Power point 10 slides-apa format Cultural Brief

For this assignment, imagine that you have been tasked with preparing a cultural brief for an upcoming trip that will put you and your travel companions in touch with a different societal cluster. Choose one cluster other than the one in which you currently operate, and create a PowerPoint presentation that addresses the following items:

List and describe the cultural cluster that will be visited.

Provide information on cultural norms from the cluster to be visited, including specific information from the GLOBE study

BBA 3651,

(see article by Javidan, Dorfman, De Luque, and House in the unit’s required readings).

Describe the leadership approaches preferred in the cluster that will be visited.

Describe considerations for leading multicultural teams.

Utilize the in-class materials to support the content of this presentation and include at least two images in your presentation.

Your PowerPoint presentation should be 10 slides in length. The title and reference slides do not count toward the total slide count.

Be sure to include the rubric elements from the guidelines below:

Your presentation should have originality, and the content should be presented in a unique and interesting manner. The analysis should be thorough and full developed. The organization should be clear. The main points should be arranged logically to support the information provide, with similar ideas grouped together with smooth transitions. All graphics and texts should be appropriate, attractive, and support the theme and content. Be sure to use a consistent and appropriate background.

Any sources used should be properly cited and referenced according to APA format. The writing should be clear and concise with proper sentence structure, grammar, and punctuation, and it should be free from spelling errors.

Quality management:
a cross-cultural perspective based

on the GLOBE framework
Alessandra Vecchi

London College of Fashion, University of London Arts, London, UK, and

Louis Brenna

School of Business, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address the extent to which quality management i

“culture-specific”

Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents the results of a survey administered across
21 countries that seeks to examine quality priorities and practices by adopting the global leadership
and organizational behaviour effectiveness (GLOBE) framework. Data were collected in 2006 as part of
the fourth iteration of the International Manufacturing Strategy Survey. The methodology involved
the use of a self-administered questionnaire to director/head of operations/manufacturing in best
practice firms within the sector of firms classified by ISIC codes (rev.3.1) Divisions 28-35.

Findings – From this study, it emerges that adopting the GLOBE framework provides an invaluable
insight into understanding quality management across countries. In particular, the findings show that
some national cultures are more conducive to the implementation of quality management than others.

Practical implications – The analysis of the data leads this paper to endorse the idea that through
an accumulation of scientific knowledge relevant to the applicability of quality management across
national settings, managers can better understand how to transfer best quality management practices
from one country to another.

Originality/value – While some previous research portrays quality management as a comprehensive
management paradigm with elements and relationships that transcend cultural and national boundaries,
the current study provides evidence that the adoption of certain quality practices across different countries
can follow distinctive patterns.

Keywords Quality management, Cultu

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Since the 1990s, many quality models have been widely adopted by firms, such as the
Deming Prize in Japan, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in the USA and the
European Quality Award in Europe as frameworks for implementing total quali

management (TQM). The widespread assumption is that these are operational
frameworks that reproduce TQM by capturing its main constituent parts and replicate
its core ideas in a clear and accessible language (Cua et al., 2001). However, TQM is an
approach to management embracing both social (“soft TQM”) and technical dimensions
(“hard TQM”). The social aspect focuses on human resource management and emphasises
leadership, teamwork, training and employee involvement. The technical dimension
reflects an orientation toward improving production methods and operations and seeks
through a systematic process to make possible the constant improvement of goods and
services to the customers. The management of these two sets of issues cannot be performed

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm

Quality
management

527

Received October 2009
Revised March 2010

June 2010
October 2010

Accepted November 2010

International Journal of Operations &
Production Management

Vol. 31 No. 5, 2011
pp. 527-

553

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0144-3577

DOI 10.1108/01443571111126319

in isolation. Soft and hard TQM should be interrelated and mutually support each other
reflecting the holistic character of TQM initiatives (Anwar and Jabnoun, 2006).

The commonly cited problems in the implementation of manufacturing programs are
those related to the soft dimension. In particular, cultural resistance to change, lack of
training and education (Crawford et al., 1988), lack of coordination of the different
departments and confusion in the relationship between manufacturing subsystems
(Safayeni et al., 1991) have been portrayed as being detrimental to the successful
implementation of manufacturing programs. These studies provide evidence of the
importance of the institution of common practices based on a shared understanding that
will facilitate the successful implementation of any TQM initiative. Moreover, according
to socio-technical systems theory the joint optimization of practices that are socially and
technically oriented should lead to good performance (Emery, 1990). For example,
Rehder (1989) argues for the importance of building manufacturing competitiveness
upon the integration and coordination of strategy, structure, culture and human resource
subsystems within a complex, changing environment. He shows that the concept of a
balanced socio-technical system is reflected in all subsystems of successful Japanese
transplants. Given the increasing importance of TQM and the close interrelation
between its social and technical dimensions, managers need to understand how and
what dimensions of national culture influence operation decisions.

Previous work on quality management attempts to address the issue of convergence or
divergence of quality practices across countries by adopting Hofstede’s national cultural
framework. While existing research mainly adopts Hofstede’s dimensions of national
culture, global leadership and organizational behaviour effectiveness (GLOBE) captures
more comprehensively and less ambiguously the elements of national culture. This paper
thus examines quality management by using GLOBE’s nine cultural dimensions (House
et al., 2004). The purpose of this study is to address the extent to which quality
management is “culture-specific”. To this end, we explore the extent to which the different
dimensions of national culture influence quality management in a global context.
Specifically, we consider if there is a difference in quality priorities and practices across
national cultures followed by a consideration of the managerial implications of the results
of our study. The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, we provide an overview of the
literature of quality management from a cross-cultural perspective. In Section 3, we explain
national culture and explore its relationship to TQM by developing several hypotheses.
Although many constructs are available, our use of the GLOBE model allows for a more
extensive coverage of the dimensions of national culture. In Section 4 of the paper, the
methodology is described, while in Section 5, we present the data analysis and the main
findings. The final section presents the main conclusions of this study and the managerial
implications arising from the findings.

2. Quality management research from a cross-cultural perspective
A significant strand of the literature seeks to assess the diversity of quality practices
amongst countries. The increased complexity of today’s business environment and
heightened international competition make it necessary for firms to improve quality
performance by aligning their quality practices in their attempt to capitalise on all possible
traditional and non-traditional sources of competitive advantage. In line with this trend,
the literature has devoted considerable attention to the issue of quality management and
this includes a series of empirical studies of quality management across countries, which

IJOPM
31,

528

report contrasting conclusions. Traditionally, in the field of comparative management
research, there have been three main approaches: the empirical work has been aimed
towards testing the “convergence” hypothesis (Form, 1979), the “divergence” hypothesis
(Child and Kieser, 1979) and the “culture-specific” hypothesis (Hofstede, 1980).

2.1 The “convergence” hypothesis
The “convergence” hypothesis (Form, 1979) asserts that learning will lead managers
from different cultures to adopt the same efficient management practices. Competitive
pressures will eliminate those who resist convergence. In addition with the increased
dissemination of information about best quality practices around the world, one would
expect similarities across countries where each country’s respondents would be
expected to embrace the same approach as their overseas counterparts. Over time,
numerous studies have attempted to substantiate the evidence for “convergence” in the
field of quality management research (Zhao et al., 1995; Abdul-Aziz et al., 2000; Chin et al.,
2002; Ismail and Ebrahimpour, 2003; Rungtusanatham et al., 2005).

2.2 The “divergence” hypothesis
The “divergence” hypothesis (Child and Kieser, 1979) questions the universal
applicability of any standardised business practice. According to this perspective,
any organisational practice must be adapted to the national context to maximize
its effectiveness. The different extent to which organisational practices are adapted to
the national context results in the observed divergence of practices across nations.
In the field of quality management research, several studies have attempted to
substantiate the evidence for the “divergence” and within this perspective the role of
culture is acknowledged but often plays a very marginal role (Raghunathan et al., 1997;
Subba Rao et al., 1997; Corbett et al., 1998; Tata et al., 2000).

2.3 The “culture-specific” hypothesis
Similarly, to the “divergence hypothesis”, the “culture-specific” argument (Hofstede, 1980

)

shares the view that organisational practices must be adapted to the national context to
maximize their effectiveness. While the divergence hypothesis considers all possible
factors (political, economic, social legal, etc.) that might cause differences in the
implementation of management practices, the culture-specific hypothesis restricts itself to
explaining difference solely in terms of culture. In particular, this view contends that even
if managers located in different societies face similar imperatives for change, deeply
embedded cultural factors will still affect the way managers approach quality and react to
the need for change. In particular, Hofstede (1980) identifies four main cultural dimensions,
namely power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity. Although
there is extensive evidence on how these cultural dimensions affect specific organisational
outcomes (Garg and Ma, 2005; Wacker and Sprague, 1998; Flynn and Saladin, 2006; Snell
and Hui, 2000), there has been limited effort dedicated to the development of a
comprehensive framework to assess the impact of these cultural dimensions on quality
management (Krosolid, 1999; Sousa-Poza et al., 2000; Lagrosen, 2002, 2003; Yoo et al., 2005).

By adopting Hofstede’s model, Garg and Ma (2005) have attempted to link national
culture to organisational performance. Their findings show that there are significant
differences in management systems, leadership and style within the national cultures of
three types of organisations (foreign owned, joint ventures and Chinese-owned

Quality
management

529

and operated firms). In relation to the effects of culture on the use of information within
organisations, Wacker and Sprague (1998) attribute great importance to masculinity.
In particular, they found that the type of information used to support decision making in
masculine national cultures was dependent on its expected effectiveness in gaining
advantage over competitors. By contrast, feminine countries tend to use information
more extensively to support decision making. Flynn and Saladin (2006) show that while
in countries characterised by high power distance, power as well as decision making
tend to be centralised, countries characterised by uncertainty avoidance have an
emotional need for rules. Vice-versa, national cultures that score low in uncertainty
avoidance dislike formal rules, setting them only when it is necessary. This leads to more
emphasis on formal methods for gathering and analysing external information.
Differently, Snell and Hui (2000) emphasise the importance of individualism: while
members of individualist countries are autonomous and confident, tending to rely
primarily on their own ideas, members of collectivist countries are more likely to rely on
information provided by others in formulating their opinions.

In the field of quality management research, a few studies have looked at national
culture and mostly by using Hofstede’s four main cultural dimensions. One of the major
efforts in this area can be attributed to Krosolid (1999) who contends that the development
of quality management has followed two distinct paths, the deterministic school and the
continuous improvement school. He further argues that the dominance of these two schools
is different according to different national cultures. In a similar fashion, Sousa-Poza et al.
(2000) assess the application of TQM in the USA, Switzerland and South Africa to
investigate the relationship between national culture and the implementation of TQM.
Their results show that in each country, several distinct relationships between the
dimensions of TQM implementation and national culture exist. They, therefore, imply that
the application of TQM should take into account different characteristics of national
cultures. In a major study, Mathews et al. (2001) studied quality management practices
in the UK, Finland and Portugal. Their evidence indicates that the existing differences in
quality management practices could be related to national culture. They find that there is a
substantial variation in all aspects of quality management, from the reasons stimulating
the adoption of the quality management programme to the problems faced. The dimensions
of uncertainty avoidance and power distance appear particularly powerful in explaining
the national differences observed. In general, the study finds that “management approaches
mirror the culture in which they develop” (Mathews et al., 2001, p. 706). Cultures that are
consistent with the imperative of TQM develop styles that will support the underpinning
values of quality management. Others that are less consistent may adopt the tools and the
approaches but not the philosophy that TQM requires.

The notion of better fit recalls the idea of congruence by which, according to Newman
and Nollen (1996) management practices need to be congruent and consistent with national
cultural expectations to enable firms to achieve superior performance. An emblematic
example is illustrated by Lagrosen (2002) who by using Hofstede’s model shows how
quality management assumes different connotations across different countries with
power distance and uncertainty avoidance playing an important role. Countries
characterised by high uncertainty avoidance were found to have a preference for a clear
organisational structure and clearly laid out rules. A subsequent study conducted by
Lagrosen (2003) also shows that countries characterised by low uncertainty avoidance and
high collectivism tend to have greater customer orientation, while countries characterised

IJOPM
31,5

530

by high uncertainty avoidance tend to focus less on business process. Flynn and Saladin
(2006) argue that besides better fit there is also a compensation mechanism that might
occur to overcome some of the perceived limitations of the national culture. For example,
Snell and Hui (2000) note that high power distance countries tend to rely more on
procedure and routines as the national culture is inadequate in the formulation of
systematic approaches that would allow employees to do their jobs without intervention.

Additionally, further evidence indicates that masculinity plays a crucial role in
determining the overall quality strategy. Masculine countries seem to focus more on the
internal operations whilst feminine countries display more concern for the environment as
well as sharper customer focus (Yoo et al., 2005). Anwar and Jabnoun (2006) take a step
further by conceptualising a contingency model using Hofstede and by relating TQM to the
characteristics of national culture. According to the model, quality control (i.e. supervision,
inspection and control) can be implemented more effectively by countries characterised by
high power distance. Quality assurance (i.e. planned and systematic actions) can be
implemented more effectively by countries characterised by high uncertainty avoidance.
Continuous improvement (i.e. commitment to improvement and learning) can be
implemented more effectively by countries characterised by low power distance and low
uncertainty avoidance. Total customer satisfaction (i.e. teamwork and empowerment of
internal customers) can be implemented more effectively by countries characterised by low
uncertainty avoidance, low power distance and low collectivism.

3. TQM and its relationship to national culture
Quality management research that has an international focus has primarily focussed on
differences between countries, regions or different organisational cultures while
generally overlooking the issue of national culture. The few exceptions (Krosolid, 1999;
Sousa-Poza et al., 2000; Mathews et al., 2001; Lagrosen, 2002; Gallear and Ghobadian,
2004; Yoo et al., 2005; Anwar and Jabnoun, 2006) have been limited in the scope of their
coverage. Thus, there is a need to study whether quality is, or should be, managed
differently in different national cultures. In particular, the literature review suggests that
a comparative holistic approach, involving a systematic comparison of similarities and
differences that could considerably improve our understanding of quality management
implementation in a global context, is missing.

The purpose of this study is to address the extent to which quality management is
“culture-specific”. To this end, we explore the extent to which the different dimensions of
national culture influence quality management in a global context. Specifically, we
consider if there is a difference in quality priorities and practices across national cultures.

One of the most problematic issues confronting the researcher in quality management is
the search for an appropriate definition (Fynes, 1998). More precisely, defining “quality” as a
construct is difficult given the number of possible alternatives available (Hardie and Walsh,
1994). Reeves and Bednar (1994) suggest a four-way taxonomy of quality definitions that
incorporates excellence, value, conformance to specifications and meeting and/or exceeding
customer requirements. The diversity that these definitions embrace, they contend, implies
that “the quality construct space is so broad and includes so many components that there
would be little utility in any model that tried to encompass them all” (p. 441). Conversely,
they argue that “the complexity and multiple perspectives historically associated with the
concept have made theoretical and research advances difficult” and that ultimately the
“search for a universal definition of quality and a statement of law-like relationships has

Quality
management

531

been unsuccessful” (p. 441). In addressing this problem, Flynn et al. (1994) argue that a
crucial issue in theory development is the articulation of the distinction between quality
management practices (input) and quality performance (output), which has been blurred
under the broad heading of quality. More recent studies also place emphasis on priorities
(Voss, 2005) – manufacturing strategies may be articulated through competitive priorities
which are then operationalised through improvement goals as well as action programs and
demonstrated by performance improvement (Lindberg et al., 1998; Voss, 2005).

This paper endorses the view that a fuller understanding of quality can be reached
only by embracing these concomitant perspectives, namely priorities and practices.
In particular, we wish to explore the idea that the means by which priorities are
transposed into practices, and how these practices are likely to be affected by national
cultures. The review of the literature reveals that culture has a powerful effect on the
performance and long-term effectiveness of the firm (Krosolid, 1999; Sousa-Poza et al.,
2000; Mathews et al., 2001; Lagrosen, 2002; Gallear and Ghobadian, 2004; Yoo et al., 2005;
Anwar and Jabnoun, 2006; Davison and Al-Shaghana, 2007).

