According to the findings of the GLOBE project which country would be considered most assertive

Cultural studies that transcend national boundaries are often complicated and filled with ambiguity. Differences among values, languages, and interpretations are causes for poor relationships and business conduct. As nations promote international commerce and cross national interaction it becomes imperative to overcome these difficulties to be successful. Effective leadership is defined differently by each culture, thereby making a generalized theory of leadership impractical for global application. Many countries romanticize leadership while others downplay leadership because they fear power abuse. This is most common in the European countries that were devastated by World War II (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). It becomes imperative to build international relationships and forge new alliances as American corporations lose their dominance in worldwide markets. The GLOBE author’s hypothesize that as economic barriers come down, cultural barriers may go up (House et al., 2004).

This paper will focus on the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project study and its applicability to understanding change in cultural values since the pioneering work carried out by Hofstede (1980). A theoretical work such as that conducted by Hofstede or GLOBE cannot be covered in the few pages of this paper because of the immense scale of their studies covering many countries. But, a basic understanding of differences and major findings can be compared and contrasted between the two studies.

The GLOBE Project Background

The GLOBE project sparked into existence as a result of a literature review about charismatic leadership by Robert House. It became apparent that charismatic leadership was universally acceptable and useful among various nations. House started formulating a plan to conduct research on 20 cultural diverse societies to “test the cross-cultural generalizability of charismatic leadership in organizations” (House et al., p. xxi).

House, in conjunction with other associates, developed a survey to measure cultural and leadership dimensions. By October 1993, scholars from the 20 cultures were identified and had agreed to participate in the study. Shortly thereafter, ten more unsolicited countries contacted GLOBE with a willingness to participate in the study. The study continued to recruit members, based on worldwide participatory demand and a grant from the Department of Education. A total of 65 countries volunteered to participate in the study. During the data collection phase it became apparent that three countries were unable to collect data, reducing the final number of countries participating in the study to 62.

It was the intent of GLOBE to understand leadership by conducting a three phase project. Phase I included developing research instruments. Phase II included the assessment of nine cultural attributes. Phase III was to include the study of leader behaviors. In August 1997, GLOBE had the data to duplicate Hofstede’s work and extend it to “relationships among societal-level variables, organizational practices, and leader attributes and behavior” (House et al., 2004), p. xxv).

Research questions that governed GLOBE (House et al., 2004, p. 10) included:

1. Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational practices that are universally accepted and effective across cultures?

2. Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational practices that are accepted and effective in only some cultures?

3. How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures influence whether specific leader behaviors will be accepted and effective?

4. How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures affect selected organizational practices?

5. How do attributes of societal cultures affect the economic, physical and psychological welfare of members of the societies studied?

6. What is the relationship between societal cultural variables and international competitiveness of the societies studied?

Measurement of Values

Hofstede (2001) identified three levels of mental programming: individual, collective, and universal. The universal level of mental programming includes those characteristics that are inherited as part of our genetic makeup and are shared by all humanity. The collective level consists of mental programming that is learned. Hofstede (2001, p. 3) claimed, “we share it with people who have gone through the same learning processes but who do not have the same genetic makeup.” The individual level is that level that is truly unique for no two people are precisely alike. This level consists of an individual’s personality which drives behavior. Hofstede (2001, p. 4) stated, “In empirical research, we look for measures of the constructs that describe mental programs; that is, we have to operationalize them.” Interviews, questionnaires, and projective tests are the most commonly used strategies in measurement of provoked verbal behavior. Information collected in social science studies is the summation of the three mental programming levels. A study of values compares individuals, but a study of culture compares societies. It is claimed that “values have both intensity and direction” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 19). Hofstede (1980, p. 19) further claimed, “Values should never be equated with deeds, for the simple reason that behavior depends on the person and the situation. But, values as the desired are at least closer to deeds than values as the desirable.” As data are collected at the individual level, cultural studies call for statistically using sample mean values for societal comparisons.

As comparison between predicted and observed behavior is difficult, triangulation becomes the preferred method of validity for cultural researchers. Triangulation between studies conducted by various researchers satisfies the requirements of validity. When possible, such studies are further validated by direct observation and use of descriptive statistics. If similar variables are identified and measured, a relationship between Hofstede’s work and the GLOBE project would strengthen the validity of cultural dimension findings.

Independent Variables

Hofstede’s work culminated in identifying five cultural dimensions. Power distance measures “the extent to which the less powerful members of a society accept or even expect power to be distributed unequally” (Ndubisi, 2004, p. 75). Power distance in society is established by a mutually agreed understanding between supervisor and follower. Surveys measure power distance by evaluating the decision-making style of supervisors and the type of decision-making desired by followers.

