Introduction

The GLOBE(Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research) project took Hofstede's original 1980 research findings (Hofstede, 1980) and dedicated an entire academic effort into exploring the differences of cultures (Hofstede, 1980). This International team collected data from 17.300 middle managers in 951 organizations. They used qualitative method to assist their development of qualitative instruments. The research identified nine cultural cometencies and grouped the 62 countries into ten convenient societal clusters (Javidan & Dastmalchian, 2009).

The GLOBE researchers used acquired data to put nations into cultural clusters that are grouped based upon cultural similarities due to shared geography and climate conditions, which all influence perceptions and behavior:

Anglo Cultures : England, Australia, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland, United States
Arab Cultures : Algeria, Qatar, Morocco, Egypt, Kuwait, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan
Confucian Asia : Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, China, Japan, Vietnam
Eastern Europe : Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia
Germanic Europe : Netherlands, Belgium, France, Austria, Switzerland, Germany
Latin America : Costa Rica, Venezuela, Ecuador, Mexico, El Salvador, Colombia, Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina
Latin Europe : Italy, Portugal, Spain, France, Switzerland
Nordic Europe : Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway
Southern Asia : India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Iran, Philippines, Turkey
Sub- Sahara Africa : Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Nigeria

The nine GLOBE cultural competencies are:
1. Performance Orientation
2. Assertiveness Orientation
3. Future Orientation
4. Human Orientation
5. Collectivism I: Institutional Collectivism
6. Collectivism II: In-Group Collectivism
7. Gender Egalitarianism
8. Power Distance
9. Uncertainty Avoidance

Universally Desirable and Undesirable Leadership Attributes

The 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 mindset tolerate high levels of ambiguity, and show cultural adaptability and flexibility. Based on the Implicit Leadership Theory (Lord & Maher, 1991) according to this theory individuals have implicit theories (beliefs, convictions, and assumptions) about the attributes and behaviors that distinguish leaders from others, effective leaders from ineffective ones, and moral leaders from evil ones. Implicit leadership theories influence the values that individuals place on selected leader behaviors and attributes, and their motives relevant to acceptance and enactment of leader behavior. The following propositions express the major assertions of implicit leadership theory.

1. Leadership qualities are attributed to individuals, and those persons are accepted as leaders, on the basis of the degree of fit, or congruence, between the leader behaviors they enact and the implicit leadership theory held by the attributers.
2. Implicit leadership theories constrain, moderate, and guide the exercise of leadership, the acceptance of leaders, the perception of leaders as influential, acceptable, and effective, and the degree to which leaders are granted status and privileges. There is substantial experimental evidence in support of this theory. (Malaysians expect their leaders to behave in a manner that is humble, modest, and dignified).

Leadership effectiveness perceptions derive from Culturally-implicit Leadership Theories (CLTs) that are, in turn, based on the cultural values and practices extant in each society. The leadership attributes of Charisma and Self- Protective are universally endorsed across the 62 national nations in the GLOBE study: Charisma is positively endorsed, and Self-Protective is negatively endorsed.There was remarkable agreement also in respect of Team-orientated, Humane, and Autonomous leadership; with Team-orientated and Humane positively endorsed in all three clusters, and Autonomous negatively endorsed. Only one of the leadership dimensions was found to be substantially different across the clusters. 

This was Participative leadership. While this dimension was not negatively endorsed in any of the cultures in the way that, for instance, Self-Protective leadership was, the Anglo cultures cluster endorsed Participative more positively than either of the other two clusters.

Furthermore, Participative leadership in GLOBE is defined in terms of subordinates actively participating with the leader in the tasks that the group is undertaking. The Southern Asia cluster is characterized in practice by high power distance and in-group loyalty and humanity. In this circumstance, leaders are representatives of the higher classes of society who are charged with looking after the interests of their (lower caste) subordinates. Confucian Asia values power distance and practices relatively high levels of societal collectivism. In this culture, a leader is trusted to get on with the job on behalf of (usually) his subordinates. By contrast, in Anglo cultures, where individualism is strongly valued, subordinates are more valued for their contributions at every level in society, and therefore are expected to take a more active role in leadership.