Differently, from existing research we adopt GLOBE (House et al., 2004). GLOBE’s
intent is to explore the cultural values and practices in a wide variety of countries and to
identify their impact on organisational practices and leadership attributes. To this end,
House et al. (2004) examine national cultures in terms of nine dimensions:

(1) Uncertainty avoidance is defined as the extent to which members of a society
strive to avoid uncertainty by reliance on social norms, rituals and bureaucratic
practices to mitigate the unpredictability of future events.

(2) Power distance is defined as the degree to which members of society expect and
agree that power should be equally shared.

(3) Institutional collectivism reflects the degree to which societal practices
encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action.

(4) In-group collectivism reflects the degree to which individuals express pride,
loyalty and cohesiveness in their organisations.

(5) Gender egalitarianism is the extent to which a society minimises gender role
differences and gender discrimination.

(6) Assertiveness is the degree to which individuals in societies are assertive,
confrontational and aggressive in their social relationships.

(7) Future orientation is the degree to which individuals in societies engage in
future-oriented behaviours such as planning, investing in the future and delaying
gratification.

(8) Performance orientation refers to the extent to which a society encourages and
rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence.

(9) Humane orientation is the degree to which individuals in organisations or
societies encourage and reward individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly,
generous, caring and kind to others.

On the basis of the nine cultural dimensions listed above, the GLOBE study identifies ten
societal clusters: South Asia, Anglo, Arab, Germanic Europe, Latin Europe,
Eastern Europe, Confucian Asia, Latin America, Sub-Sahara Africa and Nordic Europe.

IJOPM
31,5

532

National culture provides a fruitful area for research in quality management. There is
a substantial body of literature available about national culture but there is very little
that adopts a holistic approach to assess its effects on quality management. While
existing research mainly adopts Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture, GLOBE
captures more comprehensively and less ambiguously the elements of national culture
as shown in Table I.

Hofstede (2006) has discussed the equivalence between his dimensions of national
culture and those of GLOBE. While there is direct correspondence for uncertainty
avoidance, power distance and collectivism (with institutional collectivism) the
remaining six GLOBE dimensions are not found to have a direct correspondence among
Hofstede’s four dimensions. For example, Hofstede’s masculinity is split into
assertiveness and gender egalitarianism in GLOBE.

We argue that extending this line of enquiry to quality management issues holds
great potential to gain a fuller insight on whether quality should be managed differently
across different national cultures. In particular, the paper attempts to provide a fuller
appreciation of the mechanisms of either better fit or compensation. Adopting the
GLOBE framework can provide a fuller appreciation of these two mechanisms, thus
helping firms to better align their quality priorities towards the attainment of improved
quality practices. To this end, we attempt to test the following nine hypotheses in
relation to quality priorities and quality practices as presented in Table II.

Hypothesis 1
Drawing on Anwar and Jabnoun’s argument (2006), we believe that uncertainty avoidance
is likely to have a significant impact on quality priorities. Similarly, drawing on
Lagrosen’s argument (2002) and Flynn and Saladin’s (2006) work, we believe that
uncertainty avoidance is likely to have a significant impact on quality practices.
In particular, uncertainty avoidance is likely to have an impact on the adoption of quality
programmes since these practices mostly deal with the formalisation of quality assurance
(Anwar and Jabnoun, 2006). We thus expect high uncertainty avoidance countries to be
best placed to implement quality programmes and pursue quality performance.

Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture

GLOBE’s dimensions of national culture
Uncertainty
avoidance

Power
distance Collectivism Masculinity

Uncertainty avoidan

ce
p

Power distance
p

Institutional collectivism
p

In-group collectivism ,
Gender egalitarianism ,
Assertiveness ,
Future orientation
Performance orientation
Humane orientation

Notes:
p

– direct correspondence; , – weak similarity
Source: Hofstede (2006)

Table I.
Correspondence between

Hofstede and GLOBE

Quality
management

533

Hypothesis 2
Drawing on Anwar and Jabnoun’s (2006) argument, we believe that power distance is
likely to have a significant impact on quality priorities. Similarly, drawing on Snell and
Hui’s argument (2000), we believe that power distance is likely to have a significant impact
on quality practices. In particular, power distance is likely to have an impact on the
distribution of maintenance and quality costs. We thus expect high power distance
countries to have more inspection driven quality management practices than their
counterparts. In this sense, we would expect the emerging economies of Eastern
and Central Europe with a tradition of high power distance to exercise quality control more
smoothly (Wacker and Sprague, 1998).

Hypotheses 3 and 4
Drawing on Snell and Hui (2000) as well as Anwar and Jabnoun’s (2006) work adopting
Hofstede, we believe that institutional collectivism and in-group collectivism are likely
to have a significant impact on quality priorities. Similarly, drawing on Anwar and

Hx Hypothesis Quality priorities Quality practices

H1. Uncertainty avoidance has an
impact on quality
management

Anwar and Jabnoun (2006) Lagrosen (2002) and Flynn and
Saladin (2006)

Adoption of quality
programmes

H2. Power distance has an impact
on quality management

Anwar and Jabnoun (2006) Snell and Hui (2000)
Maintenance and quality
costs

H3. Institutional collectivism has
an impact on quality
management

Snell and Hui (2000)

Anwar and Jabnoun (2006)
Preventive quality costs
The adoption of quality
programmes

H4. In-group collectivism has an
impact on quality
management

Snell and Hui (2000) and
Anwar and Jabnoun (2006)

Anwar and Jabnoun (2006)
Preventive quality costs
The adoption of quality
programmes

H5. Gender egalitarianism has an
impact on quality
management

Wacker and Sprague (1998)
and Kyoon Yoo et al. (2005)

Wacker and Sprague (1998)
and Anwar and Jabnoun (2006)

Preventive quality costs
The implementation of
quality programmes

H6. Assertiveness has an impact
on quality management

Wacker and Sprague (1998)
and Kyoon Yoo et al. (2005)

Anwar and Jabnoun (2006)
Quality costs
The implementation of
quality programmes

H7. Future orientation has an
impact on quality
management

Lagrosen (2003), Flynn and
Saladin (2006) and Anwar and
Jabnoun (2006)

Lagrosen (2003)
Preventive quality costs and
future quality programmes

H8. Performance orientation has
an impact on quality
management

No previous work Lagrosen (2003)
Corrective quality costs and
quality programmes

H9. Humane orientation has an
impact on quality
management

No previous work Lagrosen (2003)
Quality costs and quality
programmes

Table II.
Hypotheses on quality
priorities and quality
practices

IJOPM
31,5

534

Jabnoun’s (2006) argument we believe that they are likely to have a significant impact
on quality practices. In particular, institutional collectivism and in-group collectivism
are likely to have an impact in relation to both preventive quality costs and the
adoption of quality programmes since these quality practices mostly deal with the
formalisation of quality assurance. We thus expect countries characterised by low
institutional collectivism and high in-group collectivism to spend more on preventive
quality costs and to be best placed to implement quality programmes.

Hypothesis 5
Drawing on the work of Wacker and Sprague (1998) and Yoo et al. (2005) which established
the significance of Hofstede’s dimension of masculinity on operations management and
quality management, we believe that gender egalitarianism is likely to have a significant
impact on quality priorities. Similarly, we believe that gender egalitarianism is likely to
have a significant impact on quality practices (Wacker and Sprague, 1998). In particular,
gender egalitarianism is likely to have an impact in relation to preventive quality costs and
the implementation of quality programmes since these practices mostly deal with the
formalisation of quality assurance (Anwar and Jabnoun, 2006). We thus expect countries
characterised by high gender egalitarianism to spend more on preventive quality costs and
to be best placed to implement quality programmes.

Hypothesis 6
Assertiveness is associated with masculinity (Hofstede, 2006). Drawing again on the work
of Wacker and Sprague (1998) and Yoo et al. (2005) which established the significance of
Hofstede’s dimension of masculinity on operations management and quality
management, we believe that assertiveness is likely to have a significant impact on
quality priorities. We expect countries characterised by high assertiveness to place more
emphasis on these priorities. Similarly, assertiveness is likely to have a significant impact
on quality practices. In particular, assertiveness is likely to have a significant impact in
relation to quality costs and the implementation of quality programmes since these
quality practices mostly deal with the formalisation of quality assurance (Anwar and
Jabnoun, 2006). We thus expect countries characterised by high assertiveness to spend
more on corrective quality costs and to be best placed to implement quality programmes.

Hypothesis 7
Drawing on the work on uncertainty avoidance (Lagrosen, 2003; Flynn and Saladin,
2006; Anwar and Jabnoun, 2006), we believe that future orientation is likely to have a
significant impact on quality priorities. We thus expect countries characterised by high
future orientation to place more emphasis on these priorities. Future orientation is likely
to have a significant impact on quality practices and in particular in relation to both
quality costs and quality programmes since these practices mostly deal with the
formalisation of quality assurance (Lagrosen, 2003). We thus expect countries
characterised by high future orientation to spend more on preventive quality costs and
to be best placed to implement future quality programmes.

Hypothesis 8
There is no previous work on performance orientation. However, we believe that
performance orientation is likely to have a significant impact on quality priorities.

Quality
management

535

We expect countries characterised by high performance orientation to place more
emphasis on quality priorities. Performance orientation is also likely to have a
significant impact on quality practices. In particular, performance orientation is likely to
have an impact on quality costs and the implementation of quality programmes since
these quality practices mostly deal with the formalisation of quality assurance
(Lagrosen, 2003). We thus expect countries characterised by high performance
orientation to spend more on corrective quality costs and to be best placed to implement
quality programmes.

Hypothesis 9
There is no previous work on humane orientation. However, we believe that it is likely to
have a significant impact on quality priorities. We expect countries characterised by low
humane orientation to place more emphasis on quality priorities. Human orientation is also
likely to have a significant impact on quality practices. In particular, humane orientation is
likely to have an impact in relation to both quality costs and quality programmes since
these quality practices mostly deal with the formalisation of quality assurance (Lagrosen,
2003). We thus expect countries characterised by low humane orientation to spend more on
preventive quality costs and to be best placed to implement quality programmes.

4. Methodology
The papers use two independent survey studies – it employs primary data from the
fourth iteration of the International Manufacturing Strategy Survey (IMSS IV) and
secondary data from the GLOBE survey (House et al., 2004). As discussed below, several
factors suggest the combined use of these two datasets. Furthermore, while resembling
Hofstede’s model, GLOBE differs from it by presenting a comparative advantage in
terms of assessing the extent to which quality management is “culture-specific”.

The main unit of analysis of the IMSS survey were firms and its main respondents
were managers. IMSS IV was carried out in 2006. The sampling method was convenient
sampling with some random participants. A total of 711 firms in 24 countries responded
representing a response rate of some 20 per cent. As for the IMSS data collection, the
directors of operations were contacted since they were deemed to be competent to
respond to the questionnaire as it covers many strategy domains of the participating
plants. Similarly, GLOBE was conducted in 62 countries by involving 951 firms
(House et al., 2002). The main respondents were 17,000 managers. By contrast,
Hofstede’s study was conducted by involving 40 IBM subsidiaries, between 1967 and
1973, and later expanded through replications to 53 subsidiaries (Hofstede, 2001). In this
case, the unit of analysis were the subsidiaries of a single company and the main
respondents were employees from different categories – two and five non-managerial.

Overall, given its rationale, its unit of analysis, its research design in terms of
respondents, its international focus, the IMSS was deemed as a valuable instrument
to assess the extent to which quality management is “culture-specific”. Accordingly, the
GLOBE instrument has been deemed as an appropriate methodological tool to assess the
results of the IMSS survey in order to provide insights on the issue of quality
management across countries.

This study focuses on the part of the IMSS survey that addresses quality management.
Questions pertaining to quality priorities and practices are listed in the Appendix. Most
questionnaire items were in the form of perceptual measures where respondents were

IJOPM
31,5

536

asked to rate specific priorities and practices in terms of use or importance on five-point
Likert scales. These scales can be treated as quasi-ratio scales (Gaski and Etzel, 1986). The
constructs’ validity of quality priorities, quality practices and quality performance
employed in the questionnaire and measured by the five-point Likert scale is supported by
substantial empirical evidence. Both content validity and construct measurement for
quality priorities, practices and performance have been widely discussed elsewhere
(Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001; Frohlich and Dixon, 2001; Grossler and Grubner, 2006;
Vereecke and Muylle, 2006). For the purpose of this analysis, the five-point Likert scales
were treated as three-point Likert scales and the associated distribution frequencies were
calculated in relation to individual items for quality priorities and quality practices.

Given that the GLOBE scores were unavailable for three IMSS countries – Belgium,
Estonia and Norway, we had to exclude the IMSS firms for these countries so that our
analysis only considered 21 IMSS countries and 641 firms. This paper specifically
examines quality priorities and quality practices across the 21 IMSS countries, classified
according to GLOBE’s nine cultural dimensions. In order to benchmark quality
management on a global scale, a complete list of the 21 IMSS countries as well as their
classification between “low” and “high” (by taking into account the median) according to
the nine types of dimension scores and societal cluster is provided in Table III.

The quality priorities and practices are compared across 21 countries, according to
GLOBE’s nine cultural dimensions by using the Kruskall-Wallis test to assess possible
significant differences. Consistent with Bryman and Cramer (2001), the choice of
conducting non-parametric tests was mainly driven by the fact that our sample is biased
by the presence of high-performing firms and any assumptions on the distribution of
their scores would be highly hazardous.

The hypotheses were tested based on the results obtained from comparative analysis of
quality priorities and practices across the GLOBE’s nine cultural dimensions. In particular,
hypotheses were accepted where significant differences (either at significance level of
p , 0.01 or p , 0.001) in terms of priorities and practices were observed.

5. Data analysis and main findings
Table IV contains the percentage distribution scores and the results of the analysis in
relation to the first five dimensions of national culture: uncertainty avoidance, power
distance, institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism and gender egalitarianism
while Table V does so for the remaining four dimensions of national culture:
assertiveness, future orientation, performance orientation and human orientation.

