-
spective while being responsive to local concerns.8
Or they may wonder if they have the “cognitive
complexity” and psychological maturity to handle
life and work in a foreign setting. And they are
likely to hear or read that they must “walk in the
shoes of people from different cultures” in order to
be effective.9 There is nothing wrong with such
advice, and the scholars and writers who proffer it
have often been pioneers in the field. But it is
insufficient for a manager who is likely to assume,
mistakenly, that being open minded in Atlanta,
Helsinki, and Beijing will be perceived identi-
cally, or that walking in someone else’s shoes will
feel the same in Houston, Jakarta, and Madrid.
Because of the lack of scientifically compiled in-
formation, businesspeople have not had suffi-
ciently detailed and context-specific suggestions
about how to handle these cross-cultural chal-
lenges. This is a particular problem for those in
leadership positions.
Although there are universal aspects of leader-
ship, information about which will be presented
shortly, people in different countries do in fact
have different criteria for assessing their leaders.10
The issue for the American manager is whether
the attributes that made him or her successful as a
leader in the United States will also lead to suc-

cess overseas, be of no value or, worst of all, cause
harm in the foreign operation. Using the findings
from an extensive research effort known as the
Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior
Effectiveness (GLOBE) project, this article pro-
vides a few answers to the questions about the
universal and culture specific aspects of leader-
ship. We will present specific information about
key cultural differences among nations and con-
nect the “dots” on how these differences influence
leadership. This information should help a typical
global executive better understand the leadership
challenges s/he faces while managing operations
outside the United States. It will also provide
suggestions on how to more effectively cope with
such challenges.
To make the GLOBE findings come alive, we
will follow a hypothetical American executive
who has been given two years to lead a project
based in four different countries: Brazil, France,
Egypt, and China. This hypothetical project in-
volves developing a somewhat similar product for
the four different markets. The project team in
each country is tasked with the marketing of a
new technology in the telecommunications indus-
try. The executive will work with local employees
in each location. Success will be determined by
two criteria: the executive’s ability to produce
results and to show effective leadership in differ-
ent cultures and settings.
The four countries represent different conti-
nents and very diverse cultures. Brazil is the most
populous and economically important South
American country. France is the largest, most

populous, and most economically developed Latin
European country. Egypt is the largest and most
populous Arab country. China is the fast growing
giant economy with unprecedented growth in its
economic and diplomatic power in the world. We
chose these countries to provide context specific
analysis leading to general recommendations for
global executives. Our choice of countries was
guided by our efforts to cover a wide range of
68 FebruaryAcademy of Management Perspectives
cultures. Before turning to our hypothetical sce-
nario, we will examine common cultural dimen-
sions that characterize nations and discuss why
these dimensions are important for the develop-
ment of global leaders.
Common Cultural Dimensions
T
o be open minded and to understand the cul-
tures of the different countries, managers need
to be able to compare their own cultures with
those of other countries. After a review of the
available literature, especially the work of Hofst-
ede, Trompenaars, and Kluckhohn and Strodt-
beck,11 GLOBE conceptualized and developed
measures of nine cultural dimensions. These are
aspects of a country’s culture that distinguish one
society from another and have important mana-
gerial implications. While a few of these dimen-
sions are similar to the work of other researchers,

the manner in which we conceptualized and op-
erationalized them was different.12 We reconcep-
tualized a few existing dimensions and developed
a few new dimensions. In all cases, the scales
designed to capture and measure these cultural
dimensions passed very rigorous psychometric tests.
A brief description of each cultural dimension is
provided below along with the basic research de-
sign of GLOBE. Further details can be found on
GLOBE’s website, http://www.thunderbird.edu/
wwwfiles/ms/globe/.
It might be noted that the GLOBE Project has
been called “the most ambitious study of global
leadership.”13 Our world-wide team of scholars
proposed and validated an integrated theory of the
relationship between culture and societal, organi-
zational, and leadership effectiveness. The 170
researchers worked together for ten years collect-
ing and analyzing data on cultural values and
practices and leadership attributes from over
17,000 managers in 62 societal cultures. The par-
ticipating managers were employed in telecommu-
nications, food, and banking industries. As one
output from the project, the 62 cultures were
ranked with respect to nine dimensions of their
cultures. We studied the effects of these dimen-
sions on expectations of leaders, as well as on
organizational practices in each society. The 62
societal cultures were also grouped into a more
parsimonious set of ten culture clusters (list pro-
vided in the next section). GLOBE studies cul-
tures in terms of their cultural practices (the ways
things are) and their cultural values (the way
things should be). The nine cultural attributes