Based on the list of endorsed attributes, a portrait can be drawn of aleader whom almost everyone would see as exceptional. That portrait is of a leader who is high in integrity, is charismatic/value-based, and has interpersonal skills.

The GLOBE project also identified a list of leadership attributes that were universally viewed as obstacles to effective leadership. These characteristics suggest that the portrait of an ineffective leader is someone who is asocial, malevolent, and self-focused. Clearly, people from all cultures find these characteristics to hinder effective leadership.

Key Leadership Attributes

Competencies alone are not indicators of a leader’s success. These human or “emotional” attributes have been shown to be prime indicators of good leaders.

Adaptability and Flexibility

• Handles day-to-day work challenges confidently 
• Adjusts to multiple demands, shifting priorities, ambiguity, and rapid change
• Shows resilience in the face of constraints, frustrations, or adversity

Integrity

• Demonstrates principled leadership and sound business ethics
• Shows consistency among principles, values and behaviors
• Builds trust with others through own authenticity and follow-through on commitments
• Demonstrates honesty

Intellectual Versatility

• Recognizes, explores, and uses a broad range of ideas and practices
• Thinks logically and creatively without undue influence from personal biases

Objectivity

• Upholds a bias-free approach to situations and people

Organizational Savvy

• Develops effective give-and-take relationships with others
• Understands the agendas and perspectives of others
• Recognizes and effectively balances the interests and needs of one’s own group with those of the broader organization
• Knows which battles to fight

Self-Awareness

• Learns from personal experience
• Actively pursues learning and self-development
• Seeks feedback and welcomes unsolicited feedback
• Modifies behavior in light of feedback
• Knows one’s personal values, needs, interests, style, and competencies and their effect on

Self-Confidence

• Manages own performance in an effective, assertive manner when placed in a new and/or Challenging situation

Self-Motivated/Positive Attitude toward Others and Work

• Sets high standards of performance
• Pursues aggressive goals and works hard to achieve them

Tolerance of Ambiguity

• Demonstrates comfort in situations where the goals and/or processes to achieve goals is unclear and difficult to determine

Quality and effective leadership attributes is important criteria that can influence change. Quality leadership is visualized through effective results while effective leadership is segregated in group or individual traits. Group traits include teamwork, similar objective, dissimilarity, employee dissemination and a knowledge environment while individual traits include independent knowledge, honesty, dedication, compassion of others, and proficiency. Effective leadership is bringing out innovation several leader attributes that might be related to innovation including practical skills, important assessment, inspiring others, and independency, indicated that effective leadership must own social appraisal skills or social intelligence.

The Leadership Competency Model includes both group and individual attributes of leaders. This model contains 27 leaders’ attributes that was clustered into five dimensions; leading change, leading people, results driven, business acumen and building coalitions. This model was widely used as a research-based model and was applicable to a variety of organizational settings and has been tested in International Journal different culture context .

Leadership Competencies model

5 Dimensions	27 Leaders’ Attributes
Leading Change	Continual Learning, Creativity and Innovation, Resilience, Service Motivation, Strategic Thinking, Vision.
Leading People	Conflict Management, Leveraging Diversity, Integrity/Honesty, Team Building.
Results Driven	Accountability, Customer Service, Decisiveness, Entrepreneurship, Problem Solving, Technical Credibility.
Business Acumen	Financial Management, Human Resources Management, Technology Management.
Building Coalitions/ Communication	Influencing/Negotiating, Interpersonal Skills, Oral Communication, Partnering, Political Savvy, Written Communication.