The findings are discussed below in relation to our original hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1
In terms of quality priorities, low uncertainty avoidance countries attribute
more importance to superior product quality and superior conformance quality.
This is consistent with Lagrosen’s (2003) study according to which low uncertainty
avoidance countries tend to have a greater customer focus. Product quality and
reliability is also considered more important when considering improvement goals.
These results could be explained on the basis that high uncertainty avoidance countries
could be currently dealing with different priorities that are not necessarily associated
with quality. In this context, quality could be seen as an immediate priority, a better fit
only for those low uncertainty avoidance countries that can benefit from a reasonable

Quality
management

537

IM
S

S
IV

co
u

n
tr

y
S

o
ci

a
l

cl
u

st
er

U
n

ce
rt

a
in

ty
a
v

o
id

a
n

e
P

o
w

er
d

is
ta

n
ce

C
o
ll

ec
ti

v
is

m
in

st
it

u
ti

o
n

a
l
C
o
ll
ec
ti
v
is

m
g

ro
u

p
G

n
d

er
eg

a
li

ta
ri

a
n

is
m

A
ss

er
ti

v
en

es
s

F
u

tu
re

o
ri

en
ta

ti
o
n

P
er

fo
rm

a
n

e
o
ri

en
ta
ti
o
n

m
a
n

e
o
ri
en
ta
ti
o
n

A
rg

en
ti

n
a

a
ti

n
A

m
er

ic
a

L
H

L
H
L
H

L
L

A
u

st
ra

li
a

A
n

g
lo

L
L
L
L
L
H

H
H

H
B

ra
zi

l
L

a
ti
n
A
m
er
ic
a
L
H
L
H
L
H
L
L
L

C
a
n

a
d

a
A

n
g

lo
H

L
H
L
H
L
H
H
H

C
h

in
a

C
o
n

fu
ci

a
n

A
si

a
H

L
H

H
L

L
L
H
H

D
en

m
a
rk

N
o
rd

ic
E

u
ro

p
e

H
L
H
L
H
L
H
H
H

G
er

m
a
n

y
G

er
m

a
n
ic
E
u
ro
p
e
H
H
L
L
L
H
H
H
L

G
re

ec
e

E
a
st

er
n

E
u

ro
p

e
L

H
L
H
L
L
L
L
L

H
u

n
g

a
ry

E
a
st
er
n
E
u
ro
p
e
L
H
L
H
H
L
L
L
L

Ir
el

a
n

d
A

n
g

lo
L

H
H
H
L
L
H
H
H

Is
ra

el
L

a
ti

n
E

u
ro
p
e
L
L
H
H
L
H
L
H
L

It
a
ly

L
a
ti

n
E
u
ro
p
e
L
H
L
H
L
L
L
L
L

N
ew

Z
ea

la
n

d
A
n
g
lo
H
L
H
L
L
L
L
H
H

T
h

e
N

et
h

er
la

n
d

s
G

er
m
a
n
ic
E
u
ro
p
e
L
L
H
L
H
H
H
H
L

o
rt

u
g

a
l
L
a
ti
n
E
u
ro
p
e
L
H
L
H
H
L
L
L
L

S
p

a
in
L
a
ti
n
E
u
ro
p
e
L
H
L
H
L
H
L
L
L

S
w

ed
en

N
o
rd
ic
E
u
ro
p
e
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
L
L

T
u

rk
ey

A
ra

b
L

H
L
H
L
H
L
L
L

U
K

A
n
g
lo
H
H
L
L
H
H
H
H

L
U

S
A

A
n
g
lo
L
L
L
L
L
H
H
H

H
V

en
ez

u
el

a
L

a
ti
n
A
m
er
ic
a
L
H
L
H
H
H
L
L
H

N
o
te
s
:

L
o
w

(L
)

–
in

d
ex

o
re

#
m

ed
ia

n
;

h
ig

h
(H

)
–

in
d

ex
sc

o
re

.
m

ed
ia
n

Table III.
IMSS country
classification by GLOBE
societal cluster and

cultural dimensions

IJOPM
31,5

538

U
n
ce
rt
a
in
ty
a
v
o
id
a
n

ce
P

o
w
er
d
is
ta
n
ce
C
o
ll
ec
ti
v
is
m
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
a
l
L
o
w

H
ig

h
T

o
t.

S
ig

.
L

o
w
H
ig
h
T
o
t.
S
ig
.
L
o
w
H
ig
h
T
o
t.
S
ig
.

u
a
li

p
ri

o
ri

ti
es

C
h
a
n

g
e

o
f

p
ri
o
ri
ti
es
o
f

cu
st

o
m

er
s

S
u

p
er

io
r

p
ro

d
u

ct
q

u
a
li

8
7

7
8

8
2

7
9

8
6

8
2

8
4

8
0

8
2
S
u
p
er
io
r

co
n

fo
rm
a
n

ce
q

u
a
li

8
3

8
0
8
2
*
7
9

8
5

8
2
8
5
7
8
8
2

*
Im

p
ro

v
em

n
t

o
a
ls

in
th

e
n

ex
t

th
re

e
y

ea
rs

M
a
n

u
fa

t
u

ri
n

g
co

n
fo

rm
a
n

1
0
0

0
8
3

0
1

0
0

8
3
1
0
0
0
8
3

*
P

ro
d

u
ct

q
u

a
li

ty
a
n

d
re

li
a
b

il
it

y
7
8

6
8

7
2

*
*

6
2

7
8
7
2

7
7

6
7

7
2
*
*

Q
u

a
li
ty

p
ra

ct
ic

es
M

a
in

te
n

a
n
ce
P

re
v

en
ti

v
e

(

%
)

4
2

4
8

4
5

4
7

4
2
4
5

*
4
2

4
8
4
5

*
C

o
rr

ec
ti
v
e
(%
)

5
8

5
2

5
5

5
3

5
8
5
5

*
5
8

5
2
5
5

*
Q

u
a
li

ty
co

st
s

In
sp

ec
ti
o
n
(%
)

3
6

3
3

3
5

3
3

3
7

3
5

*
3
7

3
2

3
5

E
x

te
rn

a
l
(%
)

1
6

2
0

1
8

*
2
0

1
5

1
8

*
1
6

2
0
1
8
Q
u
a
li
ty
a
n

d
su

p
p

li
er

se
le

ct
io

9
1

8
5

8
8

*
8
6

9
0

8
8
9
1
8
6
8
8
Q
u
a
li

ty
im

p
ro
v
em

en
t

a
n

d
co

n
tr

o
l

p
ro

g
ra

m
s

C
u

rr
en

t
u

3
9

3
6
3
7

*
3
5

4
0

3
7
4
0
3
5
3
7
F
u
tu
re

u
se

6
4

6
0

6
2

*
6
0

6
5

6
2
6
5
6
0
6
2

*
E

q
u

ip
m

en
t
p
ro
d
u

ct
iv

it
y

p
ro
g
ra
m
s
C
u
rr
en
t
u

se
3
2

2
8

3
0

*
2
8

3
2
3
0

3
1

2
9

3
0
*
E

n
v

ir
o
n

m
en

ta
l

p
er
fo
rm
a
n
ce
p

ro
g

ra
m

s
C

u
rr

en
t
u
se
3
3

2
1

2
7

2
1
3
6
2
7

*
3
3

2
2

2
7

*
F

u
tu

re
u

4
9

2
5

3
6
*
*

2
6

4
8
3
6
*
*
4
5
2
6
3
6
*
*
C
o
ll
ec
ti
v
is
m
g
ro
u
p
G

en
d

er
eg
a
li
ta
ri
a
n
is
m
L
o
w
H
ig
h
T
o
t.
S
ig
.
L
o
w
H
ig
h
T
o
t.
S
ig

.
Q

u
a
li
ty

p
ri
o
ri
ti
es
C
h
a
n
g
e
o
f
p
ri
o
ri
ti
es
o
f
cu
st
o
m
er
s
S
u
p
er
io
r
p
ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li

ty
7
9

8
6
8
2
7
9
8
5
8
2
S
u
p
er
io
r
co
n
fo
rm
a
n
ce
q
u
a
li

8
1

8
2
8
2
8
1
8
2
8
2

Im
p

ro
v

em
en

t
g

o
a
ls
in
th
e
n
ex
t
th
re
e
y
ea
rs
M
a
n
u
fa

ct
u

ri
n
g
co
n
fo
rm
a
n

ce
0

1
0
0
8
3
1
0
0
0
8
3

(c
o
n
ti

n
u
ed

)

Table IV.

Quality priorities,

practices and
performance and GLOBE

cultural dimensions
Quality
management

539

U
n
ce
rt
a
in
ty
a
v
o
id
a
n
ce
P
o
w
er
d
is
ta
n
ce
C
o
ll
ec
ti
v
is
m
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
a
l
L
o
w
H
ig
h
T
o
t.
S
ig
.
L
o
w
H
ig
h
T
o
t.
S
ig
.
L
o
w
H
ig
h
T
o
t.
S
ig
.

P
ro

d
u
ct
q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
re
li
a
b
il
it

y
6
8

7
8
8
2

*
6
8

7
6

7
2
*
Q
u
a
li
ty
p
ra
ct
ic
es
M
a
in
te
n
a
n
ce
P
re
v
en
ti
v
e
(%
)
4
7

4
3

4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5

C
o
rr

ec
ti
v
e
(%
)
5
3

5
7

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Q
u
a
li
ty
co
st
s
In
sp
ec
ti
o
n
(%
)
3
3
3
6
3
5
3
6
3
3
3
5
E
x
te
rn
a
l
(%
)

1
9

1
6
1
8

1
7

1
8
1
8
Q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
su
p
p
li
er
se
le
ct
io

n
8
6

8
9

8
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
Q
u
a
li
ty
im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
a
n
d
co
n
tr
o
l
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
C
u
rr
en
t
u

3
4

4
0
3
7
4
0
3
5
3
7
F
u
tu
re
u
se

5
9

6
5
6
2
6
0
6
4
6
2

E
q

u
ip

m
en

t
p

ro
d
u
ct

iv
it

y
p

ro
g
ra
m
s
C
u
rr
en
t
u
se
2
6
3
4
3
0

*
3
1

2
8
3
0

E
n

v
ir

o
n
m
en
ta
l
p
er
fo
rm
a
n
ce
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
C
u
rr
en
t
u
se
1
9
3
6
2
7

*
3
0

2
5
2
7
F
u
tu
re
u
se
2
1

5
1

3
6
*
*
4
5
2
6
3
6
*
*

N
o
te
:

S
ig

n
ifi

ca
n

ce
a
t:

*
p
,

0
.0

1
a
n

d
*

*
p
,
0
.0
0
1
Table IV.
IJOPM
31,5

540

A
ss
er
ti
v
en
es
s
F
u
tu
re
o
ri
en
ta
ti
o
n
P
er
fo
rm
a
n

ce
o
ri

en
ta
ti
o
n
H
u
m
a
n
e
o
ri
en
ta
ti
o
n
L
o
w
H
ig
h
T
o
t.
S
ig
.
L
o
w
H
ig
h
T
o
t.
S
ig
.
L
o
w
H
ig
h
T
o
t.
S
ig
.
L
o
w
H
ig
h
T
o
t.
S
ig
.

Q
u
a
li
ty

p
ri
o
ri
ti
es
C
h
a
n
g
e
o
f
p
ri
o
ri
ti
es
o
f
cu
st
o
m
er
s
S
u
p
er
io
r
p
ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li

ty
8
3

8
2
8
2
8
4
8
1
8
2
8
7
7
7
8
2

*
8
4

7
9
8
2
S
u
p
er
io
r
co
n
fo
rm
a
n
ce
q
u
a
li

ty
8
4

7
8
8
2
8
3
8
0
8
2
8
7
7
6
8
2
*
*
8
2
8
1
8
2
Im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
g
o
a
ls
in
th
e
n
ex
t
th
re
e
y
ea
rs
P
ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
re
li
a
b
il
it

y
7
3

7
1

7
2

7
5

6
8
7
2
7
9
6
5
7
2
*
*

7
4

6
9

7
2
Q
u
a
li
ty
p
ra
ct
ic
es
M
a
in
te
n
a
n
ce
P
re
v
en
ti
v
e
(%
)
4
3
4
7
4
5
4
3

4
6

4
5

4
1

4
9
4
5
*
*
4
3
4
9
4
5
*
C
o
rr
ec
ti

v
e(

%
)
5
7
5
3
5
5
5
7

5
4

5
5
5
9
5
1
5
5
*
*
5
7
5
1
5
5
*
Q
u
a
li
ty
co
st
s

P
re

v
en

ti
v

e
(%

)

2
3

2
5

2
4

2
4
2
3
2
4
2
3
2
5
2
4
2
3
2
6
2
4
*
Q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
su
p
p
li
er
se
le
ct
io

n
8
7

8
9
8
8
8
9
8
7
8
8
9
1
8
4
8
8

*
8
8

8
7
8
8
Q
u
a
li
ty
im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
a
n
d
co
n
tr
o
l
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
C
u
rr
en
t
u

se
3
0

4
5
3
7
*
*
3
9
3
5
3
7
3
7
3
7
3
7

3
8

3
6
3
7
F
u
tu
re
u
se
6
0
6
5
6
2
6
5
6
0
6
2
6
8
5
7
6
2

*
6
4

6
0
6
2
E
q
u
ip
m
en
t
p
ro
d
u
ct
iv
it
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
C
u
rr
en
t
u
se
2
9
3
1
3
0
3
3
2
7
3
0
*
3
1
2
9
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
F
u
tu
re
u
se
5
8
5
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
7
4
8
5
5
*
*
5
9

5
6

5
5
E
n
v
ir
o
n
m
en
ta
l
p
er
fo
rm
a
n
ce
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
C
u
rr
en
t
u
se
2
6
2
9
2
7
3
3
2
1
2
7
*
*
3
8
1
7
2
7
*
*
3
2
1
9
2
7
F
u
tu
re
u
se
3
3
3
9
3
6
4
9
2
2
3
6
*
*
4
5
2
6
3
6
*
*
3
8
3
3
3
6
C
o
n

ti
n

u
o
u

s
im

p
ro
v
em
en
t
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
F
u
tu
re
u
se
5
8
6
0
5
9
5
4
6
4
5
9

*
6
2

5
6
5
9

6
1

5
6
5
9
N
o
te
:
S
ig
n
ifi
ca
n
ce
a
t:
*
p
,
0
.0
1
a
n
d
*
*
p
,
0
.0
0
1

Table V.
Quality priorities,

practices and
performance and GLOBE
cultural dimensions
Quality
management

541

level of certainty in their business environment. As for quality practices, low uncertainty
avoidance countries tend to invest relatively more in corrective maintenance while high
uncertainty avoidance countries spend relatively more in preventive maintenance and
external quality costs. This could reflect a mechanism of better fit to accommodate two
radically different attitudes toward risk as widely documented in the literature.
Surprisingly, low uncertainty avoidance countries attribute more importance to quality
in supplier selection as well as to current and future use of all action programs except for
future use of equipment productivity programs and continuous improvement programs.
From the above analysis, we accept the hypothesis that uncertainty avoidance has an
impact on quality management. Our findings, however, do not support those of Snell and
Hui (2000), Lagrosen (2002) and Flynn and Saladin (2006) according to whom high
uncertainty avoidance (as meant by Hofstede) leads to more concern for quality and
more extensive implementation of quality programmes. On the contrary, our findings
show that countries characterised by low uncertainty avoidance seem to be more
concerned with quality management.

Hypothesis 2
In relation to quality priorities, high power distance countries attribute more importance to
product quality and reliability. This could reflect a mechanism of compensation whereby
the higher commitment of high power distance countries to quality priorities could be
explained as a deliberate strategy to counterbalance the high degree of centralisation.
In terms of quality practices, low power distance countries tend to spend relatively more
in preventive maintenance and external quality costs, while high power distance countries
tend to spend relatively more in corrective maintenance and inspection costs. This could
reflect a mechanism of better fit since these costs are inevitably associated with high levels
of centralisation. High power distance countries are also more committed to action
programs, in relation to both current and future use of environmental performance
programs. The higher commitment of high power distance countries to these
action programs could be explained by a mechanism of compensation whereby
workers do not possess the effective tools for effective process management because of the
high degree of centralisation. As found by Flynn and Saladin (2006) and Wacker and
Sprague (1998), our findings confirm that a more extensive use of action programs could
be a suitable means to overcome the limitations that a higher level of centralisation often
entails. From the above analysis, we accept the hypothesis that power distance has an
impact on quality management. Our findings support Wacker and Sprague (1998), Snell
and Hui (2000), Flynn and Saladin (2006) as well as Anwar and Jabnoun (2006) according to
whom high power distance (as meant by Hofstede) leads to more concern for quality and to
a more extensive implementation of quality programmes.

Hypothesis 3
In relation to quality priorities, countries characterised by low institutional collectivism
attribute relatively more importance to superior quality. In relation to improvement goals
in the next three years, they also attribute greater importance to the goals of improvement
in manufacturing conformance and product quality and reliability. This could reflect a
mechanism of compensation whereby the higher commitment of countries characterised
by low collectivism to quality priorities could be explained as a deliberate strategy to
counterbalance the lack of a cohesive collective action. As for quality practices, countries

IJOPM
31,5

542

characterised by low institutional collectivism have a greater proportion of maintenance
costs associated with corrective maintenance while countries characterised by high
institutional collectivism have a greater proportion associated with preventive
maintenance. This could be explained by a mechanism of compensation where
countries characterised by low institutional collectivism need to allocate relatively more to
corrective maintenance to overcome the ineffectiveness that a less cohesive collective
action inevitably entails. Countries characterised by low institutional collectivism are also
more committed to future use of quality improvement and control programs, current use of
equipment productivity programs and both current and future use of environmental
performance programs. This could be explained by a mechanism of compensation where
countries characterised by low institutional collectivism need to rely more on action
programs to overcome the ineffectiveness that a weaker collective action inevitably
entails. From the above analysis, we accept the hypothesis that institutional collectivism
has an impact on quality management. Our findings do not support those of Snell and Hui
(2000) and Anwar and Jabnoun (2006) according to whom countries characterised by high
collectivism (as meant by Hofstede) leads to more concern for quality and to a more
extensive implementation of quality programmes.