(hereafter called culture dimensions) are:
Performance Orientation. The degree to which a
collective encourages and rewards (and should encour-
age and reward) group members for performance im-
provement and excellence. In countries like the U.S.
and Singapore that score high on this cultural practice,
businesses are likely to emphasize training and devel-
opment; in countries that score low, such as Russia and
Greece, family and background count for more.
Assertiveness. The degree to which individuals
are (and should be) assertive, confrontational, and
aggressive in their relationships with others. People in
highly assertive countries such as the United States
and Austria tend to have can-do attitudes and enjoy
competition in business; those in less assertive coun-
tries such as Sweden and New Zealand prefer harmony
in relationships and emphasize loyalty and solidarity.
Future Orientation. The extent to which individ-
uals engage (and should engage) in future-oriented
behaviors such as delaying gratification, planning, and
investing in the future. Organizations in countries with
high future oriented practices like Singapore and Swit-
zerland tend to have longer term horizons and more
systematic planning processes, but they tend to be
averse to risk taking and opportunistic decision mak-
ing. In contrast, corporations in the least future ori-
ented countries like Russia and Argentina tend to be
less systematic and more opportunistic in their actions.
Humane Orientation. The degree to which a col-
lective encourages and rewards ( and should encourage
and reward) individuals for being fair, altruistic, gen-
erous, caring, and kind to others. Countries like Egypt

and Malaysia rank very high on this cultural practice
and countries like France and Germany rank low.
Institutional Collectivism. The degree to which
organizational and societal institutional practices en-
courage and reward (and should encourage and re-
ward) collective distribution of resources and collec-
tive action. Organizations in collectivistic countries
like Singapore and Sweden tend to emphasize group
performance and rewards, whereas those in the more
individualistic countries like Greece and Brazil tend to
emphasize individual achievement and rewards.
In-Group Collectivism. The degree to which in-
dividuals express (and should express) pride, loyalty,
and cohesiveness in their organizations or families.
Societies like Egypt and Russia take pride in their
families and also take pride in the organizations that
employ them.
Gender Egalitarianism. The degree to which a col-
lective minimizes (and should minimize) gender in-
equality. Not surprisingly, European countries gener-
ally had the highest scores on gender egalitarianism
practices. Egypt and South Korea were among the most
male dominated societies in GLOBE. Organizations
operating in gender egalitarian societies tend to en-
courage tolerance for diversity of ideas and individuals.
Power Distance. The degree to which members of
a collective expect (and should expect) power to be
distributed equally. A high power distance score re-

flects unequal power distribution in a society. Coun-
tries that scored high on this cultural practice are more
stratified economically, socially, and politically; those
in positions of authority expect, and receive, obedi-
ence. Firms in high power distance countries like Thai-
land, Brazil, and France tend to have hierarchical
decision making processes with limited one-way par-
ticipation and communication.
Uncertainty Avoidance. The extent to which a
society, organization, or group relies (and should rely)
on social norms, rules, and procedures to alleviate
unpredictability of future events. The greater the de-
sire to avoid uncertainty, the more people seek order-
liness, consistency, structure, formal procedures and
laws to cover situations in their daily lives. Organiza-
tions in high uncertainty avoidance countries like Sin-
gapore and Switzerland tend to establish elaborate
processes and procedures and prefer formal detailed
strategies. In contrast, firms in low uncertainty avoid-
ance countries like Russia and Greece tend to prefer
simple processes and broadly stated strategies. They are
also opportunistic and enjoy risk taking.
Regional Clustering of GLOBE Nations
G
LOBE was able to empirically verify ten cul-
ture clusters from the 62-culture sample.
These culture clusters were identified as: Latin
America, Anglo, Latin Europe (e.g., Italy), Nordic
Europe, Germanic Europe, Confucian Asia, Sub-
Saharan Africa, Middle East, Southern Asia, and
Eastern Europe. Each culture cluster differs with

