Slide 1

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 2

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 3

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 4

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 5

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 6

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 7

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 8

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 9

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 10

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 11

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 12

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 13

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 14

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 15

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 16

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 17

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 18

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 19

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 20

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 21

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 22

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 23

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 24

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 25

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 26

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 27

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 28

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 29

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 30

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 31

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 32

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 33

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 34

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 35

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 36

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 37

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 38

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 39

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 40

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 41

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 42

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 43

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 44

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 45

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 46

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 47

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!


Slide 48

INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:
Key Concepts for International Researchers

Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty
Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School

Research & Leadership
RESEARCHER

LEADER

-Recruitment
-Data Collection
-Assessments
-Intervention
-Data Analysis
-Publications
-Dissemination
-Implementation

-Leader vs. boss
-Inspire
-Motivating
-Team Cohesion
-Team Engagement
-Retain Talent
-Organizational Change

RESEARCH

Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture

Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting
research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences
• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:
– leadership styles
– team cohesion
– motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency

The GLOBE Study
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

Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across
the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth
Studies of 25 Societies

Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute
toward the effectiveness and success of
the organizations of which they are
members”
(the GLOBE Study)

GLOBE Overview
•
•
•
•

Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation
Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review
Over 150 Co-investigators
Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals
• At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)
• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization
• respondents had to be middle managers

Some key questions
• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?
• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to
leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures
studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?

GLOBE Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•

Performance Orientation
Future Orientation
Gender Egalitarianism
Assertiveness
Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional
– In-Group
• Power Distance
• Humane Orientation
• Uncertainty Avoidance

Data Collection
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture
• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be
• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
individual interests
collective interests

– Leadership Questionnaire

GLOBE Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries
Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251
More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants
74% of respondents were men
Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager
Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years
51% had worked for a multinational corporation

Core Dimensions of Culture

Performance Orientation
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards
innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Higher Performance Orientation

Lower Performance Orientation

Value training and development

Value societal and family relationships

Emphasize results more than people

Emphasize loyalty and belonging

Reward performance

Have high respect for quality of life

Value and reward individual achievement

Emphasize seniority and experience

Feedback as necessary for improvement

Feedback as judgmental and discomforting

Value being direct, explicit, and to the point
in communications

Value ambiguity and subtlety in language
and communications

Value what you do more than who you are

Value who you are more than what you do

Have a sense of urgency

Have a low sense of urgency

Performance Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Switzerland

4.94

Egypt

4.27

Namibia

3.67

Singapore

4.90

Germany (W)

4.25

Argentina

3.65

Hong Kong

4.80

India

4.25

Bolivia

3.61

S. Africa (B)

4.66

Zimbabwe

4.24

Portugal

3.60

Iran

4.58

Japan

4.22

Italy

3.58

South Korea

4.55

S. Africa (W)

4.11

Qatar

3.45

Canada (Eng)

4.49

Mexico

4.10

Russia

3.39

USA

4.49

Brazil

4.04

Venezuela

3.32

China

4.45

Spain

4.01

Greece

3.20

Austria

4.44

Morocco

3.99

Australia

4.36

Nigeria

3.92

Netherlands

4.32

Turkey

3.83

Sweden

3.72

El Salvador

3.72

Future Orientation
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards futureoriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Higher Future Orientation

Lower Future Orientation

Have a propensity to save for the future

Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future

Have individuals who are more intrinsically
motivated

Have individuals who are less intrinsically
motivated

Have organizations with a longer strategic
orientation

Have organizations with shorter strategic
orientation

Value the deferment of gratification, placing
greater value on long term success

Value instant gratification and place higher
priorities on immediate rewards

Emphasize visionary leadership that can see
patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty

Emphasize leadership that focuses on
repetition of reproducible and routine
sequences

Future Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Singapore

5.07

Sweden

4.39

Zimbabwe

3.77

Poland

3.11

Switzerland

4.73

Japan

4.29

China

3.75

Argentina

3.08

S. Africa (B)

4.64

India

4.19

Iran

3.70

Russia

2.88

Netherlands

4.61

U.S.