Source: Eyde et al. (1999)

There 2 videos regarding about leadership attributes:

1. Inspiring Leadership

2. Good Leadership vs. Bad Leadership

Cluster System

Culture is defined as the learned beliefs, values, rules, norms, symbols and traditions that are common to a group of people.

Cluster is a system used to identify the clusters of world cultures; it is being used by the GLOBE researchers. They divided the data from the 62 countries they studied into regional clusters. These clusters provide a convenient way to analyze the similarities and differences between culture and leadership. To create regional clusters, GLOBE researchers used prior research, common language, geography, religion and historical accounts.

Based on these factors, they grouped the countries into 10 distinct clusters. Namely;

1-      Anglo

2-      Latin Europe

3-      Nordic Europe

4-      Germanic Europe

5-      Eastern Europe

6-      Latin America

7-      Middle East

8-      Sub-Saharan Africa

9-      Southern Asia

10-  Confucian Asia

Clusters provide a convenient way to:

• Analyze similarities and differences between cultural groups
• Make meaningful generalizations about culture and leadership

To test whether the clusters or groups of countries were valid researchers did a statistical analysis of questionnaire data collection from individuals in each of the clusters. From the findings which they got through the data collected they concluded that each cluster was unique.

GLOBE research analyzed data on each of the regions using the dimensions of culture. Results found regional clusters that were significantly higher or lower on particular dimensions

Characteristics of clusters:

Distinct	Characteristics
Anglo	Competitive and result-oriented
Confucian Asia	Result-driven, encourage group working together over individual goals
Eastern Europe	Forceful, supportive of co-workers, treat women with equality
Germanic Europe	Value competition & aggressiveness and are more result-oriented
Latin America	Loyal & devoted to their families and similar groups`
Latin Europe	Value individual autonomy
Middle East	Devoted & loyal to their own person, women afforded less status
Nordic Europe	High priority on long-term success, women treated with greater equality
Southern Asia	Strong family & deep concern for their communities
Sub-Sahara Africa	Concerned & sensitive to others, demonstrate strong family loyalty

Leadership behavior and culture cluster

The overall purpose of the GLOBE project was to determine how people from different cultures viewed leadership. In addition, researchers wanted to determine the ways in which cultural characteristics were related to culturally endorsed leadership behaviors. In short, they wanted to find out how differences in cultures were related to differences in approaches to leadership.

The conceptualization of leadership used by GLOBE researchers was derived in part from the work of Lord and Maher (1991) on implicit leadership theory. According to implicit leadership theory, individuals have implicit beliefs and convictions about the attributes and beliefs that distinguish leaders from non-leaders and effective leaders from ineffective leaders. From the perspective of this theory, leadership is in the eye of the beholder (Dorfman, Hanges, & Brodbeck, 2004). Leadership refers to what people see in others when they are exhibiting leadership behaviors.

To describe how different cultures view leadership behaviors in others, GLOBE researchers identified six global leadership behaviors: charismatic/value based, team oriented, participative, humane oriented, autonomous, and self-protective (House & Javidan, 2004). These global leadership behaviors were defined in these studies as follows:

1-      Charismatic/value-based leadership reflects the ability to inspire, to motivate, and to expect high performance from others based on strongly held core values. This kind of leadership includes being visionary, inspirational, self-sacrificing, trustworthy, decisive, and performance oriented.

2-      Team-oriented leadership emphasizes team building and a common purpose among team members. This kind of leadership includes being collaborative, integrative, diplomatic, no malevolent, and administratively competent.

3-      Participative leadershipreflects the degree to which leaders involve others in making and implementing decisions. It includes being participative and no autocratic.

4-      Humane-oriented leadershipemphasizes being supportive, considerate, compassionate, and generous. This type of leadership includes modesty and sensitivity to people.

5-      Autonomous leadershiprefers to independent and individualistic leadership, which includes being autonomous and unique.

6-      Self-protective leadershipreflects behaviors that ensure the safety and security of the leader and the group. It includes leadership that is self-centered, status conscious, conflict inducing, face saving, and procedural.