Uncertainty avoidance “involves the extent to which ambiguous situations are threatening to individuals, to which rules and order are preferred, and to which uncertainty is tolerated” (House et al., 2004, p. 602). Tolerance can be shown by flexibility, creativity and innovation (Parboteeah, Bronson, & Cullen, 2005). The third dimension is called Individualism. Individualism concerns the balance between being an individual and sharing in a collective society. Stedham and Yamamura (2004, p. 238) claimed, “In an individualistic society, members are individuals first, with group membership clearly secondary.” Individualistic society’s value and reward personal achievement, abilities, and actions. Collective society’s members are part of a group first and become individuals second. Individual contributions are important only to the extent that they contribute to society’s objectives.

Masculinity, the fourth dimension, “describes the degree to which gender roles are clearly differentiated within a country” (Stedham & Yamamura, 2004, p. 239). Gender roles are clearly differentiated in masculine societies. Materialism, competitiveness, and assertiveness are highly valued in masculine societies. Gender roles overlap and sympathy for the weak are valued in feminine societies. Hofstede added his final dimension, short-term versus long-term orientation, following a study of student responses from a 1985 survey among 23 countries. Hofstede (2001, p. 351) claimed, “The fact that this dimension was not found in the IBM data can be attributed to the Western minds of the designers of the IBM questionnaire and other values lists used in international research.” Hofstede’s original study used a sample of worldwide IBM managers. Although Hofstede’s work has been considered groundbreaking, critics have argued that it may not be generalizable to all societies because of its narrow focus on IBM employees. Hofstede found that long-term orientation was negatively correlated with individualism and positively correlated with power distance (Hofstede, 2001). This suggests that long-term orientation is a product of Eastern societies while Western societies tend to focus on the short-term.

The GLOBE study extended Hofstede’s study by adding new dimensions: assertiveness, human orientation, and performance orientation. The GLOBE study also divided individualism versus collectivism into two variables: in-group collectivism and institutional collectivism. GLOBE defined assertiveness as the “beliefs as to whether people are or should be encouraged to be assertive, aggressive, and tough, or nonassertive, nonaggressive, and tender in social relationships” (House et al., 2004), p. 395). The GLOBE findings suggest that assertiveness is an important dimension of a society’s culture. Assertiveness stems from Hofstede’s original variable of masculinity versus femininity. Masculine societies tend to expect men to be assertive and tough while women are tender and caring. The GLOBE study of assertiveness differs from Hofstede’s study in that assertiveness is associated with a community’s adaptive capability to the external environment and the community’s internal integration that allows daily functioning. Peabody (1985) conducted a study using paired trait adjectives to find out if different countries had psychological characteristic differences. Peabody found the following paired traits relating to assertiveness: “aggressive versus peaceful, passive versus forceful, conceited versus modest, self-confident versus unassured, bold versus timid, and active versus inactive” (House et al., 2004, p. 401). The GLOBE study diverges from Hofstede by building on the work of Peabody.

Human orientation has grown in importance over the past several decades. It has become an accepted principle that each individual has rights and that the abuse of such rights has a negative connotation. When one hears or thinks about human rights, a mental image of abuse taking place in far away lands come to mind. Yet, human rights abuse occurs daily all around us in the appearance of discrimination and inequality. Issues such as proper distribution of social welfare, who should get such support, and who should provide such support, have been topics which bring emotion and confusion to the human soul. When an individual states that they possess a human right, it means that one possesses a valid claim based on moral considerations. Rights have two characteristics: (1) they are justifiable claims to something, and (2) they are claims against someone (Martin, 1993). White (1984, p. 17) stated that rights are things that one “can have or be given, earn, enjoy, or exercise. It is something one can claim, demand, assert, insist on, fight for, or secure or what one can waive, surrender, relinquish, or forfeit. It can be recognized and protected or disregarded, changed, abridged, infringed, whittled away, violated, or trampled on.” Rand claimed, “Rights are the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law” (Machan, 1989, p. 102).

GLOBE defines human orientation as “the degree to which an organization or society encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring, and kind to others” (House et al., 2004, p. 569). The GLOBE study suggests that people treat each other differently based on culture. The GLOBE study relates quality of life and social relations, compared to other studies that correlated quality of life to material goods. One study conducted in Scandinavian countries found that the strength of social relations was not correlated to material goods (House et al., 2004). But, it was assumed by researchers that social relations would suffer when material conditions worsened. GLOBE questions about human orientation covered the following elements: being concerned, sensitivity toward others, being friendly, being tolerant of mistakes, and being generous.