respect to the nine culture dimensions (e.g., per-
formance orientation). Table 1 shows a summary
of how the clusters compare in terms of their
scores on cultural practices. The clusters that are
relevant to this paper are in bold. For instance,
clusters scoring highest in performance orienta-
tion were Confucian Asia, Germanic Europe and
Anglo (U.S. and U.K. among other English-
speaking countries). Clusters scoring lowest in
performance orientation were Latin America and
Eastern Europe. The Appendix shows the actual
country scores for the six clusters in this paper.
Managing and Leading in Different Countries
G
iven the differences found in cultures around
the globe, what does an effective American
manager need to do differently in different
countries? Everything, nothing, or only certain
things? From a leadership perspective we can ask
whether the same attributes that lead to successful
leadership in the U.S. lead to success in other
countries. Or are they irrelevant or, even worse,
dysfunctional? In the following sections, we will
answer these questions. We will examine some
similarities and differences among cultures regard-
ing management and leadership practices. We
then assert that many of the leadership differences
found among cultures stem from implicit leader-
ship beliefs held by members of different nations.
Expatriate managers working in multinational
companies hardly need to be reminded of the wide
variety of management practices found around the

world. Laurent, and more recently Trompenaars
and Briscoe and Shuler,14 document the astonish-
ing diversity of organizational practices world-
wide, many of which are acceptable and consid-
ered effective in one country but ineffective in
another country. For instance, supervisors are ex-
pected to have precise answers to subordinates’
questions in Japan, but less so in the United
States. As another example, the effectiveness of
working alone or in a group is perceived very
differently around the world; this would certainly
influence the quality, aptitude, and fair evaluation
of virtual teams found in multinational organiza-
tions.15 An inescapable conclusion is that accept-
able management practices found in one country
are hardly guaranteed to work in a different coun-
Table 1
Cultural Clusters Classified on Societal Culture Practices (As
Is) Scores
Cultural Dimension High-Score Clusters Mid-Score Clusters
Low-Score Clusters Cluster-Average Range
Performance Orientation Confucian Asia Southern Asia Latin
America 3.73–4.58
Germanic Europe Sub-Saharan Africa Eastern Europe
Anglo Latin Europe
Nordic Europe

Middle East
Assertiveness Germanic Europe Sub-Saharan Africa Nordic
Europe 3.66–4.55
Eastern Europe Latin America
Anglo
Middle East
Confucian Asia
Latin Europe
Southern Asia
Future Orientation Germanic Europe Confucian Asia Middle
East 3.38–4.40
Nordic Europe Anglo Latin America
Southern Asia Eastern Europe
Sub-Saharan Africa
Latin Europe
Humane Orientation Southern Asia Middle East Latin Europe
3.55–4.71
Sub-Saharan Africa Anglo Germanic Europe
Nordic Europe

Latin America
Confucian Asia
Eastern Europe
Institutional Collectivism Nordic Europe Anglo Germanic
Europe 3.86–4.88
Confucian Asia Southern Asia Latin Europe
Sub-Saharan Africa Latin America
Middle East
Eastern Europe
In-Group Collectivism Southern Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Anglo
3.75–5.87
Middle East Latin Europe Germanic Europe
Eastern Europe Nordic Europe
Latin America
Confucian Asia
Gender Egalitarianism Eastern Europe Latin America Middle
East 2.95–3.84
Nordic Europe Anglo
Latin Europe
Sub-Saharan Africa