Hypothesis 4
In relation to quality priorities, countries characterised by high in-group collectivism rate
improvement in product quality and reliability as a more important improvement goal.
This could reflect a better fit given that strategic planning is consistent with collectivism.
As for quality practices, countries characterised by high in-group collectivism show
relatively more commitment towards the current use of equipment productivity programs
and current and future use of environmental performance programs. The higher
commitment and less myopic approach of high collectivist countries to action programs
could be explained by a better fit given that strategic planning is consistent with
collectivism. From the above analysis, we accept the hypothesis that in-group collectivism
has an impact on quality management. Our findings support Snell and Hui (2000) as well
as Anwar and Jabnoun (2006) according to whom countries characterised by high
collectivism (as meant by Hofstede) leads to more concern for quality and to a more
extensive implementation of quality programmes.

Hypothesis 5
Gender egalitarianism has an impact on quality priorities with countries displaying higher
gender egalitarianism attributing relatively more importance to product quality and
reliability as a future improvement goal. There are no significant differences in quality
practices between countries on this cultural dimension with the exception of the level of
commitment towards the future use of environmental performance programs where
countries with low gender egalitarianism report relatively more commitment towards
their future use. From the above analysis, we accept the hypothesis that gender
egalitarianism has an impact on quality management. However, if we assume that high
gender egalitarianism could be an indication of low masculinity (as meant by Hofstede)
our findings support Wacker and Sprague (1998), according to whom feminine countries
tend to rely more extensively on external information, in this case in the use of quality
programmes. In the same way, our findings offer some support for the view that low
masculinity countries should be more environmentally concerned (Yoo et al., 2005).

Quality
management

543

Hypothesis 6
Our analysis does not offer any evidence that assertiveness significantly affects quality
priorities. Apart from the current use of quality improvement and control programs where
countries displaying high assertiveness show relatively more commitment towards their
use, there are no significant differences in quality practices between countries on this
cultural dimension. From the above analysis, we accept the hypothesis that assertiveness
has an impact on quality management. Although assertiveness is often associated with
masculinity (Wacker and Sprague, 1998; Yoo et al., 2005), our findings show that
assertiveness has a limited impact on quality practices and quality performance.

Hypothesis 7
Our analysis reveals no significant differences in quality priorities amongst countries on
future orientation. As for quality practices, countries characterised by low future
orientation are likely to show more commitment towards the current use of equipment
productivity programs, current and future use of environmental performance programs
and future use of continuous improvement programs. This could be explained by a
mechanism of compensation where countries characterised by low future orientation
need to rely more on action programs to overcome their lack of long-term planning. From
the above analysis, we accept the hypothesis that future orientation has an impact on
quality management.

Hypothesis 8
In relation to quality priorities, perhaps surprisingly low performance orientation
countries attribute relatively more importance to superior product quality and superior
conformance quality. When prompted about improvement goals in the next three years
low performance orientation countries are more likely to consider product quality and
reliability to be a more important goal than their counterparts. As for quality practices, low
performance orientation countries incur a greater proportion of maintenance costs in
corrective maintenance and attribute more importance to quality when selecting suppliers.
They also show more commitment towards the future use of quality improvement and
control as well as equipment productivity programs. They are also more likely to be
engaged in both current and future use of environmental performance programs. This
could reflect a compensation mechanism whereby countries characterised by low
performance orientation need to overcome their lack of incentives for quality improvement.
By contrast, high performance orientation countries spend relatively more on preventive
maintenance. This could reflect a better fit where higher preventive maintenance costs are
aligned with rewarding and promoting excellence. From the above analysis, we accept the
hypothesis that performance orientation has an impact on quality management.

Hypothesis 9
There are no significant differences in quality priorities among countries on humane
orientation. In relation to quality practices, countries with lower humane orientation
incur a greater proportion of quality costs in corrective quality costs. By contrast,
countries characterised by high humane orientation incur a greater proportion of their
maintenance and quality costs in preventive maintenance and quality costs. This could
reflect a compensation mechanism where low humane orientation countries are forced
to engage more in quality practices to overcome the externalities that less cohesive

IJOPM
31,5

544

social networks often entail. From the above analysis, we accept the hypothesis that
humane orientation has an impact on quality management.

6. Discussion and conclusions
Our analysis indicates that quality priorities tend to vary across GLOBE’s cultural
dimensions. In particular, the dimensions of uncertainty avoidance, institutional
collectivism and performance orientation have a highly significant impact on quality
priorities. Our analysis also indicates that quality practices tend to vary considerably
across GLOBE’s cultural dimensions. In particular, performance orientation,
uncertainty avoidance, power distance and institutional collectivism have a highly
significant impact on quality practices.

The “culture-specific” perspective contends that even if managers located in different
societies face similar imperatives for change, deeply embedded cultural factors will still
affect the way managers approach quality and react to the need for change. By providing
some empirical evidence to support this perspective, our findings also raise the
interesting issue of whether this perception of relative emphasis stems from a better fit
between practice or priority and the national cultural dimension positioning or from a
compensation by which firms engage in quality practices as a deliberate attempt to
compensate for specific limitations of any of their cultural dimensions. A fuller
appreciation of the mechanisms either of better fit or compensation would help firms to
better align their quality priorities towards the attainment of improved quality practices.
In this sense, GLOBE offers a more comprehensive taxonomy that addresses this need.
It also provides a more accurate insight into better fit and compensation mechanisms to
the one offered by Hofstede’s simpler classification.

For example, while previous research adopting Hofstede has shown that high
collectivism is often associated with more extensive quality management
implementation (Snell and Hui, 2000; Anwar and Jabnoun, 2006), our findings show
that this is the case for in-group collectivism but not for countries when characterised by
institutional collectivism. This discrepancy could be explained on the basis that
countries characterised by low institutional collectivism may engage more with quality
management as a result of compensation; vice versa countries characterised by high
in-group collectivism may engage more with quality management as a result of better fit.

The variations reported in quality priorities and practices lend support to the
“culture-specific” perspective. Our analysis of the data leads us to endorse the idea that
through an accumulation of scientific knowledge relevant to the applicability of quality
management across national settings, we can also help managers to better understand
how to transfer best quality management practices from one country to another.

Differently, from existing research (Mathews et al., 2001; Anwar and Jobnoun, 2006)
which claims that there is no single national culture that is conducive to better quality
management, our findings show the contrary. In particular, both the holistic and the
prescriptive nature of our framework allow us to identify those countries in our survey
that seem to be more suitable to implement quality management. More specifically as
shown on Table VI, countries that are characterised by low uncertainty avoidance, low
institutional collectivism and low performance orientation seem to place more emphasis
on quality priorities. None of the IMSS countries in our sample present the combination of
these cultural dimensions. Countries that are characterised by low uncertainty avoidance,
high power distance, low institutional collectivism, low future orientation and low

Quality
management

545

U
n
ce
rt
a
in
ty
a
v
o
id
a
n
ce
P
o
w
er
d
is
ta
n
ce
C
o
ll
ec
ti
v
is
m
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
a
l
C
o
ll
ec
ti
v
is
m
in

/G
ro

u
p

G
en

d
er

eg
a
li

ta
ri
a
n
is
m
A
ss
er
ti
v
en
es
s
F
u
tu
re
o
ri
en
ta
ti
o
n
P
er
fo
rm
a
n
ce
o
ri
en
ta
ti
o
n
H
u
m
a
n
e
o
ri
en
ta
ti
o
n
L
H
L
H
L
H
H
L
H
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
Q
u
a
li
ty
p
ri
o
ri
ti
es
C
h
a
n
g
e
o
f
p
ri
o
ri
ti
es
o
f
cu
st
o
m
er
s
S
u
p
er
io
r
p
ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li

ty
S

u
p

er
io

r
co

n
fo
rm
a
n
ce
q
u
a
li
ty
S
u
p
er
io
r
co
n
fo
rm
a
n
ce
q
u
a
li
ty
S
u
p
er
io
r
p
ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li
ty
S
u
p
er
io
r
co
n
fo
rm
a
n
ce
q
u
a
li

ty
Im

p
ro
v
em
en
t

g
o
a
ls

in
th
e
n
ex
t
th
re
e
y
ea
rs
P
ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
re
li
a
b
il
it
y
P
ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
re
li
a
b
il
it
y
M
a
n
u
fa
ct
u
ri
n
g
co
n
fo
rm
a
n
ce
p
ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
re
li
a
b
il
it
y
P
ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
re
li
a
b
il
it
y
P
ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
re
li
a
b
il
it
y
P
ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
re
li
a
b
il
it
y
Q
u
a
li
ty
p
ra
ct
ic
es
M
a
in
te
n
a
n

e
C

o
rr
ec
ti
v
e
P
re
v
en
ti
v
e
P
re
v
en
ti
v
e
C
o
rr
ec
ti
v
e
C
o
rr
ec
ti
v
e
P
re
v
en
ti
v
e
C
o
rr
ec
ti
v
e
P
re
v
en
ti
v
e
C
o
rr
ec
ti
v
e
P
re
v
en
ti
v

e
Q

u
a
li
ty
co
st
s
E
x
te
rn
a
l
E
x
te
rn
a
l
In
sp
ec
ti
o
n
P
re
v
en
ti
v
e
Q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
su
p
p
li
er
se
le
ct
io
n
Q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
su
p
p
li
er
se
le
ct
io
n
Q
u
a
li
ty
im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
a
n
d
co
n
tr
o
l
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
C
u
rr
en

t
a
n

d
fu

ru
re

F
u
tu
re
C
u
rr
en

t
F

u
tu
re
E
q
u
ip
m
en
t
p
ro
d
u
ct
iv
it
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
C
u
rr
en

t
C

u
rr
en
t
C
u
rr
en
t
C
u
rr
en
t
F
u
tu
re
E
n
v
ir
o
n
m
en
ta
l
p
er
fo
rm
a
n
ce
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
F
u
tu
re
C
u
rr
en
t
a
n

d
F

u
tu
re
C
u
rr
en
t
a
n
d
F
u
tu

re
C

u
rr
en
t
a
n
d
F
u
tu

re
F

u
tu
re
C
u
rr
en
t
a
n
d
F
u
tu
re
C
u
rr
en
t
a
n
d
F
u
tu
re
C
o
n
ti
n
u
o
u
s
im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
F
u
tu
re
F
u
tu
re

Table VI.
Impact of GLOBE
cultural dimensions on
quality management

IJOPM
31,5

546

performance orientation seem to place more emphasis on quality practices. Therefore,
countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and
Venezuela appear to be more suited to the implementation of quality practices. Overall,
in terms of quality management, countries characterised by low uncertainty avoidance,
high power distance, low institutional collectivism, high in-group collectivism, low gender
egalitarianism, high assertiveness, low future orientation, low performance orientation
and low human orientation seem better placed to deal with quality management.

For instance, the nine cultural dimensions that characterise Brazil (Table II) make
the country particularly suitable for implementing quality management in Latin
America. The same consideration applies to Greece (apart from assertiveness) for
Eastern Europe, Spain for Latin Europe and Turkey for the Arab cluster.

Additionally, we are able to identify which element in terms of priorities and practices
should be modified during the transfer process to maximise the opportunity to achieve
improved quality practices. In this sense, more attention to the cultural impacts on
quality management and performance may reap rich rewards in terms of effective
implementation of quality practices and accordingly outstanding quality performance.

Based on the cultural dimensions suggested by GLOBE (House et al., 2004), this study
shows that national culture is a valid construct to explain quality management. While
some previous research portrays quality management as a comprehensive management
paradigm with elements and relationships that transcend cultural and national
boundaries, the current study provides evidence that the adoption of certain quality
practices across different countries can follow distinctive patterns.

This study uses national culture as a means of explaining differences in quality
management. As shown in Table VII, the results of this study reveal that some cultures
implement specific quality programs more than others, different aspects of national
culture appear to have facilitating or inhibiting consequences for the implementation of
quality management.

Although quality management may be viewed as a vehicle for change, research
indicates that national culture is highly resistant to change (Hofstede, 2001; House et al.,
2004). Thus, although quality practices can be easily changed, the fundamental values
that underlie those practices are very difficult to change. This would suggest a strong
need for global firms to adapt their quality practices to the local national culture. This
does not necessarily entail compromising the integrity of their world-wide quality
management policies, rather they should develop programs that can be most
effectively implemented in the local culture.

While the results have clearly indicated the significant relationship between cultural
dimensions and quality management, several limitations need to be addressed in future
research to confirm our findings. First, we assume that national culture is the same for all
plants within a particular country. However, it is possible that different corporate,
organisational, industrial and/or sectoral cultures may co-exist within the same firm and
might conflict and counterbalance the national one. Furthermore, today in many IMSS
countries such as Canada, Israel and Belgium different ethnic or national cultures
co-exist (Tsui et al., 2007). This is likely to be intensified as the result of increased human
mobility that globalisation entails. In particular, within the same country different
sub-cultures might persist, but they might also still stand apart for religious reasons
(e.g. Ireland), because of their language (e.g. Belgium) or their ethnicity (the USA, France
and Turkey). In this sense, the nine dimensions of national cultures could be far from

Quality
management

547

C
u

lt
u

ra
l

d
im

en
si

o
n

F
in

d
in

g
s

L
o
w

u
n

ce
rt
a
in
ty
a
v
o
id
a
n

ce
cu

lt
u

re
s

(a
re

m
o
re

li
k

el
y

to
):

P
ri

o
ri

ti
ze

su
p

er
io

r
p

ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
su
p
er
io
r
co
n
fo
rm
a
n
ce
q
u
a
li

ty
A

sc
ri

b
e

im
p

o
rt
a
n

ce
to

p
ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
re
li
a
b
il
it

y
a
s

im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
g
o
a
ls

A
ll

o
ca

te
re

so
u

rc
es

to
co

rr
ec

ti
v

e
m

a
in
te
n
a
n

ce
E

n
g

a
g

e
in

q
u
a
li
ty
im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
a
n
d
co
n
tr
o
l
p
ro
g
ra
m
s

n
o
w

a
n
d
in

th
e

fu
tu

re
E

n
g
a
g
e
in

eq
u

ip
m
en
t
p
ro
d
u
ct
iv
it
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
E
n

g
a
g

e
in

en
v

ir
o
n
m
en
ta
l
p
er
fo
rm
a
n
ce
p
ro
g
ra
m

s
in

th
e
fu
tu

re
H

ig
h

u
n
ce
rt
a
in
ty
a
v
o
id
a
n

ce
co

u
n

tr
ie

s
(a

re
m

o
re
li
k
el
y
to
):
A
ll
o
ca
te
re
so
u
rc
es

to
p

re
v
en
ti
v
e

m
a
in

te
n
a
n

ce
A

cc
o
u

n
t

fo
r

a
g

a
te

r
p
ro
p
o
rt

io
n

o
f

th
ei

r
q

u
a
li
ty
co
st
s

w
it

h
ex

te
rn
a
l

co
st

s
P

la
ce

g
re

a
te

r
im

p
o
rt

a
n

ce
o
n

q
u
a
li

ty
in

su
p

p
li

er
se

le
ct

io
n
L
o
w

p
o
w

er
d
is
ta
n
ce
co
u
n
tr

ie
s

(a
re
m
o
re
li
k
el
y
to
):
A
ll
o
ca
te
re
so
u
rc
es
to
p
re
v
en
ti
v
e
m
a
in
te
n
a
n
ce
P
la
ce
g
re
a
te
r
im
p
o
rt
a
n
ce
o
n
q
u
a
li
ty
in
su
p
p
li
er
se
le
ct
io
n
H
ig

h
p

o
w
er
d
is
ta
n
ce
co
u
n
tr
ie
s
(a
re
m
o
re
li
k
el
y
to
):