Performance orientation “reflects the extent to which a community encourages and rewards innovation, high standards, and performance improvement” (House et al., 2004, p. 239). Performance oriented cultures value individuals who achieve and produce results. It would be expected to find performance orientation positively correlated with individualism. Parboteeah et al. (2005) assert that when societies place more emphasis on performance, less attention is paid on how that performance is achieved. This suggests that there may be a negative correlation between performance orientation and ethical behavior. Parboteeah et al. (2005, p. 126) stated, “Because personal outcomes and individual achievement are valued, people are more likely to be willing to accept behaviors generally considered unethical.”

A thorough literature review identifies achievement as being a major contributor to self-actualization (House et al., 2004, p. 242). It has been found that achievement centered cultures value feedback because it helps them to know how well they are doing and how to do better. Other cultures find questioning job performance as being negative because it is viewed as a question of honor, trust, and integrity. House et al. (2004, p. 243) stated,

The seminal cross-cultural study by Hofstede did not directly assess performance orientation, but one of his cultural dimensions intersects with our GLOBE construct. He viewed performance or achievement orientation as a part of a broader cultural dimension that he called masculinity/femininity. Hofstede interpreted his masculinity dimension as embodying such attributes as challenge and job recognition, advancement, importance of money, importance of students’ performance at school, stress on equity, and the ideal value of performance.

As most cultures view job-related accomplishment as essential to business success, different cultures use differing criteria for performance measurement. Americans viewed achieving results as the single most important factor in career success (House et al., 2004). In comparison, British managers viewed communication and interpersonal relationship skills as the most important criteria in career success.

Opportunity appears to play a vital part of a society’s interpretation of performance orientation. In the United States each individual has the potential to run for President and this opportunity is reflected in individual behavior. In other countries a leading political position calls for education at elite schools and proper lineage. This suggests that collectivism plays a more dominant role related to performance orientation in countries that have few opportunities.

In-group collectivism is defined as “the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families” (House et al., 2004, p. 12). It has been shown that in-group collectivism is positively correlated to charismatic or value-based and team-oriented leadership. In contrast, in-group collectivism is negatively correlated to self-protective leadership (House et al., 2004). In-group collectivism shows the need for people to rely on group membership for identity and status (Parboteeah et al., 2005).

Institutional collectivism is defined as “the degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action” (House et al., 2004, p. 12). Institutional collectivism is negatively correlated to autonomous leadership. Collective cultures have less tolerance for deviation from accepted norms.

The GLOBE project will be evaluating six leadership behaviors in Phase III of the study. Information about leadership characteristics has been alluded to in Phase II, but an in-depth analysis is awaiting future publication. The six leadership characteristics include: charismatic or value-based leadership, team oriented leadership, participative leadership, autonomous leadership, human-oriented leadership, and self-protective leadership.

GLOBE Findings and their Relationship to Hofstede’s work

Performance orientation findings suggest that there is a wide gap between practiced and desired level of orientation. The desired level of performance orientation is much higher than that practiced (practice mean = 3.20, desired mean = 4.92 on 7.00 scale). The GLOBE authors put forward that many cultures may want to belong to a high performance-oriented society (House et al., 2004). The need to excel and do well is a basic human trait. When viewed as a leadership trait, performance orientation had a score of 6.00 out of 7.00. This suggests that performance orientation is a highly valued leadership trait. As leadership trait scores showed geographical differences, ranging from 5.48 to 6.33, it suggests that performance orientation is a highly sought after trait. Corresponding data does not exist for comparison purposes from the Hofstede study.

The GLOBE study found an average mean score of 2.88 for practiced future orientation compared to a score of 4.33 (7.00 point scale) for desired future orientation. Most countries give equal weight to future planning and planning for immediate issues. Findings were grouped into four categories based on similarity of scores. There was no evidence of Confucian societies scoring highest in future orientation as suggested by Hofstede’s findings (House et al., 2004). Hofstede claimed, “The future of short- and long-term orientation is difficult to predict” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 370). As this dimension was an afterthought in Hofstede’s work, this dimension may be a dynamic and changing manifestation of a culture’s current position. There may be many factors that influence future orientation such as acquiring technology and demographic influences.