Southern Asia
Confucian Asia
Germanic Europe
Power Distance Southern Asia Nordic Europe 4.54–5.39
Latin America
Eastern Europe
Sub-Saharan Africa
Middle East
Latin Europe
Confucian Asia
Anglo
Germanic Europe
Uncertainty Avoidance Nordic Europe Confucian Asia Middle
East 3.56–5.19
Germanic Europe Anglo Latin America
Sub-Saharan Africa Eastern Europe
Latin Europe
Southern Asia

NOTE: Means of high-score clusters are significantly higher (p
� 0.05) than the rest, means of low-score clusters are
significantly lower
(p � 0.05) than the rest, and means of mid-score clusters are not
significantly different from the rest (p � 0.05).
try. Titus Lokananta, for example, is an Indone-
sian Cantonese holding a German passport, man-
aging a Mexican multinational corporation
producing Gummy Bears in the Czech Republic.16
What management style will he be most comfort-
able with, and will it be successful with Czech
workers and Mexican CEOs? How does he effec-
tively manage if a conflict evolves between man-
aging his workers and satisfying his supervisors?
Should we, however, conclude that cultural
differences are so vast that common management
practices among countries are the exception
rather than the rule and will ever remain so? Not
necessarily. Companies are forced to share infor-
mation, resources, and training in a global econ-
omy. The best business schools educate managers
from all over the world in the latest management
techniques. Using academic jargon, the issue of
common versus unique business and management
practices is framed using contrasting perspectives
embodied in the terms cultural universals versus
cultural specifics. The former are thought to be
found from the process of cultural convergence
whereas the latter from maintaining cultural di-
vergence. Perhaps not surprisingly, empirical re-

search supports both views. For example, in their
event management leadership research program
Smith and Peterson found both commonalities
and differences across cultures in the manner by
which managers handled relatively routine events
in their work.17 All managers preferred to rely on
their own experience and training if appointing a
new subordinate, relative to other influences such
as consultation with others or using formal rules
and procedures. However, there were major dif-
ferences in countries in the degree to which man-
agers used formal company rules and procedures in
contrast to more informal networks, and these
differences covary with national cultural values.18
As another example, Hazucha and colleagues19
found a good deal of similarity among European
countries regarding the importance of core man-
agement competencies for a Euromanager. Yet
there were significant differences among countries
in the perceived attainment of these skills. Javi-
dan and Carl have recently shown important sim-
ilarities and differences among Canadian, Taiwan-
ese, and Iranian managers in terms of their
leadership styles.20
Should we also expect that leadership pro-
cesses, like management practices, are similarly
influenced by culture? The answer is yes; substan-
tial empirical evidence indicates that leader at-
tributes, behavior, status, and influence vary con-
siderably as a result of culturally unique forces in
the countries or regions in which the leaders func-
tion.21 But, as the colloquial saying goes “the devil
is in the details,” and current cross-cultural theory
is inadequate to clarify and expand on the diverse

cultural universals and cultural specifics eluci-
dated in cross-cultural research. Some researchers
subscribe to the philosophy that the primary im-
pact of culture depends on the level of analysis
used in the research program. That is, some view
the basic functions of leadership as having univer-
sal importance and applicability, but the specific
ways in which leadership functions are enacted are
strongly affected by cultural variation.22 Other
researchers, including the contributors to this ar-
ticle, question this basic assumption, subscribing
more to the viewpoint that cultural specifics are
real and woe to the leader who ignores them.
Do Required Leadership Qualities Differ
Among Nations?
I
t has been pointed out that managerial leader-
ship differences (and similarities) among nations
may be the result of the citizens’ implicit as-
sumptions regarding requisite leadership quali-
ties.23 According to implicit leadership theory
(ILT), individuals hold a set of beliefs about the
kinds of attributes, personality characteristics,
skills, and behaviors that contribute to or impede
outstanding leadership. These belief systems, var-
iously referred to as prototypes, cognitive catego-
ries, mental models, schemas, and stereotypes in
the broader social cognitive literature, are as-
sumed to affect the extent to which an individual
accepts and responds to others as leaders.24
GLOBE extended ILT to the cultural level of
analysis by arguing that the structure and content