These six global leadership behaviors emerged from the GLOBE research and were used to assess the different ways in which various cultural clusters viewed leadership. From this analysis they were able to identify a leadership profile for each cluster. Each profile describes the relative importance and desirability that different cultures ascribe to different leadership behaviors.

Human Orientation

Humane orientation is the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies encourage and reward individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring, kind to others, and exhibiting and promoting altruistic ideals. Malaysia rank is very high on this cultural practice. This dimension reflects supportive and considerate leadership, but also includes compassion and generosity. It is associated statistically with two primary leadership dimensions, modesty” and “humane oriented.Humane-oriented leadership is reported to be almost neutral in some societies and to moderately contribute to outstanding leadership in others. Further, there are 2 types of humane orientation that has different characters which are, high humane orientation, and low humane orientation. Humane orientation is concerned with how much a society or organization emphasizes sensitivity to others, social support, and community values.

High Humane Orientation	Low Humane Orientation
The interests of others are important.	One's own self-interest is important.
People are motivated primarily by a need for belonging and affiliation.	People are motivated primarily by a need for power and material possessions.
Members of society are responsible for promoting the well-being of others.	The state provides social and economic support for individuals' well-being.
Child labor is limited by public sanctions.	Child labor is an issue of low importance.
People are urged to be sensitive to all forms of racial discrimination.	People are not sensitive to all forms of racial discrimination.

Performance Orientation

The cultural dimension named "performance orientation" emerged from the research as exceptionally important, so I will discuss it first.  It “reflects the extent to which a community encourages and rewards innovation, high standards, excellence, and performance improvement”.  Here are a just a few of the characteristics of societies that have high and low performance orientation.

HIGH PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION societies have characteristics such as:	LOW PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION societies have characteristics such as:
Value training and development. Value competitiveness and materialism. View formal feedback as necessary for performance improvement Value what one does more than who one is. Expect direct, explicit communication.	Value societal and family relationships. Value harmony with the environment. View formal feedback as judgmental and discomfiting. Value who one is more than what one does. Expect indirect, subtle communication.

1. VALUES AND PRACTICESAccounting for all 61 societies , the average score for performance orientation practices (“as is”) was 4.10 on the 1-to-7 scale, while the average for performance orientation values (“should be”) was substantially higher: 5.94.  Across all nine dimensions, no other 61-society value average was as high as 5.94.It’s worth noting as well that the lowest value score for any society was 4.92, above the 4.00 midpoint.  As the researchers put it, “Respondents’ aspirations about how much their societies should focus on performance are far beyond their perceptions of the level of their societies’ current practices”
   
2. APPLICATION TO LEADERSHIPThe GLOBE researchers concluded that a society's level of performance orientation strongly affects the degree to which leaders and leadership are viewed as effective.  Outstanding leaders worldwide are associated with strong emphasis on performance orientation.More precisely, a high value placed on performance orientation was found to be strongly and positively associated with the global leadership dimension, or CLT, named Charismatic / Value-Based leadership. Because of the worldwide appeal of Charismatic / Value-Based leadership, its association with high performance orientation is especially noteworthy.  The authors underscore this by saying…A major finding was the large influence of the Performance Orientation cultural dimension as the most important predictor of the Charismatic / Value-Based leadership dimension.  Societies and organizations that value excellence, superior performance, performance improvement, and innovation will likely seek leaders who exemplify Charismatic / Value-Based qualities, and such leaders are likely to be effective [p. 711].A high value placed on performance orientation was also found to be significantly and positively associated with both participative leadership  and Autonomous leadership.