Hofstede’s masculinity findings have been criticized for surveying a dominantly male sample from IBM. Several scholars, such as Hoppe’s in the Salzburg Seminar Study, used more women in a similar sample. Hoppe’s sample had higher educational levels and a higher mean age. The correlation with Hofstede’s study was concluded (r=.36, p>.05).  The men and women in the Salzburg Seminar created nearly identical rank orderings with Hofstede’s study, but gender differences failed to duplicate the original study. Masculinity has been significantly correlated with other cultural dimensions. House et al. (2004, p. 347) stated the following about Hofstede’s work, “The findings to date are mixed with regard to the reliability and validity of his masculinity/femininity dimension.” Masculinity encompasses two sublevels: (1) the degree to which a society encourages and rewards masculine behavior, and (2) the degree to which stereotyped behaviors are nurtured. It is difficult to measure and understand masculinity/femininity as a stand alone dimension because it is dependent on other dimensions. The GLOBE project selected performance orientation as a measurable dimension rather than using Hofstede’s “success striving” characteristic for masculinity.

The GLOBE findings for gender egalitarianism suggest that practices fall below desired orientation levels (practiced mean = 2.50, desired mean = 3.18). It is unclear whether managers responded in socially accepted ways to survey questions about this topic, thereby biasing the response. Findings suggest that societies prefer “not to favor men in attainment of higher of education or leadership positions” (House et al., 2004, p. 362).

Assertiveness originates from Hofstede’s masculinity dimension, but differs from it significantly. Hofstede claimed that a high masculinity score suggested high assertiveness or ambition. GLOBE viewed assertiveness as a behavior and as a stereotyped national characteristic. GLOBE used two constructs based on a 7-point scale to measure a society’s assertiveness level. Highly assertive societies communicate directly, try to control the environment, expect subordinates to take initiative, and value progress. Low assertive societies value cooperation, expect loyalty, and try to be in harmony with the environment. Scores ranged from 3.38 for Sweden to 4.89 for Albania (House et al., 2004). Many people view their country as being highly assertive and they want less of it, while other countries want more assertiveness. The GLOBE project was able to build three country categories based on mean scores: those that were highly assertive, those that were neutral, and those that were not assertive. The findings for this dimension are out the scope of this paper as they would require a detailed analysis on a country-by-country basis. Hofstede linked masculinity to a performance-oriented culture. GLOBE assertiveness was significantly linked to performance orientation (r=.36).

Hofstede’s individualism analysis was based on six questions about work goal preferences. Hofstede’s polar traits included time for personal and family life, freedom on the job, having challenges on the job, having training opportunities, having good working conditions, and being able to use one’s skills on the job. Hofstede argued that positive scores on the first three traits suggested an individual’s independence from the organization. In contrast, negative score loadings on the last three traits showed what the organization could do for the individual, thereby suggesting collective behavior. The GLOBE authors claimed, “This scale did not have high internal consistency at the individual level of analysis” (House et al., 2004, p. 441). The GLOBE study found positive correlations between individualism and ecology, economic activity, pace of life, health, family systems, communications, and social interaction patterns. In-group collectivism scored a mean of 6.36 (7-point scale) and the desired score was 6.52. This suggests high collectivism worldwide. Institutional collectivism scored 5.22 with a desired score of 5.65. Institutional collectivism was segregated into four categories while in-group collectivism was segregated into three categories. Institutional collectivism correlated with Hofstede’s data (r=-.55, p<.01) and in-group collectivism correlated (r=-.82, p>.01).

Hofstede claimed that members of high power distance cultures accept differences in power among hierarchy levels, compared to lower power distance cultures who expect smaller power differences (Hofstede, 2001). House et al. (2004, p. 530) stated, “The robustness of Hofstede’s power distance index has been established to a fairly high degree by independent replication in several studies.” Power distance means ranged from 3.89 to 5.8 (7-point scale). All cultures, except Denmark, showed mean scores above the midpoint of 4.0. GLOBE findings concluded that “power distance is thus report to be the least desirable, but the most prominent, feature of social practices in countries around the world” (House et al., 2004, p. 539). Power distance correlation between GLOBE and Hofstede’s 2001 study update index (r=.57, p<.01). It is claimed that Hofstede understood that his measures showed perceptions which were guided by situational factors rather than cultural values (House et al., 2004). Hofstede’s data are more descriptive of societal power distance than individual power distance; therefore GLOBE did not correlate its data with Hofstede’s IBM data, but with the second study data.

Human orientation will not be discussed as there is no comparable data from the Hofstede study and it has been discussed previously. The GLOBE study used four variables that stressed consistency and orderliness, structured lifestyle, social requirements, and regulations. GLOBE uncertainty avoidance correlated to Hofstede’s data (r=.35, p<.05). This suggests a moderate positive relationship between the GLOBE study and Hofstede’s findings. This also suggests that the two studies were not measuring the same variables describing uncertainty avoidance.