of these belief systems will be shared among indi-
viduals in common cultures. We refer to this
shared cultural level analog of individual implicit
leadership theory (ILT) as culturally endorsed im-
plicit leadership theory (CLT). GLOBE empirically
identified universally perceived leadership at-
tributes that are contributors to or inhibitors of
outstanding leadership. Project GLOBE’s leader-
ship questionnaire items consisted of 112 behav-
ioral and attribute descriptors (e.g., “intelligent”)
that were hypothesized to either facilitate or im-
pede outstanding leadership. Accompanying each
item was a short phrase designed to help interpret
the item. Items were rated on a 7-point Likert-
type scale that ranged from a low of 1 (this be-
havior or characteristic greatly inhibits a person
from being an outstanding leader) to a high of 7
(this behavior or characteristic contributes greatly
to a person being an outstanding leader). Project
GLOBE also empirically reduced the huge number
of leadership attributes into a much more under-
standable, comprehensive grouping of 21 primary
and then 6 global leadership dimensions. The 6
global leadership dimensions differentiate cultural
profiles of desired leadership qualities, hereafter
referred to as a CLT profile. Convincing evidence
from GLOBE research showed that people within
cultural groups agree in their beliefs about leader-
ship; these beliefs are represented by a set of CLT
leadership profiles developed for each national cul-
ture and cluster of cultures. For detailed descrip-

tions of the statistical processes used to form the
21 primary and 6 global leadership dimensions
and development of CLT profiles see House et
al.25 Using the six country scenarios, in the last
half of this paper we will show the range of lead-
ership responses that should be effective in each
cultural setting. The six dimensions of the CLT
leadership profiles are:
1. Charismatic/Value-Based. A broadly defined
leadership dimension that reflects the ability to
inspire, to motivate, and to expect high perfor-
mance outcomes from others on the basis of
firmly held core beliefs. Charismatic/value-
based leadership is generally reported to con-
tribute to outstanding leadership. The highest
reported score is in the Anglo cluster (6.05);
the lowest score in the Middle East cluster
(5.35 out of a 7-point scale).
2. Team-Oriented. A leadership dimension that
emphasizes effective team building and imple-
mentation of a common purpose or goal among
team members. Team-oriented leadership is
generally reported to contribute to outstanding
leadership (Highest score in Latin American
cluster (5.96); lowest score in Middle East clus-
ter (5.47)).
3. Participative. A leadership dimension that re-
flects the degree to which managers involve
others in making and implementing decisions.
Participative leadership is generally reported to
contribute to outstanding leadership, although
there are meaningful differences among coun-

tries and clusters. (Highest score in Germanic
Europe cluster (5.86); lowest score in Middle
East cluster (4.97)).
4. Humane-Oriented. A leadership dimension
that reflects supportive and considerate leader-
ship but also includes compassion and gener-
osity. Humane-oriented leadership is reported
to be almost neutral in some societies and to
moderately contribute to outstanding leader-
ship in others. (Highest score in Southern Asia
cluster (5.38); lowest score in Nordic Europe
cluster (4.42)).
5. Autonomous. This newly defined leadership
dimension, which has not previously appeared
in the literature, refers to independent and
individualistic leadership. Autonomous leader-
ship is reported to range from impeding out-
standing leadership to slightly facilitating out-
standing leadership. (Highest score in Eastern
Europe cluster (4.20); lowest score in Latin
America cluster (3.51)).
6. Self-Protective. From a Western perspective,
this newly defined leadership dimension fo-
cuses on ensuring the safety and security of the
individual. It is self-centered and face saving in
its approach. Self-protective leadership is gen-
erally reported to impede outstanding leader-
ship. (Highest score in Southern Asia cluster
(3.83); lowest in Nordic Europe (2.72)).
Table 2 presents CLT scores for all 10 clusters.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to de-
termine if the cultures and clusters differed with