NOTE: Societies that highly value PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION strongly associate the following global leader behaviors (CLTs) with outstanding leadership 

Future Orientation

"Future orientation" is “the degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards future-oriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification”.  Here are some of the characteristics of societies that have high and low future orientation:

HIGH FUTURE ORIENTATION societies have characteristics such as:	LOW FUTURE ORIENTATION societies have characteristics such as:
Propensity to save now for the future. Emphasize working for long-term success. Organizations tend to be flexible and adaptive. View material success and spiritual fulfillment as an integrated whole.	Propensity to spend now, rather than save. Prefer gratification as soon as possible. Organizations tend to be inflexible and maladaptive. View material success and spiritual fulfillment as separate, requiring trade-offs.

1. VALUES AND PRACTICESAccounting for all 61 societies, the average score for future orientation practices (“as is”) was 3.85 on the 1-to-7 scale, while the average for future orientation values (“should be”) was a much higher 5.49.
2. APPLICATION TO LEADERSHIP A high value placed on future orientation was not strongly associated with any global leadership dimension (CLT).

NOTE: Societies that highly value FUTURE ORIENTATION do not strongly associate it with any global leader behavior (CLT).

Assertiveness

"Assertiveness" is “the degree to which individuals are assertive, confrontational, and aggressive in their relationships with others”.  Here are some of the characteristics of societies that have high and low assertiveness

HIGH ASSERTIVENESS societies have characteristics such as:	LOW ASSERTIVENESS societies have characteristics such as:
Value competition, success, and progress. Communicate directly and unambiguously. Try to have control over the environment. Expect subordinates to take initiative. Build trust on basis of calculation.	Value cooperation and warm relationships. Communicate indirectly; try to "save face." Try to be in harmony with the environment. Expect subordinates to be loyal. Build trust on basis of predictability.

1. VALUES AND PRACTICESAccounting for all 61 societies, the average score for assertiveness practices (“as is”) was 4.14 on the 1-to-7 scale, while the average for assertiveness values (“should be”) was a slightly lower 3.82.
2. APPLICATION TO LEADERSHIP A high value placed on assertiveness was not strongly associated with any global leadership dimension (CLT)

NOTE: Societies that highly value ASSERTIVENESS do not strongly associate it with any global leader behavior (CLT).

Gender Egalitarianism

---

The findings for "gender egalitarianism" also are significant because it is one of the predictors of the most widely admired characteristic of successful leaders.  Gender egalitarianism is “the degree to which a collective minimizes gender inequality”. Here are some of the characteristics of societies that have high and low gender egalitarianism

HIGH GENDER EGALITARIANISM societies have characteristics such as:	LOW GENDER EGALITARIANISM societies have characteristics such as:
Less occupational sex segregation. Similar levels of educational attainment for males and females. Afford women a greater decision-making role in community affairs. More women in positions of authority.	More occupational sex segregation. A lower level of female educational attainment, compared to that of males. Afford women little or no decision-making role in community affairs. Fewer women in positions of authority.

1. VALUES AND PRACTICESAccounting for all 61 societies, the average score for gender egalitarianism practices (“as is”) was 3.37 on the 1-to-7 scale, while the average for gender egalitarianism values (“should be”) was a noticeably higher 4.51.  The difference between the two scores is encouraging, especially since 74.8% of the worldwide respondent sample was male.
2. APPLICATION TO LEADERSHIPA high value placed on gender egalitarianism was strongly and positively associated with the most widely endorsed global leadership dimension, Charismatic / Value-Based leadership, which is important to keep in mind.  Not surprisingly, perhaps, gender egalitarianism was also associated with participative leadership.

NOTE: Societies that highly value GENDER EGALITARIANISM strongly associate the following global leader behaviors (CLTs) with outstanding leadership 

In-Group Collectivism

From globe model’s, in-group collectivism is an expression of pride, loyalty and cohesiveness with regard to one's family or organization. It is about the strength of small-group ties and is also known  as "individual" collectivism, "family" collectivism and, sometimes, "collectivism II" (House et al., 2004)

In-Group Collectivism (IngC), also known as “Family Collectivism,” is one of two Collectivism (COLL) dimensions measured by globe model among the 61 societies for which data are available. globe model’s other COLL dimension (Institutional COLL) will be covered in a subsequent column.