4.15

Zambia

3.62

Austria

4.46

S. Africa (W)

4.13

Costa Rica

3.60

Denmark

4.44

Nigeria

4.09

Namibia

3.49

Canada (Eng)

4.44

Hong Kong

4.03

Thailand

3.43

South Korea

3.97

Kuwait

3.26

Germany (W)

3.95

Morocco

3.26

Mexico

3.87

Italy

3.25

Israel

3.85

Guatemala

3.24

Brazil

3.81

Hungary

3.21

Gender Egalitarianism
The degree to which the differentiation between male and
female roles is stressed.
More Egalitarian

Less Egalitarian

Have more women in positions of authority

Have fewer women in positions of authority

Accord women a higher status in society

Accord women a lower status in society

Afford women a greater role in community
decision making

Afford women no or a smaller role in
community decision making

Have higher percentage of women in the
labor force

Have lower percentage of women in the
labor force

Have less occupational sex segregation

Have more occupational sex segregation

Have higher female literacy rates

Have lower female literacy rates

Have similar levels of education of females
and males

Have lower levels of education of females
relative to males

Gender Egalitarianism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Hungary

4.08

Switzerland

3.42

Kuwait

2.58

Russia

4.07

Australia

3.40

South Korea

2.50

Denmark

3.93

U.S.

3.34

Namibia

3.88

Brazil

3.31

Singapore

3.70

S. Africa (W)

3.27

Colombia

3.67

Japan

3.19

England

3.67

Taiwan

3.18

S. Africa (B)

3.66

Germany (E)

3.06

France

3.64

China

3.05

Mexico

3.64

Zimbabwe

3.04

Venezuela

3.62

Nigeria

3.01

Malaysia

3.51

India

2.90

Argentina

3.49

Zambia

2.86

Hong Kong

3.47

Morocco

2.84

Assertiveness
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are
assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
High Assertiveness

Low Assertiveness

Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior
for everyone in society

View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and
value modesty and tenderness

Have sympathy for the strong

Have sympathy for the weak

Value competition

Value cooperation

Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard
enough

Associate competition with defeat and punishment

Value direct and unambiguous communication

Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”

Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and
feelings

Value detached and self-possessed conduct

Stress equity, competition, and performance

Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life

Try to have control over the environment

Value harmony with the environment

Value taking initiative

Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit

Assertiveness
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Albania

4.89

France

4.13

Switzerland (FR)

3.47

Nigeria

4.79

Ecuador

4.09

New Zealand

3.42

Germany (E)

4.73

Zambia

4.07

Sweden

3.38

S. Africa (W)

4.60

Italy

4.07

U.S.

4.55

Ireland

3.92

Morocco

4.52

Namibia

3.91

Mexico

4.45

Guatemala

3.89

Spain

4.42

Indonesia

3.86

S. Africa (B)

4.36

Denmark

3.80

Australia

4.28

China

3.76

Argentina

4.22

India

3.73

Brazil

4.20

Russia

3.68

Singapore

4.17

Thailand

3.64

England

4.15

Japan

3.59

In-group Collectivism
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and
interdependence in their families
Collectivism

Individualism

Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive
groups

Individuals look after themselves and their
immediate families

The self is viewed as interdependent with groups

The self is viewed as autonomous and
independent of groups

Group goals take the precedence over individual
goals

Individual goals take precedence over group goals

More extended family structures

More nuclear family structures

People emphasize relatedness with groups

People emphasize rationality

Communication is indirect

Communication is direct

Individuals are likely to engage in group activities

Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone

Individuals make greater distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

Individuals make fewer distinctions between ingroups and out-groups

In-group Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Philippines

6.36

Costa Rica

5.32

Canada (E)

4.26

Iran

6.03

Greece

5.27

U.S.

4.25

India

5.92

Brazil

5.18

Australia

4.17

Morocco

5.87

Ireland

5.14

England

4.08

Zambia

5.84

S. Africa (B)

5.09

Finland

4.07

China

5.80

Austria

4.85

Germany (W)

4.02

Colombia

5.73

Israel

4.70

Switzerland

3.97

Singapore

5.64

Japan

4.63

Netherlands

3.70

Russia

5.63

Namibia

4.52

New Zealand

3.67

Zimbabwe

5.57

Germany (E)

4.52

Sweden

3.66

Nigeria

5.55

S. Africa (W)

4.50

Denmark

3.53

Venezuela

5.53

France

4.37

Argentina

5.51

Slovenia

5.43

Institutional Collectivism
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level
encourage and reward collective action
Collectivism