respect to their CLT leadership profiles. Results
indicate that cultures (i.e., 62 societal cultures)
and clusters (i.e., 10 groups consisting of the 62
societal cultures) differed with respect to all six
CLT leadership dimensions (p � .01).
Table 3 presents summary comparisons among
culture clusters to indicate which clusters are most
likely to endorse or refute the importance of the 6
CLT leadership dimensions. Tables 2 and 3 may
be used in combination to provide an overall view
of how the different cultural clusters compare on
the six culturally implicit leadership dimensions.26
Cross-cultural Leadership Is Not Only
About Differences
The global and cross-cultural leadership literature
is almost exclusively focused on cultural differ-
ences and their implications for managers. There
is a basic assumption that leaders operating in
different countries will be facing drastically differ-
ent challenges and requirements. GLOBE surveys
show that while different countries do have diver-
Table 2
CLT Scores for Societal Clusters
Societal Cluster
CLT Dimensions

Charismatic/
Value-Based
Team
Oriented Participative
Humane
Oriented Autonomous Self-Protective
Eastern Europe 5.74 5.88 5.08 4.76 4.20 3.67
Latin America 5.99 5.96 5.42 4.85 3.51 3.62
Latin Europe 5.78 5.73 5.37 4.45 3.66 3.19
Confucian Asia 5.63 5.61 4.99 5.04 4.04 3.72
Nordic Europe 5.93 5.77 5.75 4.42 3.94 2.72
Anglo 6.05 5.74 5.73 5.08 3.82 3.08
Sub-Sahara Africa 5.79 5.70 5.31 5.16 3.63 3.55
Southern Asia 5.97 5.86 5.06 5.38 3.99 3.83
Germanic Europe 5.93 5.62 5.86 4.71 4.16 3.03
Middle East 5.35 5.47 4.97 4.80 3.68 3.79
NOTE: CLT leadership scores are absolute scores aggregated to
the cluster level.
Table 3
Summary of Comparisons for CLT Leadership Dimensions
Societal Cluster
CLT Leadership Dimensions
Charismatic/
Value-Based Team-Oriented Participative
Humane
Oriented Autonomous Self-Protective
Eastern Europe M M L M H/H H
Latin America H H M M L M/H

Latin Europe M/H M M L L M
Confucian Asia M M/H L M/H M H
Nordic Europe H M H L M L
Anglo H M H H M L
Sub-Sahara Africa M M M H L M
Southern Asia H M/H L H M H/H
Germanic Europe H M/L H M H/H L
Middle East L L L M M H/H
NOTE: For letters separated by a “/”, the first letter indicates
rank with respect to the absolute score, second letter with
respect to a
response bias corrected score.
H � high rank; M � medium rank; L � low rank.
H or L (bold) indicates Highest or Lowest cluster score for a
specific CLT dimension.
gent views on many aspects of leadership effec-
tiveness, they also have convergent views on some
other aspects. From the larger group of leader
behaviors, we found 22 attributes that were uni-
versally deemed to be desirable. Being honest,
decisive, motivational, and dynamic are examples
of attributes that are believed to facilitate out-
standing leadership in all GLOBE countries. Fur-
thermore, we found eight leadership attributes
that are universally undesirable. Leaders who are
loners, irritable, egocentric, and ruthless are
deemed ineffective in all GLOBE countries. Table
4 below shows a few examples of universally de-
sirable, universally undesirable, and culturally
contingent leadership attributes.

Identifying universally desirable and undesir-
able leadership attributes is a critical step in effec-
tive cross-cultural leadership. It shows managers
that while there are differences among countries,
there are also similarities. Such similarities give
some degree of comfort and ease to leaders and
can be used by them as a foundation to build on.
Of course, there may still be differences in how
leaders enact such attributes. For example, behav-
iors that embody dynamic leadership in China
may be different from those that denote the same
attribute in the U.S. Current research currently
under way by GLOBE team members is focused on
this issue.
Understanding Culturally Contingent Leadership
In this section, we will focus on those attributes of
leadership that were found to be culturally con-
tingent. These are attributes that may work effec-
tively in one culture but cause harm in others. To
provide an action oriented analysis, we explore
differences in effective leadership attributes
among the four countries in our hypothetical sce-
nario and discuss specific implications of these
differences for our hypothetical American man-
ager. Admittedly, we are being ethnocentric using
the American manager as the focal person who
finds himself/herself managing in a foreign cul-
ture. Obviously, expatriate managers are found
from virtually all industrialized nations; however,
there are over 200,000 U.S. expatriates world-
wide.27 Nevertheless, expatriates from non-Amer-
ican and non-Western countries should be able to