A
sc

ri
b

e
im

p
o
rt
a
n
ce
to
p
ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
re
li
a
b
il
it
y
a
s
im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
g
o
a
ls
A
ll
o
ca
te
re
so
u
rc
es
to
co
rr
ec
ti
v
e
m
a
in
te
n
a
n
ce
A
cc
o
u
n
t
fo
r
a
g

re
a
te

r
p
ro
p
o
rt
io
n
o
f
th
ei
r
q
u
a
li
ty
co
st
s
w
it

h
in

sp
ec

ti
o
n
co
st

s
E

n
g
a
g
e
in
en
v
ir
o
n
m
en
ta
l
p
er
fo
rm
a
n
ce
p
ro
g
ra
m

s
n

o
w
a
n
d
in
th
e
fu
tu

re
L

o
w

co
ll

ec
ti
v
is
m
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
a
l
co
u
n
tr
ie
s
(a
re
m
o
re
li
k
el
y
to
):
P
ri
o
ri
ti
ze
su
p
er
io
r
co
n
fo
rm
a
n
ce
q
u
a
li
ty
A
sc
ri
b
e
im
p
o
rt
a
n
ce
to
m
a
n
u
fa
ct
u
ri
n
g
co
n
fo
rm
a
n

ce
a
n

d
p

ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
re
li
a
b
il
it
y
a
s
im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
g
o
a
ls
A
ll
o
ca
te
re
so
u
rc
es
to
co
rr
ec
ti
v
e
m
a
in
te
n
a
n
ce
E
n
g
a
g
e
in
q
u
a
li
ty
im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
a
n
d
co
n
tr
o
l
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
in
th

e
fu

tu
re
E
n
g
a
g
e
in
eq
u
ip
m
en
t
p
ro
d
u
ct
iv
it
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
E
n
g
a
g
e
in
en
v
ir
o
n
m
en
ta
l
p
er
fo
rm
a
n
ce
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
n
o
w
a
n
d
in
th
e
fu
tu
re
H
ig
h
co
ll
ec
ti
v
is
m
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
a
l
co
u
n
tr
ie
s
(a
re
m
o
re
li
k
el
y
to
):
A
ll
o
ca
te
re
so
u
rc
es
to
p
re
v
en
ti
v
e
m
a
in
te
n
a
n

ce
H

ig
h
co
ll
ec
ti
v
is
m
in

g
ro

u
p
co
u
n
tr
ie
s
(a
re
m
o
re
li
k
el
y
to
):
A
sc
ri
b
e
im
p
o
rt
a
n
ce
to
p
ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
re
li
a
b
il
it
y
a
s
im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
g
o
a
ls
E
n
g
a
g
e
in
eq
u
ip
m
en
t
p
ro
d
u
ct
iv
it
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
E
n
g
a
g
e
in
en
v
ir
o
n
m
en
ta
l
p
er
fo
rm
a
n
ce
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
n
o
w
a
n
d
in
th
e
fu
tu
re
(c
o
n
ti
n
u
ed
)

Table VII.

Impact of GLOBE
cultural dimensions on
quality management

IJOPM
31,5

548

C
u
lt
u
ra
l
d
im
en
si
o
n
F
in
d
in
g
s
L
o
w

g
en

d
er
eg
a
li
ta
ri
a
n
is
m
co
u
n
tr
ie
s
(a
re
m
o
re
li
k
el
y
to
):
E
n
g
a
g
e
in
en
v
ir
o
n
m
en
ta
l
p
er
fo
rm
a
n
ce
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
in
th
e
fu
tu
re
H
ig
h
g
en
d
er
eg
a
li
ta
ri
a
n
is
m
co
u
n
tr
ie
s
(a
re
m
o
re
li
k
el
y
to
):
A
sc
ri
b
e
im
p
o
rt
a
n
ce
to
p
ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
re
li
a
b
il
it
y
a
s
im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
g
o
a
ls
H
ig

h
a
ss

er
ti
v
en
es
s
co
u
n
tr
ie
s
(a
re
m
o
re
li
k
el
y
to
):
E
n
g
a
g
e
in
q
u
a
li
ty
im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
a
n
d
co
n
tr
o
l
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
in
th
e
fu
tu
re
L
o
w
fu
tu

re
o
ri

en
ta
ti
o
n
co
u
n
tr
ie
s
(a
re
m
o
re
li
k
el
y
to
):
E
n
g
a
g
e
in
eq
u
ip
m
en
t
p
ro
d
u
ct
iv
it
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
E
n
g
a
g
e
in
en
v
ir
o
n
m
en
ta
l
p
er
fo
rm
a
n
ce
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
n
o
w
a
n
d
in
th
e
fu
tu
re
H
ig
h
fu
tu
re
o
ri
en
ta
ti
o
n
co
u
n
tr
ie
s
(a
re
m
o
re
li
k
el
y
to
):
E
n
g
a
g
e
in
co
n
ti
n
u
o
u
s
im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
in
th
e
fu
tu
re
L
o
w
p
er
fo
rm
a
n
ce
o
ri
en
ta
ti
o
n
co
u
n
tr
ie
s
(a
re
m
o
re
li
k
el
y
to
):
P
ri
o
ri
ti
ze
su
p
er
io
r
p
ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
su
p
er
io
r
co
n
fo
rm
a
n
ce
q
u
a
li
ty
A
sc
ri
b
e
im
p
o
rt
a
n
ce
to
p
ro
d
u
ct
q
u
a
li
ty
a
n
d
re
li
a
b
il
it
y
a
s
im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
g
o
a
ls
A
ll
o
ca
te
re
so
u
rc
es
to
co
rr
ec
ti
v
e
m
a
in
te
n
a
n
ce
P
la
ce
g
re
a
te
r
im
p
o
rt
a
n
ce
o
n
q
u
a
li
ty
in
su
p
p
li
er
se
le
ct
io
n
E
n
g
a
g
e
in
q
u
a
li
ty
im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
a
n
d
co
n
tr
o
l
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
in
th
e
fu
tu
re
E
n
g
a
g
e
in
eq
u
ip
m
en
t
p
ro
d
u
ct
iv
it
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
in
th
e
fu
tu
re
E
n
g
a
g
e
in
en
v
ir
o
n
m
en
ta
l
p
er
fo
rm
a
n
ce
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
n
o
w
a
n
d
in
th
e
fu
tu
re
E
n
g
a
g
e
in
co
n
ti
n
u
o
u
s
im
p
ro
v
em
en
t
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
in
th
e
fu
tu
re
H
ig
h
p

er
fo

rm
a
n
ce
o
ri
en
ta
ti
o
n
co
u
n
tr
ie
s
(a
re
m
o
re
li
k
el
y
to
):
A
ll
o
ca
te
re
so
u
rc
es
to
p
re
v
en
ti
v
e
m
a
in
te
n
a
n

ce
L

o
w

h
u

m
a
n
e
o
ri
en
ta
ti
o
n
co
u
n
tr
ie
s
(a
re
m
o
re
li
k
el
y
to
):
A
ll
o
ca
te
re
so
u
rc
es
to
co
rr
ec
ti
v
e
m
a
in
te
n
a
n
ce
H
ig
h
h
u
m
a
n
e
o
ri
en
ta
ti
o
n
co
u
n
tr
ie
s
(a
re
o
re
li
k
el
y
to
):
A
ll
o
ca
te
re
so
u
rc
es
to
p
re
v
en
ti
v
e
m
a
in
te
n
a
n
ce
A
cc
o
u
n
t
fo
r
a
g
re
a
te
r
p
ro
p
o
rt
io
n
o
f
th
ei
r
q
u
a
li
ty
co
st
s
w
it
h
p
re
v
en
ti
v
e
co
st
s
Table VII.
Quality
management

549

being reliable proxies for cultural homogeneity for a given national culture. In particular,
future research needs to focus on the true blending of cultures and managerial values
that may affect quality management. Second, since our sample is biased towards
best-performing firms, future research should target all kinds of firms regardless of their
performance. This should provide a more robust representation of the state of the art of
quality management across different national cultures.

References

Abdul-Aziz, Z., Chan, J.F.L. and Metcalfe, A.V. (2000), “Quality practices in the manufacturing
industry in the UK and Malaysia”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 1053-64.

Anwar, S.A. and Jabnoun, N. (2006), “The development of a contingency model relating national
culture to total quality management”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 272-80.

Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (2001), Quantitaive Data Analysis, Routledge, London.

Child, J. and Kieser, A. (1979), “Organisational and management roles in British and
German companies: an examination of the culture-free thesis”, in Lammus, C.J. and
Hickson, D.J. (Eds), Organisations Alike and Unlike, Routledge, London.

Chin, K.S., Sun, H., Xu, Y. and Hua, H. (2002), “A comparative study of quality management
practices in Hong Kong and Shanghai manufacturing industries”, International Journal of
Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 576-81.

Corbett, L.M., Adam, E.E., Harrison, N.J., Lee, T.S., Rho, B.H. and Samson, D. (1998), “A study of
quality management practices and performance in Asia and the South Pacific”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 2597-607.

Crawford, K.M., Blackstone, J.H. Jr and Cox, J.F. (1988), “A study of JIT implementation and
operating problems”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 1561-8.

Cua, K.O., McKone, K.E. and Schroeder, R.G. (2001), “Relationships between implementation of
TQM, JIT, and TPM and manufacturing performance”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 675-94.

Davison, L. and Al-Shaghana, K. (2007), “The link between Six-Sigma and quality culture – an
empirical study”, Total Quality Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 249-65.

Emery, F. (1990), “The nine-step model”, in Trist, E.L. and Murray, H. (Eds), The Social
Engagement of Social Science: A Tavistock Anthology: The Socio-Technical Perspective,
Vol. 2, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.

Flynn, B.B. and Saladin, B. (2006), “Relevance of Baldridge constructs in an international context:
a study of national culture”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 583-603.

Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. (1994), “The impact of quality management practices
on performance and competitive advantage”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 659-91.

Form, W. (1979), “Comparative industrial sociology and the convergence hypothesis”, Annual
Review of Sociology, Vol. 5, pp. 1-25.

Frohlich, M. and Robb Dixon, J. (2001), “A taxonomy of manufacturing strategies revisited”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 541-58.

Frohlich, M. and Westbrook, R. (2001), “Arcs of integration: an international study of supply
chain strategies”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 185-200.

Fynes, B. (1998), “Quality management practices: a review of the literature”, Irish Business and
Administrative Research, Vol. 19-20 No. 2, pp. 113-38.

IJOPM
31,5

550

Gallear, D. and Ghobadian, A. (2004), “An empirical investigation of the channels that facilitate
a total quality culture”, Quality Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 1043-67.

Garg, R. and Ma, J. (2005), “Benchmarking culture and performance in Chinese organisations”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 260-74.

Gaski, J.F. and Etzel, M.J. (1986), “The index of consumer sentiment toward marketing”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 71-81.

Grossler, A. and Grubner, A. (2006), “An empirical model of the relationships between
manufacturing capabilities”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 458-85.

Hardie, N. and Walsh, P. (1994), “Towards a better understanding of quality”, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 54-60.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values,
Sage, London.

Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and
Organizations Across Countries, Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA.

Hofstede, G. (2006), “What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’
minds”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 882-96.

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M. and Dorfman, P.W. (2002), “Understanding cultures and
implicit leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to project GLOBE”, Journal of
World Business, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 3-10.

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (2004), Culture, Leadership
and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Ismail, S. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2003), “Examination and comparison of the critical factors of
total quality management (TQM) across countries”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 235-68.

Krosolid, D. (1999), “In search of quality management – rethinking and reinterpreting”, doctoral
thesis, Institute of Technology, Linkoping University, Linkoping.

Lagrosen, S. (2002), “Quality management in Europe: a cultural perspective”, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 275-83.

Lagrosen, S. (2003), “Exploring the impact of culture on quality management”, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 20 Nos 4/5, pp. 473-82.

Lindberg, P., Voss, C. and Blackmon, K. (1998), International Manufacturing Strategies: Context,
Content, and Change, Kluwver, London.

Mathews, B.P., Ueno, A., Kekale, T., Repka, M., Lopes Pereira, Z. and Silva Graca, S. (2001),
“European quality management practices: the impact of national culture”, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 692-707.

Newman, K.L. and Nollen, S.D. (1996), “Culture and congruence: the fit between management practices
and national culture”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 753-79.

Raghunathan, T.S., Subba Rao, S. and Solis, L.E. (1997), “A comparative study of quality practices:
USA, China and India”, Industrial Management and Data System, Vol. 97 No. 5, pp. 192-202.

Reeves, C.A. and Bednar, D.A. (1994), “Defining quality: alternatives and implications”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 419-45.

Rehder, R.R. (1989), “Japanese transplants: in search of a balanced and broader perspective”,
Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 17-28.

Quality
management

551

Rungtusanatham, M., Forza, C., Koka, B.R., Salvadora, F. and Nie, W. (2005), “TQM across
multiple countries: convergence hypothesis versus national specificity arguments”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 43-63.

Safayeni, F., Purdy, L., van Engelen, R. and Pal, S. (1991), “Difficulties of just-in-time
implementation: a classification scheme”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 27-36.

Snell, R.S. and Hui, S.K.K. (2000), “Towards the Hong Kong learning organization: an exploratory
case study”, Journal of Applied Management Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 150-75.

Souza-Poza, A., Nystrom, H. and Wiebe, H. (2000), “A cross-cultural study of the differing effects
of corporate culture on TQM in three countries”, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 744-61.

Subba Rao, S., Raghunathan, T.S. and Solis, L.E. (1997), “A comparative study of quality practices and
results in India, China and Mexico”, Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 235-50.

Tata, J., Prasad, S. and Motwani, J. (2000), “Benchmarking quality management practices:
US versus Costa Rica”, Multinational Business Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 37-42.

Tsui, A.S., Nifadkar, S.S. and Ou, A.Y. (2007), “Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational
behavior research: advances, gaps, and recommendations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33
No. 3, pp. 426-78.

Vereecke, A. and Muylle, S. (2006), “Performance improvement through supply chain
collaboration in Europe”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 26 No. 11, pp. 1176-98.

Voss, C. (2005), “Alternative paradigms for manufacturing strategies”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1211-22.

Wacker, J.F. and Sprague, L.G. (1998), “Forecasting accuracy: comparing the relative
effectiveness of practices between seven developing countries”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 271-90.

Yoo, K.D., Subba Rao, S. and Hong, P. (2005), “A comparative study on cultural differences and
quality practices: Korea, USA, Mexico and Taiwan”, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 607-24.

Zhao, X., Maheshwari, S.K. and Zhang, J. (1995), “Benchmarking quality practices in India, China
and Mexico”, Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 20-32.

Further reading

Madu, C.N., Kuei, C. and Lin, C. (1995), “A comparative analysis of quality practice in
manufacturing firms in the US and Taiwan”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 621-35.

Pagell, M., Katz, J.P. and Sheu, C. (2005), “The importance of national culture in operations
management research”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 371-94.

Voss, C. and Blackmon, K. (1998), “Differences in manufacturing strategy decisions between
Japanese and Western manufacturing plants: the role of strategic time orientation”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 147-58.

Corresponding author
Alessandra Vecchi can be contacted at: a.vecchi@fashion.arts.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

IJOPM
31,5

552

Appendix

IMSS IV Questions:

Quality Priorities

Consider the importance of the following attributes towin orders from your major customers.

Current importance Over thelast 3 years the goal has

Not

important

Very
important

become
less
important

stayed
the same

become
more

important

superior product design and quality 1 2 3 4 5 5
superior conformance quality

1 2 3 4 5

2 3 4

1 2 3 4 5

How important are the following improvement goals for yourmanufacturing function for the next 3 years?