Individualism

Members assume high interdependence with the
Members assume they are independent of the
organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill organization ; believe it is important for them to bring
their organizational obligations
their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee
welfare

Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees
perform, not their personal or family welfare

Important decisions are made by groups

Important decisions are made by individuals

Selection can focus on relational attributes of
employees

Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge,
skills, and abilities

Motivation is socially oriented and based on
commitment to the group

Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s
needs, interests, and capacity

Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and
accommodating to resolve conflict

Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict
resolution

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures rests with groups

Accountability for organizational successes and
failures tests with individuals

Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

Sweden

5.22

Indonesia

4.54

Portugal

3.92

South Korea

5.20

Poland

4.53

Ecuador

3.90

Japan

5.19

Russia

4.50

Morocco

3.87

Singapore

4.90

Israel

4.46

Spain

3.85

New Zealand

4.81

Netherlands

4.46

Brazil

3.83

Denmark

4.80

S. Africa (B)

4.39

Germany (W)

3.79

China

4.77

Canada (E)

4.38

Italy

3.68

Ireland

4.63

India

4.38

Argentina

3.66

S. Africa (W)

4.62

U.S.

4.20

Germany (E)

3.56

Zambia

4.61

Nigeria

4.14

Hungary

3.53

Malaysia

4.61

Namibia

4.13

Taiwan

4.59

Zimbabwe

4.12

Mexico

4.06

France 3.93

Power Distance
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses
authority, power differences, and status privileges
High Power Distance

Low Power Distance

Society differentiated into classes on several
criteria

Society has a large middle class

Power is seen as providing social order, relational
harmony, and role stability

Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion,
and dominance.

Limited upward social mobility

High upward social mobility

Information is localized

Information is shared

Different groups have different involvement and
democracy does not ensure equal opportunity

All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy
ensures parity in opportunities and development for
all

Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high

Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low

Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land
ownership)

Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill,
knowledge)

Power Distance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Morocco

5.80

Germany (W)

5.25

Qatar

4.73

Netherlands

4.11

Nigeria

5.80

Mexico

5.22

Israel

4.73

S. Africa (B)

4.11

El Salvador

5.68

Taiwan

5.18

Albania

4.62

Denmark

3.89

Zimbabwe

5.67

S. Africa (W)

5.16

Bolivia

4.51

Argentina

5.64

England

5.15

Thailand

5.63

Kuwait

5.12

Germany (E)

5.54

Japan

5.11

Russia

5.52

China

5.04

Spain

5.52

Austria

4.95

India

5.47

Egypt

4.92

Iran

5.43

U.S.

4.88

Brazil

5.33

Sweden

4.85

Zambia

5.31

Canada (E)

4.82

Namibia

5.29

Costa Rica

4.74

Humane Orientation
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and
rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
High Humane Orientation

Low Humane Orientation

Others are important

Self-interest is important

Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love
and generosity have high priority

Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have
high priority

Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people

Power and material possessions motivate people

People are urged to provide social support to each
other

People are expected to solve personal problems on
their own.

Children should be obedient

Children should be autonomous

Members of society are responsible for promoting
well-being of others: The state is not actively
involved

State provides social and economic support for
individuals’ well-being

Close circle receives material, financial, and social
support, concern extends to all people and nature

Lack of support for others; predominance of selfenhancement

Humane Orientation
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Zambia

5.23

Indonesia

4.69

U.S.

4.17

Italy

3.63

Philippines

5.12

Ecuador

4.65

Taiwan

4.11

Poland

3.61

Ireland

4.96

India

4.57

Sweden

4.10

S. Africa (W)

3.49

Malaysia

4.87

Kuwait

4.52

Nigeria

4.10

Singapore

3.49

Thailand

4.81

Zimbabwe

4.45

Israel

4.10

Germany (E)

3.40

Egypt

4.73

Costa Rica

4.39

Argentina

3.99

France

3.40

China

4.36

Mexico

3.98

Hungary

3.35

S. Africa (B)

4.34

Russia

3.94

Greece

3.34

Japan

4.30

H. Kong

3.90

Spain

3.32

Australia

4.28

Slovenia

3.79

Germany (W)