identify with cultural differences between their
culture and that of the comparison countries.
GLOBE cultural data for the five comparison
countries can be found in Table 1 and the Ap-
pendix. Please note the United States, Brazil, and
France are part of the Anglo, Latin American, and
Latin European, clusters, respectively. Egypt, and
China part of the Middle East, and Confucian
Asia clusters respectively.
Each section below begins with a summary of
how each culture cluster fares with respect to the
CLT profile. We then show how the countries of
interest in this paper compare on specific leader-
ship attributes that are culturally contingent.
Next, we examine in detail what these differences
mean and what they imply for the hypothetical
American executive.
Brazil
Brazil is part of GLOBE’s Latin American cluster.
Viewing Tables 2 and 3, it is apparent that the
CLT leadership dimensions contributing the most
to outstanding leadership in this country cluster
include Charismatic/Value-Based and Team Ori-
ented leadership, followed by the Participative
and Humane Oriented CLT dimensions. Auton-
omous and Self-Protective leadership are viewed
Table 4
Cultural Views of Leadership Effectiveness
The following is a partial list of leadership attributes with the
corresponding
primary leadership dimension in parentheses.

Universal Facilitators of Leadership Effectiveness
● Being trustworthy, just, and honest (integrity)
● Having foresight and planning ahead (charismatic–visionary)
● Being positive, dynamic, encouraging, motivating, and
building confidence
(charismatic–inspirational)
● Being communicative, informed, a coordinator, and team
integrator (team
builder)
Universal Impediments to Leadership Effectiveness
● Being a loner and asocial (self-protective)
● Being non-cooperative and irritable (malevolent)
● Being dictatorial (autocratic)
Culturally Contingent Endorsement of Leader Attributes
● Being individualistic (autonomous)
● Being status conscious (status conscious)
● Being a risk taker (charismatic III: self-sacrificial)
as slightly negative. Table 3 shows that the Latin
America cluster receives the highest rank for the
Team Oriented dimension, among the highest
ranks for Charismatic/Value-Based leadership,
and ranks lowest with respect to the Autonomous
CLT leadership dimension. It occupies the middle
ranks for the remaining CLT dimensions.
Figure 1 below contrasts the U.S. and Brazil on
the culturally contingent leadership items. Per-
haps due to their high in-group collectivism, Bra-

zilian managers intensely dislike the leaders who
are individualistic, autonomous, and independent.
A Brazilian sales manager working in the petro-
chemical industry recently reflected this suggest-
ing, “We do not prefer leaders who take self-
governing decisions and act alone without
engaging the group. That’s part of who we are.”
While American managers also frown upon these
attributes, they do not regard them as negatively
as do the Brazilians. An American manager needs
to be more cognizant to make sure that his/her
actions and decisions are not interpreted as indi-
vidualistic. He/she needs to ensure that the group
or unit feels involved in decision making and that
others’ views and reactions are taken into consid-
eration.
On the other hand, Brazilian managers expect
their leaders to be class- and status-conscious.
They want leaders to be aware of status boundaries
and to respect them. A manager in a large com-
pany in Brazil noted that blue and white-collar
workers from the same company rarely socialize
together within and outside of work. They expect
leaders to treat people according to their social
and organizational levels. Perhaps due to their
high power distance culture, Brazilians believe
that people in positions of authority deserve to be
treated with respect and deference. They prefer a
formal relationship between the leader and fol-
lowers. The same petrochemical sales manager
told how Brazilian subordinates tend to stay out-
side of the perceived boundaries of their leaders
and respect their own decision-making limita-
tions. He added, “It’s clear who has the most