Not important Very important

Improving manufacturing conformance 1 2 3 4

2 3 4
5

Improving product quality and reliability 1 5

Quality Practices

What is the proportionof the maintenance budget spent onthe following activities? (adding up to100%)

Maintenance
Preventive maintenance _____ %
Corrective maintenance _____ %

100 %

What is the approximate proportionof quality costs (adding up to 100%)?

Quality cost
Inspection/control costs (sampling, supervision, lab tests) _____ %
Internal quality costs (e.g. scrap, losses) _____ %
Preventive costs (training, documentation, preventive maintenance, etc.) _____ %
External quality costs (e.g. warranty costs, returns, etc.) _____ %

100 %

What criteria do youuse for selecting your key/strategic suppliers?
Level of importance

None High

Quality of products/services offered 1 2 3 4 5

Indicate degree of the following action programmes undertaken over the last three years and planned efforts for the
coming three years.

Degree of use
last 3 years

None High

Planned effort
within next 3 years
None High

1 2 3 4 5
Undertaking programs for quality improvement and control (e.g. TQM

programs, 6 projects, quality circles, etc.)
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Undertaking programs for the improvement of your equipment productivity

(e.g. Total Productive Maintenance programs)
1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Undertaking programmes to improve environmental performance of processes

and products (e.g. environmental management system, Life-Cycle
Analysis, Design for Environment, Environmental certification)

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
Implementing Continuous Improvement Programs through systematic

initiatives (e.g. kaizen, improvement teams, etc.)
1 2 3 4 5

Quality
management
553

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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 javidanm@t-bird.edu
Peter W. Dorfman is a full Professor in the Department of Management, New Mexico State University. Contact: pdorfman@nmsu.edu
Mary Sully de Luque is an Assistant Professor of Management and a Research Fellow at Thunderbird, The Garvin School of International
Management. Contact: sullym@t-bird.edu
Robert J. House holds the Joseph Frank Bernstein endowed chair of Organizational Studies at the Wharton School of the University of
Pennsylvania. Contact: house@wharton.upenn.edu

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.

2006 69Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, and House

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-

70 FebruaryAcademy of Management Perspectives

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).

2006 71Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, and House

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

72 FebruaryAcademy of Management Perspectives

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)

2006 73Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, and House

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.

74 FebruaryAcademy of Management Perspectives

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)

2006 75Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, and House

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

76 FebruaryAcademy of Management Perspectives

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:

Very early on, he needs to spend time meeting
with the key executives in the organization, even
those who may not be directly relevant to his
project. This is an important step because of high
power distance and in-group collectivism in that
culture. Being a foreigner and a newcomer, it is
crucial to show respect to those in positions of
power and to start the process of building personal
ties and moving into their in-groups. Further, this
step helps make sure that the other stakeholders
do not view the manager’s team as being insular,
something that is likely to happen in high in-
group cultures.

While it is important to work with the individ-
ual members of the team, it is also critical to spend
as much time as possible with the team as a whole,
both in formal work related occasions and in in-
formal settings. The families of the team members
should also be invited to get together on many
occasions. They are an important part of the re-
lationships among team members. The high in-
group culture facilitates the group working closely
together, and the Brazilians’ dislike for indepen-
dent and individualistic leaders means that the
leader is expected to treat the team and their close
families as an extended family, spending much
time together.

In developing a business strategy for the team’s
product, it is important to keep in mind Brazil’s
low scores on performance orientation and future
orientation and its high score on power distance.
The process of strategy development needs to al-
low for input from the employees, but the manager
needs to be patient and to make an effort to
encourage and facilitate the employees’ participa-
tion. The Brazilian employees will not be as forth-
coming with their ideas and input as typical

2006 77Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, and House

American employees are. At the same time, the
manager will need to make the final decision and
communicate it. Brazilian employees are not used
to strong participation in decision making, but
they also do not like leaders who simply dictate
things to them. The strategy should not be seen as
too risky or ambitious and should not have a long
time horizon. Instead, it should consist of explicit
short term milestones. It should also focus on
delivering short term results to enhance employee
understanding and support.

Due to the country’s low score on institutional
collectivism, employees will not be moved much
by grand corporate strategies and visions. Instead,
they would be more motivated by their individual
and team interests, so the reward system should be
based on both individual and team performance,
although the team component should have the
greater emphasis. The manager should also not be
surprised if there are not many clear rules or pro-
cesses and if the ones in existence are not followed
very seriously. These are attributes of a society like
Brazil with low levels of rules orientation. Instead,
the manager needs to make it very clear early on
which rules and procedures are expected to be
followed and why.

France

France is part of the Latin Europe GLOBE country
cluster. The most desirable CLT dimensions in
this cluster are Charismatic/Value-Based and
Team Oriented leadership. Participative leader-
ship is viewed positively but is not as important as
the first two dimensions. Humane Oriented lead-
ership is viewed as slightly positive, whereas Au-
tonomous leadership is viewed as slightly negative
and Self-Protective is viewed negatively. Table 3
shows that the Latin Europe cluster is Medium/
High for Charismatic/Value-Based leadership. It is
in the middle rank for the remaining CLT lead-
ership dimensions except the Humane Oriented
and Autonomous dimensions where it ranks
among the lowest scoring clusters.

Figure 2 below shows the contrast between
French and American leadership on culturally
contingent leadership attributes. The French cul-
ture is similar to the U.S on one cultural dimen-
sion, in that they both practice moderate levels of

uncertainty avoidance. Although both cultures
utilize predictable laws and procedures in business
and society, characteristic of uncertainty avoid-
ance cultures, France is much better known for its
strong labor unions and bureaucratic formality.
There are, however, significant differences be-
tween the French and American respondents on
other cultural dimensions and leadership at-
tributes. Both groups seem to like sincere and
enthusiastic leaders who impart positive energy to
their group, although American managers have
much stronger preferences for these attributes.
This may be a reflection of the finding that French
culture is not as performance oriented as U.S.
culture.

Besides their dislike for avoidance of conflict
within the group (as discussed earlier) American
managers have a clear dislike for cunning and
deceitful leaders. The French, on the other hand,
are neutral about both attributes. While Ameri-
cans see these attributes as dysfunctional, the
French see them as a part of the job that goes with
the position of leadership. Compared to the U.S.,
in-group collectivism is more noted in French
societies in the form of “favoritism” given to peo-
ple from similar education, family, social, and
even regional backgrounds. This is shown in the
general tension that is perceived to exist between
labor and management, as well and employees and
clients.29

Figure 2
USA vs. France

78 FebruaryAcademy of Management Perspectives

American managers seem to have a strong pref-
erence for compassionate and sensitive leaders
who show empathy towards others. In contrast,
French managers seem to have a distinctly nega-
tive view towards both these attributes. The CEO
of an international audit firm expressed this in a
quality audit of a French hotel stating, “The staff
had an inability to apologize and empathize. I
think that could be construed as typically Euro-
pean, and especially French.”30 These same be-
haviors would be expected from their leaders.
Such a large contrast can perhaps be explained by
the fact that the French culture is much less
humane oriented and much more power oriented.
To French managers, people in positions of lead-
ership should not be expected to be sensitive or
empathetic, or to worry about another’s status
because such attributes would weaken a leader’s
resolve and impede decision making. Leaders
should make decisions without being distracted by
other considerations. Indeed, a very successful cor-
porate executive in France noted that a leader
should be able to handle change that affects the
environment, but at the same time not change his
or her characteristics, traits, and skills that put the
leader in that position. In other words, they
should allow no distractions.

In contrast to Americans, French respondents
have a negative view of leaders who are self-
sacrificial and self-effacing. They do not like lead-
ers who are modest about their role and forgo their
own self-interest. The French executive added, “A
leader must be clear about his role and vision. If a
leader puts himself in a compromising situation,
then doubt will arise in the followers’ minds about
the leader and that would affect their views of the
roles the followers play in the broader picture.” To
them, the leader has an important role to play and
important decisions to make, and s/he should not
minimize that. They also do not like leaders who
are habitual and tend to routinize everything be-
cause that diminishes the importance of their role.
They do still prefer their leaders to work with and
rely on others to get things done and do not like
independent leaders. A French CEO known for
his corporate turnaround finesse explained that
leaders should not have too much independence
from their followers because otherwise this would

denote lack of character from the followers. He
adds that a leader should guide without having too
much power over the followers’ thought processes,
to ensure diverse thinking critical to conserve
several solutions to the leader.

To sum up, a typical American executive tak-
ing on a leadership role in a French organization
will face a more bureaucratic and formal work
environment with higher levels of aggressiveness
and lower levels of personal compassion and sen-
sitivity than s/he is used to.

When in France. . .

The American manager in our scenario will face a
very different experience with his or her French
team. These managers will experience much more
formal and impersonal relationships among the
team members. The concept of visionary and
charismatic leadership that is popular among
American managers may not be as desirable to the
French. They do not expect their leaders to play
heroic acts and, due to their high power distance,
have a more bureaucratic view of leaders. So, the
American manager, in contrast to his experience
in Brazil, needs to tone down the personal side of
relationships and be much more business oriented.
The manager also has to be more careful and
selective in contacting other executives and stake-
holders. Their preference for maintaining high
power distance may curb their enthusiasm about
meeting with someone if they feel it is a waste of
time and of no clear value to them. It is perhaps
best for our American manager to make an offer to
them and leave it to them to decide. Their low
humane orientation culture may mean that they
are not particularly interested in being supportive
of others, even in the same organization, espe-
cially if they are from separate in-groups.

Due to lower levels of future orientation and
performance orientation, grand corporate strate-
gies and visions may be of limited value to a
French team. Any strong competitive language
may be seen as typical American bravado. The
manager needs to develop a process for making
strategic decisions about the project and get the
team members involved, but he needs to keep in
mind that French employees may be best moti-
vated by transactional forms of leadership where

2006 79Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, and House

they see clear individual benefit in implementing
the team’s plans. The strategy and action plans
need to be simple and well planned. So, the con-
tent and process of strategy development for the
French team may have many similarities with the
Brazilian team, even though they are different on
many other dimensions.

Egypt

Egypt is part of the Middle East cluster. There are
a number of striking differences in comparison to
other clusters. While both Charismatic/Value-
Based and Team Oriented leadership are viewed
as positive, they have the lowest scores and ranks
relative to those for all other clusters. Participa-
tive leadership is viewed positively, but again
scores low compared with other clusters’ absolute
score and ranks. Humane Oriented leadership is
perceived positively, but only about equally to
other cluster scores. The Self-Protective CLT di-
mension is viewed as an almost neutral factor;
however, it has the second-highest score and rank
of all clusters.

Figure 3 below shows a contrast of leadership
styles in the U.S. and Egypt. The Egyptian culture
is distinct by its emphasis on in-group and insti-
tutional collectivism, power distance, humane ori-
entation, and male domination. In terms of lead-
ership, American managers dislike autocratic
leaders who want to make all the decisions them-

selves and micromanage their employees. They do
not want their leaders to suppress others’ ideas,
even if they disagree with them. Egyptian manag-
ers have a more temperate view of such execu-
tives, perhaps due to their strong power distance
culture.

A very important difference is the image of
leaders in the Egyptian vs. the American mind.
Egyptian managers seem to have an elitist, tran-
scendent view of their leaders. They view them as
a distinct group and a breed apart. They want
their leaders to be unique, superior, status- and
class-conscious, individualistic, and better than
the others in their group. They show strong rev-
erence and deference toward their leaders. Amer-
icans, on the other hand, have a more benign and
simplistic view toward their leaders. They do not
see them as a breed apart or superhuman. They
regard them as successful people but not extraor-
dinary ones.

The country of Egypt has been ruled by dicta-
tors dating as far back as the time of the Pharaohs.
Leaders were expected to lead by portraying a
self-assured image. To maintain power, Egyptian
leaders need to continuously be involved in mak-
ing decisions. In the Arabic culture that is very
much influenced by Islam, men do not wish to
appear weak.

Despite such high level of respect for leaders,
Egyptian employees, perhaps due to their very
strong in-group collectivism, prefer their leaders
to respect group harmony, avoid group conflict,
and take caution in decision making. It is rare to
see leaders, especially political leaders, come out
publicly and criticize a popular belief. They tend
to avoid a conflict when it is not necessary, and
they often use this collectivism to build their
influence and popularity.

The importance of kinship as the family is the
most significant unit of Egyptian society. An in-
dividual’s social identity is closely linked to his or
her status in the network of kin relations. Kinship
is essential to the culture. Describing the tendency
toward generosity and caring in their society, an
Egyptian manager told of how early Islamic au-
thorities imposed a tax on personal property pro-
portionate to one’s wealth and distributed the
revenues to the needy. This type of government

Figure 3
USA vs. Egypt

80 FebruaryAcademy of Management Perspectives

behavior left a certain culture of doing business in
Egypt that has a strong emphasis on harmony with
the environment, the industry, and the competi-
tion.

When in Egypt . . .

Our hypothetical American manager will find
that his experience in Egypt will have both simi-
larities and differences with his time in France and
Brazil. First, what the manager may regard as a
normal informal leadership style in the U.S. may
be seen as weak and unworthy of a leader. This
manager (typically a male) is expected to act and
be seen as distinct from the others on the team
and present an image of omnipotence. In the
minds of his Egyptian team members, he needs to
be seen as deserving of his leadership role and
status. Addressing his role as a leader, a project
manager from Egypt noted that being a leader
brought with it great responsibility. He was in
charge of disciplining anyone that did not follow
the team rules. He noted, “In order to keep the
team spirit up and focused on our goals, we can’t
afford to have individuals deviating from what we
have set out to do.” This is almost the opposite of
his experience in France.

The American manager will also find that due
to very strong in-group collectivism, various
groups inside and outside the organization tend to
show in-group/out-group phenomena in decision
making; i.e., strong participation by in-group
members, little participation by out-group mem-
bers; strong communication with in-group mem-
bers, and little communication with out-group
members. The extent to which Egyptians take
pride in belonging to certain groups is immensely
important. Families have endured through diffi-
cult times, requiring many of the members to stay
together and work together. Family businesses
tend to be passed from father to son without too
many exceptions. Maintenance of the in-group is
paramount in any decision. Leaders build their
legitimacy not necessarily by accomplishing high
performance but rather by forging loyalty to the
group and group values. Furthermore, as a result of
reliance on personal relationships, decision mak-
ing criteria and processes regarding any aspect of
the organization tend to be informal and unclear.

Given such cultural underpinnings, the Amer-
ican manager needs to do even more than he did
in Brazil to build and maintain group harmony.
Many informal and formal meetings are needed,
but there are three important differences com-
pared with the experience in Brazil. First, to Egyp-
tians, the team leader is more than just an exec-
utive; he is a paternal figure who will be rather
autocratic but benign. He cares about them and
their families. The relationship between the boss
and employees is much more emotional and per-
sonal in Egypt. The Egyptian project manager
described how he helped one of his employees
who had experienced some personal difficulties.
Explaining that the employee’s behaviour was un-
acceptable, the manager added, “At the same
time, I tried to understand if there were any per-
sonal issues that forced him to behave the way he
did. I felt an obligation to try to help him.” Sec-
ondly, due to very high humane orientation in
Egypt, if the family of an employee has a problem,
colleagues and the boss will quickly get involved
to help. Taking care of friends in need is a major
element of the culture and there is very little
demarcation between colleagues and friends.
Third, it is easier and more acceptable for the boss
in Brazil to get to know the family members and
spend time with them during social occasions. It is
not, however, a good idea for him to try to do the
same with Egyptian families. The contact should
only be with and through the employee. Egyptian
families tend to be more private and inaccessible
to outsiders, possibly due to the intense in-group
culture. People tend to stay close to their roots
and develop a very strong sense of belonging. In
short, even though the American manager will
spend time building personal ties and maintaining
in-group relationships both in Egypt and Brazil,
the nature of his behaviour will need to be some-
what different.

Like Brazil, the manager needs to pay his re-
spects and call on the key executives in the Egyp-
tian organization and start the process of building
personal relationships. Unlike the French execu-
tives, the Egyptian executives will in all likelihood
enjoy this approach and respond positively.

