Transcript Podcast - Division of Gender, Sexuality, and Health
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!
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!