Among social researchers as well as workplace managers familiar with cross-cultural psychology and research, the Collectivism (COLL)-versus-Individualism (IDV) dichotomy is the most familiar because it was the most salient dimension to emerge from the work of Geert Hofstede, Ph.D. Hofstede is a Dutch sociologist who became the first social scientist to derive comparative metrics for societies. His original work, conducted in the late 1960s and early 1970s, was based on his own analysis of employee attitude survey data from IBM divisions throughout the world.

It started with Hofstede

Hofstede conceptualized IDV as the inclination to look primarily after oneself and one’s immediate family. COLL, generally positioned as the opposite of IDV, referred to being less concerned with oneself and one’s family and more concerned with important group allegiances, such as one’s extended family and one’s employer. Perhaps not too surprising, the U.S. ranked highest in IDV.

One of the chief controversies regarding IDV versus COLL is whether the two are really opposites – or more specifically – whether they are unidimensional or bi-dimensional opposites. We’re starting to digress from the issue at hand here, but this is an important distinction. With unidimensional opposites, more IDV automatically means less COLL – sort of like the way we think of full-versus-empty when referring to the amount of liquid in a glass.

Co-existing opposites

Bi-directional opposites are different – because they can co-exist and overlap with one another. An example would be happy versus sad. In conversation, we may refer to “happy” and “sad” as discrete emotions, but emotions are far more complex than that. Conflicting emotions actually do co-exist – which you may already know if you are the sort of person who cries while watching those youtube videos where the dog welcomes his soldier-owner back from deployment.

The reason this is relevant is that whether we are referring to Hofstede’s IDV-versus-COLL or GLOBE’s IDV versus IngC, it’s important to allow for the possibility that a particular country or society is not entirely one or the other. More likely, most societies are a complex mix of both.

Now, back to Project GLOBE and IngC versus IDV…

Globe researchers operationalized (defined for measuring) IngC as an expression of pride, loyalty and cohesiveness with regard to one’s family or organization. In high-IngC societies, prevailing norms reinforce small-group ties (e.g. ties with family and close friends). For example, in these societies, children generally live at home with their parents until marrying, and aging parents generally live at home with their children.

Implications for benefits administrators

Human resources practitioners –specifically benefits administrators who work for multi-national corporations – should see great relevance in the preceding paragraph. For example, on-site child-care or subsidized child-care may be an important offering in high-IDV societies – but perhaps not so much in high-IngC societies, where older generations may be able to provide care in the home. In those societies, benefit options relevant for the care of elderly adults may be more appealing.

Hofstede’s analysis found that the U.S. ranked highest in IDV. By the way, his IDV correlated very strongly and negatively with GLOBE’s IngC practices. Recall that GLOBE surveyed practices (as is) and values (should be). The graphs in the slides above show how the U.S. compares on IngC among a sampling of countries.

–Slide #1: The U.S. is the 51-st lowest on COLL or the 11th-highest on IDV, whichever way you prefer to look at it. The Philippines ranked highest on IngC, while Denmark ranked lowest. Or flip the continuum, and Denmark ranked highest on IDV, while the Philippines ranked lowest.

– Slide #2: Pain points: Sweden had the second-highest IngC pain point (behind New Zealand) in the direction of desiring to be higher IngC (lower IDV), while China had the highest pain point in the direction of desiring lower IngC and more IDV. The U.S. actually desires to be a little higher in IngC. What that means is certainly open to discussion. My suspicion is that it may have something to do with work-life balance, but we’ll have to come back to that in a subsequent column

– Slide 3#: This look at cultural distance shows us that the countries wishing to be higher IngC desire this change to a much greater extent than those already high in IngC wish to be higher in IDV. Again, we can’t really explore all of that here, but I believe that it may relate to individuals in high IDV societies being held responsible for events that are not under their control. That’s a topic for a dissertation, however, a book or a much longer column. Exploration of that idea would need to touch on bodies of theory and research that are relevant for physiological stress as well as need for achievement.