In developing a business strategy for the team,
several cultural attributes need to be taken into

2006 81Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, and House

consideration. The team will enjoy providing in-
put but they expect decisions to be made by the
leader. Family related activities are always cele-
brated and employees are often excused from work
to be able to properly plan such occasions. How-
ever, leaders also tend to use the friendly environ-
ment to maintain their control and build loyalty
within their workforce. Egyptian employees ex-
pect their leaders to develop and communicate
heroic and grand strategies. Due to their high
institutional collectivism and performance orien-
tation, it is helpful to design and communicate
ambitious strategies and put them into the broader
context of the corporation. Employees will reso-
nate to ideas that would help the corporation and
the unit achieve prominence in their competitive
arenas. They also like strong rhetoric and get
excited by the desire to be part of the winning
team. In terms of the reward system, individual
performance-based financial rewards, while help-
ful, are not the best motivators. The system should
be seen to be humane to all; it should have a
strong group based component, and it should con-
sist of a variety of benefits that are not typically
offered in the U.S. Such benefits should be fo-
cused on the families of employees. For example,
tuition assistance to employees’ children, paid
family vacation, free or subsidized toys or home
appliances could be very well received. As with
other Middle East countries, although it is impor-
tant for the individual to be successful, it is the
family or group success that is more dominant.

China

China is part of the Confucian Asia cluster. The
two CLT dimensions contributing to outstanding
leadership are Charismatic/Value-Based and
Team Oriented leadership, even though these
scores are not particularly high. Humane Oriented
leadership is viewed favorably, but it is not as
important as the first two CLT dimensions. Al-
though Participative leadership is also viewed pos-
itively, it is about equal to the lowest-scoring
clusters. Autonomous leadership is viewed neu-
trally, and Self-Protective leadership is seen as a
slight impediment to effective leadership. Table 4
shows that compared to other GLOBE countries,
the Confucian Asia cluster is ranked relatively

low with respect to Participative and relatively
high with respect to Self-Protective leadership
dimensions.

As shown in the Appendix, the US and Chi-
nese cultures are similar in terms of their perfor-
mance orientation, humane orientation, and
power distance. The Chinese culture seems to be
less future oriented, less assertive, more collectiv-
ist, both small group and socially, and more rules
oriented.

Figure 4 below shows the comparison of cultur-
ally contingent leadership attributes between
American and Chinese managers. Both American
and Chinese managers like excellence oriented
leaders who strive for performance improvement
in themselves and their subordinates. This is prob-
ably driven by the fact that both cultures share a
strong performance orientation, as shown in the
Appendix. They also both like leaders who are
honest. However, the figure shows that the US
scores on both these attributes are higher that the
Chinese scores.

Chinese managers seem to like leaders who are
fraternal and friendly with their subordinates and
who have an indirect approach to communica-
tion, using metaphors and parables to communi-
cate their point. American managers have a neu-
tral view of fraternal leadership and a negative
view of indirect leadership. The difference can

Figure 4
USA vs. China

82 FebruaryAcademy of Management Perspectives

probably be explained by the fact that the U.S.
culture is much more assertive and less in-group
oriented than that in China (see appendix). In a
less assertive culture like China, people tend to
use nuances and a context rich language to com-
municate. They prefer indirect communication to
avoid the possibility of hurting someone. Further-
more, in a highly group oriented culture like
China, group harmony is critical and the leader’s
role is to strengthen group ties. As a result, leaders
are expected to be supportive of their subordinates
and act as good friends for them. They are ex-
pected to build emotional ties with their groups
and their relationships with their subordinates go
far beyond what is the norm in a country like the
U.S. The leader is seen as a paternal figure who
should take care of his subordinates and their
families.

American managers are not excited about lead-
ers who are status conscious and are negative
towards leaders who are elitist. In contrast, Chi-
nese managers like the former type of leadership
and are neutral towards the latter. This is reflec-
tive of the importance of hierarchy in the Chinese
culture. Confucianism’s ‘Three Bonds’— emperor
rules the minister, father rules the son, and hus-
band rules the wife—serve as the foundation of
the Chinese society:

Chinese business structure can be directly linked to the
history of patriarchy: the owner or manager plays the father’s
role, and the subordinates or employees play the son.31

Within such a hierarchical structure, the leader
tends to be authoritative and expects respect and
obedience and tends to make autonomous deci-
sions. That is why Chinese managers do not ad-
mire leaders who are self-effacing, because such
leaders do not emanate confidence. A group of
American managers was recently in China to dis-
cuss a possible joint venture with a Chinese com-
pany. American managers expected to spend a few
days working with their Chinese counterparts to
brainstorm ideas and develop action plans. After a
few frustrating days, they were told that they
needed to find a Chinese agent to help them
implement the deal. In conversations with the
Chinese agent, they learned that the Chinese
counterpart’s expectation from the meetings was

very different. They learned that the Chinese
company wanted to use the meetings to help build
personal ties among the Chinese and American
managers and was upset that the Americans were
asking aggressive questions and were focused
solely on business rather than personal matters.
They also learned that the top Chinese executive
had no interest in sharing decision making with
any one. Instead, he wanted to use private lunches
and dinners with the head of the American dele-
gation to make serious decisions and reach agree-
ments.

Chinese managers are very negative towards
worldly leaders who have a global outlook. In
contrast, Americans admire such leaders. This
could be explained by the fact that the two cul-
tures are very different in terms of in group col-
lectivism. The Chinese culture is very high on this
dimension, which means it is less interested in
anything outside of their in-group. Perhaps they
view the world as out-group compared to China
and view it as less important.

When in China. . .

The Chinese culture is distinct by its high perfor-
mance orientation, high institutional orientation,
and high in-group collectivism. Building personal
ties and relationships is reflected in the Chinese
concept of “guan xi” whose loose English transla-
tion is networking. It is a manifestation of the fact
that one’s value and importance is embedded in
his/her ties and relationships. As a result:

In China, the primary qualities expected in a leader or
executive is someone who is good at establishing and
nurturing personal relationships, who practices benevo-
lence towards his or her subordinates, who is dignified and
aloof but sympathetic, and puts the interests of his or her
employees above his or her own.32

Much of Chinese life and culture is based on
Confucian ideas which emphasize the importance
of relationships and community. Even the word
“self” has a negative connotation.33 Our hypothet-
ical American manager needs to be careful about
how his behavior and manners are perceived by
the Chinese. Being polite, considerate, and moral
are desirable attributes. At the same time, the
American manager can get the Chinese employ-
ees excited by engaging their high performance

2006 83Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, and House

culture. Developing an exciting vision is very ef-
fective. The relative high score on future orienta-
tion can also help the new manager get the em-
ployees motivated. But perhaps the most critical
key success factor is how the manager goes about
building personal ties and relationships with a
wide network of individuals and groups. His “guan
xi” will be the ultimate test of his success. In
building guan xi with his employees, he needs to
show high respect to the employees’ families, keep
them in mind when designing work schedules and
reward systems, and make sure that employees see
him and the organization as a strong supporter of
their own guan xi. Perhaps a big challenge to the
American executive is how to make sure his nat-
ural American assertiveness does not turn his Chi-
nese employees and counterparts off and does not
impede his efforts at building strong relationships.

Embarking on a Cross-cultural
Leadership Journey

T
he existing literature on cross-cultural manage-
ment is more useful at the conceptual level
than at the behavioral level. Much of the ad-

vice offered to executives tends to be context-free
and general such as “understand and respect the
other culture.” But the problems facing a typical
global executive are context-specific; for example,
how to understand and respect the Brazilian cul-
ture. In behavioral terms, understanding the Bra-
zilian culture may be quite different from under-
standing and respecting the Egyptian culture
because they are very different cultures.

In this paper, we have presented the cultural
profiles of four countries based on a rigorous and
scientific research project. We have also provided
very specific ideas on the managerial implications
of the different cultural profiles along with action
oriented advice on how an American manager can
“put himself in the other culture’s shoes” and be
adaptable. Besides the culture specific ideas pre-
sented earlier, we propose a two-step process for any
executive who is embarking on a new assignment in
a new country. Regardless of the host country, these
two steps help build a positive pathway towards
cultural understanding and adaptability.

First, the executive needs to share information

about his own as well as the host country’s culture.
Most of the advice that executives receive is about
how they can adapt and adjust to other cultures.
We propose a somewhat different approach.
When people from different cultures come into
contact, they usually have unstated and some-
times false or exaggerated stereotypes about the
other side. While it is important that the execu-
tive learn about the host culture, it is not suffi-
cient. Executives need to tell the host employees
about their own cultures. For example, if these
executives are in Egypt, then they should show
the employees how the American and Egyptian
cultures and leadership attributes compare. They
should show both similarities and differences. In
this paper, we showed that there is a set of lead-
ership attributes that are universally desirable and
universally undesirable. Similarities represent a
fertile ground to build mutual understanding. The
informed executive can then use the session to
discuss their implications. What does integrity
mean to a French manager? Or to a Brazilian
manager? The executive can also compare the
findings about his or her own culture with their
perceptions of American culture to dispel any
misunderstandings. This exercise in mapping and
surfacing cultural attributes can go a long way to
build mutual understanding and trust between the
players. For example, our findings show that
American culture is reported to be more moderate
on many cultural dimensions than it is stereotypi-
cally believed to be. One of the unique features of
GLOBE is that we have taken several steps to
ensure that the reports by country managers are
not confounded by such things as methodological
problems and represent the true broader culture of
their societies.

Second, the global manager needs to think
about how to bridge the gap between the two
cultures. Much of the advice executives receive
seems to suggest, explicitly or implicitly, that the
executive needs to become more like them. We do
not necessarily subscribe to this viewpoint. While
it is important to understand the other culture, it
does not necessarily mean that one should auto-
matically apply their approach. For example, lead-
ers are seen as benign autocrats in Egypt. If an
American manager does not like this approach,

84 FebruaryAcademy of Management Perspectives

then he should educate the employees on his
approach to leadership; why it is not dictatorial,
and why he prefers it. Managers need to make sure
the employees understand that their approach is
not a sign of weakness, but a more effective style
for the manager and for the team’s and organiza-
tion’s success. It’s a judgment call to say it’s a
“more effective” style than what the team is used
to, but it is one that they should employ with the
team. The global manager needs to tell the em-
ployees what managerial functions they are will-
ing to change and what team functions they would
like the employees to change so that the team can
work from, and succeed on, common ground in-
corporating both cultures. The manager then
needs to seek their help on both approaches; i.e.,
each culture making changes to accommodate and
strengthen the other. Both approaches can take
place at the same time and with respect to both
cultures, as long as the manager gets the employ-
ees involved in the process. In other words, in-
stead of a solitary learning journey for the execu-
tive, managers can create a collective learning
journey that can be enriching, educational, and
productive for both sides.

Attributes of Global Leaders

T
he essence of global leadership is the ability to
influence people who are not like the leader and
come from different cultural backgrounds. To

succeed, global leaders need to have a global mind-
set, tolerate high levels of ambiguity, and show cul-
tural adaptability and flexibility. This paper provides
some examples of these attributes. In contrast to a
domestic manager, the hypothetical manager dis-
cussed in this paper needs a global mindset because
s/he needs to understand a variety of cultural and
leadership paradigms, and legal, political and eco-
nomic systems, as well as different competitive
frameworks.34 We used GLOBE findings to provide
a scientifically based comparison of cultural and
leadership paradigms in the five countries. We
showed that countries can be different on some
cultural dimensions and similar on others. Brazil and
Egypt are both high on in-group collectivism, but
different on performance orientation. France and
the U.S. are both moderate on uncertainty avoid-
ance but differ on power distance. China and the

U.S are both high on performance orientation but
very different on in-group collectivism. Furthermore,
there are similarities and differences in the countries’
leadership profiles. While a leadership attribute like
irritability is universally undesirable, another at-
tribute like compassion is culturally contingent, i.e.,
it is much more desirable in the U.S. than in France.

Tolerance of ambiguity is another important
attribute of a global leader. Every new country
that s/he has to work in represents a new paradigm
and new ways of doing things. This is typically an
uncomfortable position for many people to be in
because it requires learning new ideas quickly and
letting go of what has already been learned. Of
course, in the four scenarios, we showed that there
are things in common across cultures and there are
portable aspects of cultural learning. But we also
showed that there are differences as well. Figuring
out which one is which and what to do represents
potentially stressful ambiguity to an expatriate
manager.

Cultural adaptability refers to a manager’s abil-
ity to understand other cultures and behave in a
way that helps achieve goals and build strong and
positive relations with local citizens. In the coun-
try scenarios, we showed that while in France the
manager should not emphasize grand and ambi-
tious corporate strategies, he can do this in China.
Cultural adaptability refers to the mental and psy-
chological ability to move from one situation and
country to another. It means the ability to do a
good job of developing personal relationships
while in Egypt and then doing it very differently
in France. The dexterity to adjust one’s behavior is a
critical requirement. Not everyone can do this; to
many people it may bring into question one’s own
identity. In some ways it is reminiscent of acting but
the difference is that the global manager, unlike the
actor, lives and works among real people and not
other actors, so his task is more complicated.

Developing Global Leaders

A
s mentioned earlier in this paper, a large ma-
jority of Fortune 500 corporations report a
shortage of global leaders. Devising programs

that would develop a global mindset in leaders has
been called “the biggest challenge that looms in
the new millennium for human resource manag-

2006 85Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, and House

ers.”35 There are a variety of ways that companies
can enhance their pool of global leaders. To start
with, they can make a large volume of information
on cross-cultural and global issues and country spe-
cific reports available to their managers. We have
already referred to several books on this topic. In
addition to the special issue of the Human Resource
Management Journal mentioned earlier, there are spe-
cial issues of other journals.36 There are also a variety
of software packages such as a multimedia package
called “Bridging Cultures,” a self-training program
for those who will be living and working in other
cultures. In addition, several services like Cultur-
eGrams (www.culturegram.com) provide useful in-
formation about many countries. There are also a
few Internet sites providing useful information to
managers37 such as www.contactcga.com belonging
to the Center for Global assignments, the CIA
World Fact Book at www.odci.gov/cia/publications/
facxtbook/, and Global Dynamics Inc.’s www.
globaldynamics.com/expatria.htm.

Formal education and training can also be

helpful in developing global leaders. A recent
survey showed that a large majority of firms
were planning to increase funding for programs
that would help globalize their leaders.38 But
despite its prevalence among multinational cor-
porations, there is general consensus among ex-
perts that it is not a highly effective source of
developing global leaders.39 It is generally best
used as a component of a comprehensive and
integrated development program. Work experi-
ence and international assignment is by far the
most effective source for developing global lead-
ership capabilities.40 Some experts view long
term international assignments as the “single
most powerful experience in shaping the per-
spective and capabilities of effective global
leaders.”41 Increasingly, companies like GE,
Citigroup, Shell, Siemens, and Nokia are using
international assignments of high potential em-
ployees as the means to develop their managers’
global leadership mindset and competencies.