3.18

Venezuela

4.25

Austria

3.72

Morocco

4.19

England

3.72

Georgia

4.18

Brazil

3.66

Uncertainty Avoidance
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness,
consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
High Uncertainty Avoidance

Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Tendency toward formalizing interactions with
others

Tendency toward being more informal in
interactions with others

Document agreements in legal contracts

Rely on word of others they trust vs. written
contracts

Orderly, meticulous record keeping

Less concerned with orderliness

Rely on formalized policies and procedures

Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies

Take more moderate calculated risks

Less calculating when taking risks

Stronger resistance to change

Less resistance to change

Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules

Greater tolerance for rule breaking

Uncertainty Avoidance
BAND 1

BAND 2

BAND 3

BAND 4

Switzerland

5.37

England

4.65

Japan

4.07

Venezuela

3.44

Sweden

5.32

S. Africa (B)

4.59

Egypt

4.06

Olivia

3.35

Singapore

5.31

Canada

4.58

Israel

4.06

Guatemala

3.30

Denmark

5.22

France

4.43

Spain

3.97

Hungary

3.12

Germany (W)

5.22

Australia

4.39

Philippines

3.89

Russia

2.88

Austria

5.16

Taiwan

4.34

Costa Rica

3.82

Germany (E)

5.16

Nigeria

4.29

Italy

3.79

Finland

5.02

Kuwait

4.21

Iran

3.67

Switzerland

4.98

Namibia

4.20

Morocco

3.65

China

4.94

Mexico

4.18

Argentina

3.65

Malaysia

4.78

Zimbabwe

4.15

El Salvador

3.62

New Zealand

4.75

U.S.

4.15

Brazil

3.60

Zambia

4.10

South Korea

3.55

S. Africa (W)

4.09

Culture and Leadership

Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors
– Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others
– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers

• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or
contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions

Leader Dimensions
• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values.
• Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members.
• Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions.
• Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity.
• Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership.
• Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘

Charismatic/
Value Based

Team
Oriented

Participative

Humane
Oriented

Autonomous

SelfProtective

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

HIGH

Germanic
E. European
Confucian A.
Nordic
SE Asian
Anglo
African
Middle Eastern
L. European
L. American

Middle Eastern
Confucian A.
SE Asian
L. American
E. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic
SE Asian
L. European
L. American

Confucian A.
African
E. European

Middle Eastern

SE Asian
Confucian A.
L. American
E. European
African
L. European
Nordic
Anglo
Middle Eastern
Germanic

Germanic
Anglo
Nordic

SE Asian
Anglo
African
Confucian A.

L. European
L. American
African

Germanic
Middle Eastern
L. American
E. European

E. European
SE Asian
Confucian A.
Middle Eastern

L. European
Nordic

African
L. European

Anglo
Germanic
Nordic

Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences

“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning
is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the
degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning,
communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
Milton Bennett, Ph.D.

.
• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity
• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with
cultural difference, moving from ethnocentrism to
enthnorelativism
• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior
• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences

Experience of Difference

Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial

Defense

Minimization Acceptance Adaptation

ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES

Integration

ETHNORELATIVE STAGES

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central
to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism
• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group
distinctions

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism
• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict
to exist a recognition of difference has to exist
• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with
reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial:
– Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar
– Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different

Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural
differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity
• Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific
defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from
denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and
Reversal

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism
• We are all alike…they are all like me!!
• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”

• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when
interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization:
– Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same
– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• The assumption that cultures can only be understood
relative to one another and that particular behavior can only
be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness”
that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference
is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any
other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular
group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening,
but most likely to be enjoyable

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted
• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition
• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences
– Respect for Value Difference

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired
• Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation
• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours
• Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills
• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or
comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural
frames of reference.

Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages
Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration

• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns
different from his own and who has psychologically and
socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others
added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture
is lost
• Two forms of integration exist:
– Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs
– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality

Key Points
• Differences in values can affect:
–
–
–
–
–

Leadership styles
Approaches to work
Success of workteams
Intervention approaches
Attainment of research goals and aims

• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture
and function within the other culture.
– what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.

Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership
require active thinking and energy….but are
essential to the successful international research.

Thank you!