Institutional collectivism

Institutional Collectivism

Institutional Collectivism (InstC), which is one of globe model’s nine societal dimensions, refers to individuals being encouraged by society’s institutions to be integrated into groups and organizations within the society. Collective distribution of resources and collective action are encouraged and rewarded by organizations and by society.

How InstC is measured

If we want to get a better idea of how InstC was operationalized (defined for measuring), we can look at some of the questions representing the construct on the English-language version of the globe instrument. On that basis, here goes:

In a high-InstC society:
– Leaders encourage group loyalty even if it means that individual goals must be compromised.
– Being accepted by the other members of one’s group is very important.
– Group cohesion is valued more than individualism.

In a low-InstC society:
– The economic system is designed to maximize individual interests instead of collective interests.
– Individualism is valued more than group cohesion.
If you read and understood my recent column on In-Group Collectivism (IngC), which was the other form of Collectivism (COLL) measured by Project GLOBE, you may be thinking that InstC sounds a lot like IngC in terms of allegiance and loyalty to groups.

Two types of COLL seem similar

I can’t argue with you there as the two types of COLL are not completely distinct for me either. Keeping in mind that globe model’s respondents were middle managers in 61 countries, let’s look at U.S. results in context – and as illustrated by the slides above.

– Slide #1: Ranking 30^th from the top, the U.S. is in the middle of the pack on InstC. Sweden ranks highest, while Greece is at the bottom. An acquaintance who grew up in Sweden but now lives in England tells me that she and her husband are considering moving back to Sweden as their children grow up because their college education will be covered by the government. She also describes Swedish nationals as being very much like one another in demeanor, dress and personal style. So could it be that Sweden is one giant collective?

At the other extreme, we have Greece, which always seems to be in the news on the basis of economic difficulties. An international marketing professor who attends my cross-cultural presentations tells me that Greece also provides for the education of its citizens, but those citizens graduate with advanced degrees only to find that there are no jobs for them – and the anger arising from this unfortunate combination of circumstances is one source fueling Greece’s societal angst.
If either of these scenarios needs correcting or explication, I hope that readers in Sweden and Greece will write. Both accounts have me wondering whether InstC might be capturing something along the lines of how well one’s government looks out for its citizenry.

– Slide #2: South Korea is the country with the greatest desire for lower InstC, followed by Sweden (not shown). Greece shows the highest desire for higher InstC, which I think lends credence to the possibility that InstC captures something that may be related to security and stability for its citizens.
And look at the U.S. As a nation, we are almost completely satisfied with our InstC. This makes sense, given that globe respondents are middle managers (with jobs and health insurance). If I could make a personal observation rather than an evidence-informed one, U.S. Americans who earn a paycheck and work hard for what they have also have a very low tolerance for those whom they believe can work but don’t, as well as co-workers who do not carry their own weight.

– Slide #3: No surprises here, really. On cultural distance, Greece is furthest from the U.S. in wishing to be higher on InstC, while South Korea comes in at the other extreme.

Finally, perhaps one reason that InstC may be difficult to understand as a construct is precisely because it does not seem to be a source of collective dissatisfaction. The esteemed cultural anthropologist Edward T. Hall emphasized that those within a culture are often challenged to define it unless they can remove themselves and view it as an outsider. Perhaps InstC is difficult to recognize precisely because it’s not much of a pain point.

Uncertainty Avoidance

This dimension refers to the extent to which a society, organization, or group relies on established social norms, rituals, and procedures to avoid uncertainty. Uncertainty avoidance is concerned with the way cultures use rules, structures, and laws to make things predictable and less uncertain.