Appendix
Country Scores on Cultural Practices

Performance
Orientation

Anglo Cultures Latin Europe Middle East Cultures Confucian Asia Latin America

USA 4.49 France 4.11 Egypt 4.27 China 4.45 Brazil 4.04
Canada 4.49 Israel 4.08 Kuwait 3.95 Hong Kong 4.80 Bolivia 3.61
England 4.08 Italy 3.58 Morocco 3.99 Japan 4.22 Argentina 3.65
Ireland 4.36 Portugal 3.60 Qatar 3.45 Singapore 4.90 Colombia 3.94
New Zealand 4.72 Spain 4.01 Turkey 3.83 South Korea 4.55 Costa Rica 4.12
South Africa (W) 4.11 Swiss (French) 4.25 Taiwan 4.56 Ecuador 4.20
Australia 4.36 El Salvador 3.72

Guatemala 3.81
Mexico 4.10
Venezuela 3.32

Future
Orientation

Anglo Cultures Latin Europe Middle East Cultures Confucian Asia Latin America

USA 4.15 France 3.48 Egypt 3.86 China 3.75 Brazil 3.81
Canada 4.44 Israel 3.85 Kuwait 3.26 Hong Kong 4.03 Bolivia 3.61
England 4.28 Italy 3.25 Morocco 3.26 Japan 4.29 Argentina 3.08
Ireland 3.98 Portugal 3.71 Qatar 3.78 Singapore 5.07 Colombia 3.27
New Zealand 3.47 Spain 3.51 Turkey 3.74 South Korea 3.97 Costa Rica 3.60
South Africa (W) 4.13 Swiss (French) 4.27 Taiwan 3.96 Ecuador 3.74
Australia 4.09 El Salvador 3.80

Guatemala 3.24

86 FebruaryAcademy of Management Perspectives

Appendix (continued)

Mexico 3.87
Venezuela 3.35

Assertiveness
Orientation

Anglo Cultures Latin Europe Middle East Cultures Confucian Asia Latin America

USA 4.55 France 4.13 Egypt 3.91 China 3.76 Brazil 4.20
Canada 4.05 Israel 4.23 Kuwait 3.63 Hong Kong 4.67 Bolivia 3.79
England 4.15 Italy 4.07 Morocco 4.52 Japan 3.59 Argentina 4.22
Ireland 3.92 Portugal 3.65 Qatar 4.11 Singapore 4.17 Colombia 4.20
New Zealand 3.42 Spain 4.42 Turkey 4.53 South Korea 4.40 Costa Rica 3.75
South Africa (W) 4.60 Swiss (French) 3.47 Taiwan 3.92 Ecuador 4.09
Australia 4.28 El Salvador 4.62

Guatemala 3.89
Mexico 4.45
Venezuela 4.33

Societal
Collectivism

Anglo Cultures Latin Europe Middle East Cultures Confucian Asia Latin America

USA 4.20 France 3.93 Egypt 4.50 China 4.77 Brazil 3.83
Canada 4.38 Israel 4.46 Kuwait 4.49 Hong Kong 4.13 Bolivia 4.04
England 4.27 Italy 3.68 Morocco 3.87 Japan 5.19 Argentina 3.66
Ireland 4.63 Portugal 3.92 Qatar 4.50 Singapore 4.90 Colombia 3.81
New Zealand 4.81 Spain 3.85 Turkey 4.03 South Korea 5.20 Costa Rica 3.93
South Africa (W) 4.62 Swiss (French) 4.22 Taiwan 4.59 Ecuador 3.90
Australia 4.29 El Salvador 3.71

Guatemala 3.70
Mexico 4.06
Venezuela 3.96

In-Group
Collectivism

Anglo Cultures Latin Europe Middle East Cultures Confucian Asia Latin America

USA 4.25 France 4.37 Egypt 5.64 China 5.80 Brazil 5.18
Canada 4.26 Israel 4.70 Kuwait 5.80 Hong Kong 5.32 Bolivia 5.47
England 4.08 Italy 4.94 Morocco 5.87 Japan 4.63 Argentina 5.51
Ireland 5.14 Portugal 5.51 Qatar 4.71 Singapore 5.64 Colombia 5.73
New Zealand 3.67 Spain 5.45 Turkey 5.88 South Korea 5.54 Costa Rica 5.32
South Africa (W) 4.50 Swiss (French) 3.85 Taiwan 5.59 Ecuador 5.81
Australia 4.17 El Salvador 5.35

Guatemala 5.63
Mexico 5.71
Venezuela 5.53

Humane
Orientation

Anglo Cultures Latin Europe Middle East Cultures Confucian Asia Latin America

USA 4.17 France 3.40 Egypt 4.73 China 4.36 Brazil 3.66
Canada 4.49 Israel 4.10 Kuwait 4.52 Hong Kong 3.90 Bolivia 4.05
England 3.72 Italy 3.63 Morocco 4.19 Japan 4.30 Argentina 3.99
Ireland 4.96 Portugal 3.91 Qatar 4.42 Singapore 3.49 Colombia 3.72
New Zealand 4.32 Spain 3.32 Turkey 3.94 South Korea 3.81 Costa Rica 4.39

2006 87Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, and House

Appendix (continued)

South Africa (W) 3.49 Swiss (French) 3.93 Taiwan 4.11 Ecuador 4.65
Australia 4.28 El Salvador 3.71

Guatemala 3.89
Mexico 3.98
Venezuela 4.25

Power Distance Anglo Cultures Latin Europe Middle East Cultures Confucian Asia Latin America
USA 4.88 France 5.28 Egypt 4.92 China 5.04 Brazil 5.33
Canada 4.82 Israel 4.73 Kuwait 5.12 Hong Kong 4.96 Bolivia 4.51
England 5.15 Italy 5.43 Morocco 5.80 Japan 5.11 Argentina 5.64
Ireland 5.15 Portugal 5.44 Qatar 4.73 Singapore 4.99 Colombia 5.56
New Zealand 4.89 Spain 5.52 Turkey 5.57 South Korea 5.61 Costa Rica 4.74
South Africa (W) 5.16 Swiss (French) 4.86 Taiwan 5.18 Ecuador 5.60
Australia 4.74 El Salvador 5.68

Guatemala 5.60
Mexico 5.22
Venezuela 5.40

Gender
Egalitarianism

Anglo Cultures Latin Europe Middle East Cultures Confucian Asia Latin America

USA 3.34 France 3.64 Egypt 2.81 China 3.05 Brazil 3.31
Canada 3.70 Israel 3.19 Kuwait 2.58 Hong Kong 3.47 Bolivia 3.55
England 3.67 Italy 3.24 Morocco 2.84 Japan 3.19 Argentina 3.49
Ireland 3.21 Portugal 3.66 Qatar 3.63 Singapore 3.70 Colombia 3.67
New Zealand 3.22 Spain 3.01 Turkey 2.89 South Korea 2.50 Costa Rica 3.56
South Africa (W) 3.27 Swiss (French) 3.42 Taiwan 3.18 Ecuador 3.07
Australia 3.40 El Salvador 3.16

Guatemala 3.02
Mexico 3.64
Venezuela 3.62

Uncertainty
Avoidance

Anglo Cultures Latin Europe Middle East Cultures Confucian Asia Latin America

USA 4.15 France 4.43 Egypt 4.06 China 4.94 Brazil 3.60
Canada 4.58 Israel 4.01 Kuwait 4.21 Hong Kong 4.32 Bolivia 3.35
England 4.65 Italy 3.79 Morocco 3.65 Japan 4.07 Argentina 3.65
Ireland 4.30 Portugal 3.91 Qatar 3.99 Singapore 5.31 Colombia 3.57
New Zealand 4.75 Spain 3.97 Turkey 3.63 South Korea 3.55 Costa Rica 3.82
South Africa (W) 4.09 Swiss (French) 4.98 Taiwan 4.34 Ecuador 3.68
Australia 4.39 El Salvador 3.62

Guatemala 3.30
Mexico 4.18
Venezuela 3.44

88 FebruaryAcademy of Management Perspectives

Endnotes
1 House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorf-

man, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., et al. 1999.
Cultural influences on leadership and organizations:
Project globe. In W. F. Mobley, M. J. Gessner & V.
Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 1, pp.
171–233). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

2 Gregersen, H.B., Morrison, A.J. & J.S. Black. 1998. De-
veloping leaders for the global frontier. Sloan Manage-
ment Review, Fall: 21–32.

3 Hollenbeck, G. P., & McCall, M. W. 2003. Competence,
not competencies: Making global executive develop-
ment work. In W. Mobley & P. Dorfman (Eds.), Ad-
vances in global leadership (Vol. 3). Oxford: JAI Press.

4 Black, J.S., Morrison, A. J., & Gergersen, H. B. 1999.
Global explorers: The next generation of leaders. New York:
Routledge; Rheinsmith, S. H. 1996. A manager’s guide to
globalization. Chicago: Irwin; Osland, J. S. 1995. The
adventure of working abroad: Hero tales from the global
frontier. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.; Black, J.S.,
Gergersen, H. B., Mendenhall, M. E., Stroh L.K. 1999.
Globalizing people through international assignments. Read-
ing, MA: Addisson-Wesley; Mobley, W. H., & Dorfman,
P. W. 2003. Advances in global leadership. In W. H.
Mobley & P. W. Dorfman (Eds.), Advances in global
leadership (Vol. 3). Oxford: JAI Press.

5 Gergerson, H.B., Morrison, A.J., & Mendenhall, M.E.
2000. Guest editors. Human Resource Management Jour-
nal, 39, 2&3. 113–299.

6 Morrison, A.J. 2000. Developing a global leadership

model. Human Resource Management Journal, 39, 2&3,
117–131.

7 Kiedel, R.W. 1995. Seeing organizational patterns: A new
theory and language of organizational design. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.

8 Pucik, V., & Saba, T. 1997. Selecting and developing the
global versus the expatriate manager: A review of the
state of the art. Human Resource Planning, 40 –54.

9 Wills, S. 2001. Developing global leaders. In P. Kirkbride &
K. Ward (Eds.), Globalization: The internal dynamic.
Chicester: Wiley, 259 –284.

10 Bass, B.M. 1997. Does the Transactional-Transforma-
tional Leadership Paradigm Transcend Organizational
and National Boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2),
130 –139.

11 Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International
differences in work-related values. New Bury Park, CA:
Sage; Hofstede, G. 2001 Culture’s Consequences: Com-
paring values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations
across nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage;
Trompenaars, F., & Hamden-Turner C. 1998. Riding the
waves of culture. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw- Hill; Kluck-
hohn, F. R. & Strodtbeck, F. L. 1961. Variations in value
orientations. New York: Harper & Row.

12 House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W.,
& Gupta, V., & GLOBE Associates. 2004. Leadership,
culture and organizations: The globe study of 62 societies.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

13 Morrison, A.J. 2000. Developing a global leadership

model. Human Resource Management Journal, 39, 2&3,
117–131.

14 Laurent, A. 1983. The cultural diversity of western con-
ceptions of management. International Studies of Manage-
ment and Organization, 13(2), 75–96; Trompenaars, F.
1993. Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cul-
tural diversity in business. London: Breatley; Briscoe,
D. R., & Shuler, R. S. 2004. International human resource
management. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

15 Davis, D. D., & Bryant, J. L. 2003. Influence at a distance:
Leadership in global virtual teams. In W. H. Mobley &
P. W. Dorfman (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol.
3, pp. 303–340). Oxford: JAI Press.

16 Millman, J. Trade wins: The world’s new tiger on the
export scene isn’t Asian; it’s Mexico. Wall Street Journal,
p. A1. May 9, 2000.

17 Smith, P. B., & Peterson, M. F. 1988. Leadership, organi-
zations and culture: An event management model. London:
Sage.

18 Smith, P. B. 2003. Leaders’ sources of guidance and the
challenge of working across cultures. In W. Mobley & P.
Dorfman (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 3, pp.
167–182). Oxford: JAI Press; Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., &
Trompenaars, F. 1996. National culture and the values of
organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across
43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(2),
231–264.

19 Hazucha, J. F., Hezlett, S. A., Bontems-Wackens, S., &
Ronnqvist. 1999. In search of the Euro-manager: Man-
agement competencies in France, Germany, Italy, and
the United States. In W.H. Mobley, M.J. Gessner & V.
Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 1, pp.
267–290). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

20 Javidan, M. and D. Carl. 2004. East meets West. Journal
of Management Studies, 41:4, June, 665– 691; Javidan, M.
and Carl, D. 2005. Leadership across cultures: A study of
Canadian and Taiwanese executives, Management Inter-
national Review, 45(1), 23– 44.

21 House, R. J., Wright, N. S., & Aditya, R. N. 1997.
Cross-cultural research on organizational leadership: A
critical analysis and a proposed theory. In P. C. Earley &
M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives in international industrial/
organizational psychology (pp. 535– 625). San Francisco:
The New Lexington Press.

22 Chemers, M. M. 1997. An integrative theory of leadership.
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Smith, P. B., &
Peterson, M. F. 1988. Leadership, organizations and
culture: An event management model. London: Sage.

23 Shaw, J. B. (1990). A cognitive categorization model for
the study of intercultural management. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 15(4), 626 – 645.

24 Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. 1991. Leadership and informa-
tion processing: Linking perceptions and performance (Vol.
1). Cambridge, MA: Unwin Hyman.

25 House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dor-
fman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., et al. 1999.
Cultural influences on leadership and organizations:
Project GLOBE. In W. F. Mobley, M. J. Gessner & V.
Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 1, pp.
171–233). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

2006 89Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, and House

26 In addition to the aggregated raw (i.e., absolute) scores for
CLTs provided in Table 2, we also computed a response
bias corrected measure as an integral part of the analysis
strategy. We referred to this measure as the relative
measure because of a unique property attributed to this
procedure. These relative CLT scores indicate the rela-
tive importance of each CLT leadership dimension
within a person, culture, or culture cluster. This proce-
dure not only removed the cultural response biases, but
it also had the advantage of illustrating the differences
among the cultures and the clusters. Along with ranking
the clusters with absolute CLT scores, we used this
relative measure to compare the relative importance of
each CLT dimension among cultures. Ranking of clus-
ters using both types of scores are presented in Table 3.
We should point out that the correlation between the
absolute and relative measures is close to perfect—above
.90 for all of the CLT leadership dimensions. Computa-
tional procedures for this measure are detailed in House
et. al, 2004.

27 Cullen, J. B. 2002. Multinational management: A strategic
approach. (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western
Thomson Learning.

28 Bossidy, L., & Charan, R. 2002. Execution: The discipline
of getting things done. New York: Crown Business Books.
p.103.

29 Hallowell, R., Bowen, D., & Knoop, C. 2002. Four Sea-
sons goes to Paris, Academy of Management Executive,
16(4), 7–24.

30 Hallowell, Ibid.
31 Dayal-Gulati, A. 2004. Kellogg on China: Strategies for

success, Northwestern University Press.
32 De Mente, Boye Lafayette. 2000. The Chinese have a word

for it: The complete guide to Chinese thought and culture.
Chicago, IL. Passport Books.

33 Rosen, R. Global Literacies. Simon and Schuster, 2000.
34 Black, J.S., & Gergersen, H.B. 2000. High impact

training: Forging leaders for the global frontier. Human
Resource Management Journal, 39 (2&3), 173–184.

35 Oddou, G., Mendenhall, M.E., & Ritchi, J. B. Leveraging
travel as a tool for global leadership development. Hu-
man Resource Management Journal, 39, 2&3, 159 –172.

36 Dastmalchian, A., & Kabasakal, H. 2001. Guest editors,
special issue on the Middle East, Applied Psychology: An
International Review. Vol. 50(4); Javidan, M., & House,
R. Spring 2002 Guest editors, special Issue on GLOBE,
Journal of World Business, Vol. 37, No. 1; Peterson, M. F.,
& Hunt, J. G. 1997. Overview: International and cross-
cultural leadership research (Part II). Leadership Quar-
terly, 8(4), 339 –342.

37 For more information, see Mendenhall, M.E., & Stahl,
G. K. Expatriate training and development: Where do
we go from here? Human Resource Management Journal,
39, 2&3, 251–265.

38 Black, J.S., Morrison, A. J., & Gergersen, H. B. 1999.
Global explorers: The next generation of leaders. New York:
Routledge.

39 Dodge, B. 1993. Empowerment and the evolution of
learning, Education and Training. 35(5), 3–10; Sherman,
S. 1995. How tomorrow’s best leaders are learning their
stuff. Fortune, 90 –106.

40 Conner, J. Developing the global leaders of tomorrow.
Human Resource Management Journal, 39, 2&3, 147–157.

41 Black, J.S., Gergersen, H. B., Mendenhall, M. E., Stroh
L.K. 1999. Globalizing people through international assign-
ments. Reading, MA: Addisson-Wesley.

90 FebruaryAcademy of Management Perspectives

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Power point 10 slides-apa format Cultural Brief ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now