power in the work environment in Brazil, but in
America this is not always the case.” Americans
tend to frown on status and class consciousness.
Respect, to an American manager, does not nec-
essarily mean deference but mutual respect and
open dialogue. Americans tend to see formality as
an obstacle to open debate. But what seems an
open debate to an American manager may be
viewed as aggressive and unacceptable behavior
on the part of the subordinates by a Brazilian
manager. So, while Brazilians do not like individ-
ualistic leaders, a typical American manager
should be cautious using an open style of decision
making. While it may be a good idea in an Amer-
ican organization to directly contact anyone with
the right information regardless of their level,
such behavior may be seen as a sign of disrespect
to those in formal positions in a Brazilian organi-
zation.
Another important difference is that American
managers prefer a less cautious approach and a
greater degree of risk taking. In contrast, Brazilian
managers prefer a somewhat more cautious and
risk averse approach. This is consistent with the
finding that U.S. culture is more tolerant of un-
certainty than is Brazilian culture. Also, perhaps
due to stronger assertiveness and performance ori-
entation in American culture, U.S. managers
seem to favor a speedier decision making process
and a higher level of action orientation. Brazilians
on the other hand, may be more sensitive to group
harmony and risk avoidance. A Brazilian account
manager leading a four-company consortium
working on a $200 million U.S. contract with the

Figure 1
USA vs. Brazil
Federal Department of Roads in Brazil realized this
when a conflict occurred among the consortium
players. He noted,
Since our contract was a long-term relationship, we could
not focus only on the particular moment. I had to find a
way to motivate and to build a trusting environment. The
only way to do so was to promote several meetings with all
the consortium members trying to find a way to put all the
members back together. By doing this, I assumed this was
the best action to produce results, no matter how difficult
it was or how much time it required.
Still another difference relates to the strong in-
group collectivism dimension of the Brazilian cul-
ture. They expect their leaders to avoid conflict
within the group to protect its harmony, but at the
same time they like their leaders to induce conflict
with those outside the group. A particularly suc-
cessful executive working in Brazil told how Bra-
zilians take pride in membership in small groups,
especially families. In business, he said that people
who are members of the same group expect special
treatment (such as price discounts, exclusivity of
contracts, etc.). In fact, without these group affil-
iations, attracting and conducting business can be
difficult. American managers seem to dislike both
these attributes, perhaps due to their stronger per-
formance orientation culture. Avoiding internal

conflict, simply to maintain group harmony, even
at the expense of results, is not a positive attribute
to Americans. The typical American view of har-
mony is reflected in the following quote from the
popular book Execution by Bossidy and Charan:28
Indeed, harmony—sought out by many leaders who wish
to offend no one— can be the enemy of truth. It can
squelch critical thinking and drive decision making under-
ground. When harmony prevails, here’s how things often
get settled: after the key players leave the session, they
quietly veto decisions they didn’t like but didn’t debate on
the spot. A good motto to observe is: “Truth over har-
mony.”
Last, but not least, an important and counter
intuitive finding is that American respondents
have a much stronger desire for compassion in
their leaders. They want their leaders to be em-
pathetic and merciful. The Brazilian respondents,
on the other hand, are quite neutral about this
attribute. While this seems to go against the con-
ventional stereotypes of Americans and Brazilians,
it seems to be rooted in the fact that Brazil is
reported to be a less humane culture than is the
U.S. Confirming this finding, one manager stated
that this reflects the expectation that people
should solve their own problems, relying on help
from their family or groups.
When in Brazil . . .
Here are a few specific ideas on what our hypo-
thetical American manager needs to do when he
starts working with his Brazilian team:

Module 7 - The Ideas of Fons Trompenaars Country Profiles & Onlin.docx

Module 7 - The Ideas of Fons Trompenaars Country Profiles & Onlin.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Module 7 - The Ideas of Fons Trompenaars Country Profiles & Onlin.docx

Similar to Module 7 - The Ideas of Fons Trompenaars Country Profiles & Onlin.docx (19)

More from moirarandell

More from moirarandell (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Module 7 - The Ideas of Fons Trompenaars Country Profiles & Onlin.docx