HIGH UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE societies’ characteristics	LOW UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE societies’ characteristics
Use formality in interactions with others. Are orderly and keep meticulous records. Rely on formalized policies and procedures. Take moderate, carefully calculated risks. Show strong resistance to change.	Use informality in interactions with others. Are less orderly and keep fewer records. Rely on informal norms for most matters. Are less calculating when taking risks. Show only moderate resistance to change.

Practices represented circumstances as managers perceived them to be, while values represented circumstances, as managers desired them to be.

• VALUES AND PRACTICESAccounting for all 61 societies, the average score for uncertainty avoidance practices (“as is”) was 4.16 on the 1-to-7 scales, while the average for uncertainty avoidance values (“should be”) was 4.62.   The average score for the U.S.A practices between scales 1 to 7 was 4.15, while the average of values scores was a very similar 4.00.
•  Table 1: GLOBE's Uncertainty Avoidance Practices (Rank)
  
  The table shows that German-speaking Switzerland was the GLOBE society highest in UA practices, while Russia was lowest. Greece was also toward the low end, and the U.S. and India were mid-range. In other words, German-speaking Switzerland is a society with many rules and a high degree of order. Russia and Greece show more of an “anything goes” orientation, in which citizens don’t have much in the way of clear guidance for managing their daily lives.
• APPLICATION TO LEADERSHIPA high value placed on uncertainty avoidance was strongly and positively associated with the CLT named Team Oriented leadership.  In other words, “the more the society and organization values the reduction of uncertainty, the more they report endorsing team-oriented leadership”.
  Uncertainty avoidance also showed a strong positive relationship with both Humane Oriented leadership, and with Self-Protective leadership .  As the authors note, “being self-protective is one means to reduce uncertainty”.

NOTE: Societies that highly value UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE strongly associate the following global leader behaviors (CLTs) with outstanding leadership: TEAM ORIENTED, HUMANE ORIENTED,  AND SELF-PROTECTIVE

Power Distance

This dimension refers to the degree to which members of a group expect and agree that power should be shared unequally. Power distance is concerned with the way cultures are stratified, thus creating levels between people based on power, authority, prestige, status, wealth, and material possessions.

HIGH UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE societies’ characteristics	LOW UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE societies’ characteristics
Society is differentiated into classes. Power seen as providing social order. Upward social mobility is limited. Resources available to only a few. Information is localized and hoarded.	Society has a large middle class. Power linked to corruption and coercion. Upward social mobility is common. Resources are available to almost all. Information is widely shared.

• VALUES AND PRACTICESAccounting for all 61 societies, the average score for power distance practices (“as is”) was 5.17 on the 1-to-7 scales, while the average for power distance values (“should be”) was a hugely different 2.75. Clearly, middle managers worldwide perceive themselves, as working in a situation in which there’s a substantial gap in status and power between themselves and their supervisors.

• Table 2: GLOBE's Power Distance Practices (Rank)

As shown in table 2 above, the U.S and Denmark are placed among the lower power distance practices countries.

• Power DistancePower distance practices for the U.S were evaluated at 4.88 by American middle managers, while power distance values were evaluated at 2.85, which are considered a low score for power distance.
•  APPLICATION TO LEADERSHIPPower distance did show a strong positive relationship with Self-Protective leadership.  The authors added, “The high power distance values and practices of Asian societies are often associated with face-saving and status-consciousness, both of which are elements of the Self-Protective leadership dimension”.

NOTE: Societies that highly value POWER DISTANCE strongly associate the following global leader behavior (CLT) with outstanding leadership: SELF-PROTECTIVE

Source :

Grove C.N. (2005). Introduction to the GLOBE Research Project on Leadership Worldwide. http://www.grovewell.com/pub-GLOBE-intro.html

Grove C.N. (2005). Worldwide Differences in Business Values and Practices: Overview of GLOBE Research Findings. http://www.grovewell.com/pub-GLOBE-dimensions.html

House et al (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 17.2, p. 536.