Implications for Global Business Leaders

Cultural values change as illustrated by various studies. Values are time sensitive and are influenced by external environmental conditions. Savvy business leaders must not only be aware of cultural values in their host society, but an awareness of values and accepted norms in international cultures is essential to successful business relationships. It is through this understanding that leaders come to understand and empathize with those of different nationalities. Business leaders must be aware of cultural value impacts to leadership style. Differing cultures may dictate different leadership styles and behavior. An understanding of leadership style is critical to interact with leaders from different cultures.

House et al. (2004) suggests that leadership style knowledge may force leaders to operate outside their comfort zone. The GLOBE study found that each culture develops its own culturally-based leadership theory. This may call for adaptation and flexibility in a leader’s approach to conducting business over international borders. But, there are some common characteristics that are desired by all cultures. It is postulated that globalization may be a driver of such commonalities as economic interaction increases at exponential rates. It is also proposed by the GLOBE study that charismatic leadership styles satisfy basic human needs for achievement that transcends national boundaries. The popularity of transformational leadership and its roots in ethical behavior may be a contributing factor in leadership style commonality among nations. But, these hypotheses have no empirical verification to date as there remains much to be done.

It is important for global leaders to be aware of cultural trends and value systems of various nations. Not only is it important to understand the values of countries with which leaders do business, it is important to understand the values of countries with which your business partners do business. Successful leadership requires a global knowledge of peoples and events. Everyone is linked together in a shifting scene of values, behaviors, and situations. It takes an astute leader to stay atop of events and use such knowledge in improving business relationships.

Conclusion

The GLOBE study adds to the wealth of social sciences knowledge that can be used to understand differing cultures. Researchers can triangulate their study findings with other studies to improve validity through meta-analysis methods. A common observance and criticism concerns the sample from which studies are derived. Possible bias or lack of generalization is claimed to exist based on narrow sample criteria. Regardless of criticism, similarities and generalizations have been made as various studies tend to have high degree of correlation.

The GLOBE study has extended the original work of Hofstede by adding new cultural dimensions to the study and analysis. GLOBE has defined the dimensions of individualism and collectivism by segregating it into societal and institutional collectivism. Assertiveness, human orientation, and performance orientation have been added. The GLOBE study has extended societal values to include a study on leadership behavior. Findings suggest that leadership behavior differs by culture, but common characteristics such as achievement and charisma are valued by all cultures. The GLOBE study, as past studies have done, adds new knowledge to our understanding of culture and illustrates that cultural values are susceptible to change based on context. Research shows that the study of worldwide cultures is ever-changing and we are only able to glimpse a segment of culture each time a study is conducted. Each study contributes to an expanding volume of knowledge and theory about culture and its people.

References

(Hofstede G 1980 Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values)Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

(Hofstede G 2001 Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations)Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

(House R J Hanges P J Javidan M Dorfman P W Gupta V 2004 Culture, leadership, and organizations: the GLOBE study of 62 societies)House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

(Machan T R 1989 Individuals and their rights)Machan, T. R. (1989). Individuals and their rights. La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing.

(Martin R 1993 system of rights)Martin, R. (1993). system of rights. Oxfordshire, UK: Clarendon Press.

(Ndubisi N O 2004 Understanding the salience of cultural dimensions on relationships and aftermath)Ndubisi, N. O. (2004). Understanding the salience of cultural dimensions on relationships and aftermath. Cross Cultural Management, 11(3), 70-90.

(Parboteeah K P Bronson J W Cullen J B 2005 Does national culture affect willingness to justify ethically suspect behaviors? A focus on the GLOBE national culture scheme)Parboteeah, K. P., Bronson, J. W., & Cullen, J. B. (2005). Does national culture affect willingness to justify ethically suspect behaviors? A focus on the GLOBE national culture scheme. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management: CCN, 5(2), 123-137.

(Peabody D 1985 National characteristics)Peabody, D. (1985). National characteristics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

(Stedham Y E Yamamura J H 2004 Measuring national culture: Does gender matter?)Stedham, Y. E., & Yamamura, J. H. (2004). Measuring national culture: Does gender matter? Women in Management Review, 19(5/6), 233-244.

(White A R 1984 Rights)White, A. R. (1984). Rights. Oxfordshire, UK: Clarendon Press. 

What was the main purpose of the Globe project?

Which term in the Globe framework refers to the degree to which a society rewards individuals for being altruistic generous and kind to others?

Which of the following is the cultural dimension identified by the Globe project team?

Is the term used by Hofstede to describe a situation in which the dominant values in society are caring for others and the quality of life?