CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER 6. GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

GLOBE Leadership Model
What can we conclude from this about the meaning and application of leadership across
cultures? To start, we hope you’ve learned to be wary about a one-size-fits-all portrait of
successful leaders and to realize that leadership is in the eye of the beholder since our cultural
expectations influence perceived effectiveness.
Two major approaches to leadership in global settings back this up. Interestingly, both
projects were conducted by multicultural teams of researchers, giving these efforts added
credibility. The first approach is referred to as the comparative leadership approach and was
introduced above concerning China and the West. It describes how leader behaviors can differ
across cultures (see Exhibit 6.2). The second approach, to be discussed below, is the global
leadership approach. This approach illustrates how managers can develop leadership capabilities
that can be used across cultures. These are not competing models. That is, while each model has
a different focus, both can be used in tandem to help develop global leadership skills.

Exhibit 6.2Approaches to global leadership

Comparative leadership approach Global leadership approach

Example: GLOBE model Example: Pyramid model
Focus: Descriptive model; Focus: Developmental model;
illustrates how illustrates
leader behaviors can differ across how managers can build
cultures; leadership
promotes understanding of capabilities that can be used
culture- across
leadership relationships cultures
Key variables in understanding: Key variables in development:
• Leadership styles (autonomous, • Fundamental business knowledge
charismatic, humane, • Threshold traits (e.g., integrity,
participative, self- resilience)
protective, team) • Multicultural competence
• Leadership traits (universally • Global management skills
positive,
universally negative, culturally • System skills (organizing,
contingent) boundary-spanning, change
skills)

1
 The GLOBE project illustrates the comparative leadership approach. This project was
conducted by Robert J. House, Paul J. Hanges, Mansour Javidan, Peter W. Dorfman, and Vipin
Gupta. The GLOBE leadership model examines the relationship between culture and successful
leadership and management patterns in sixty-two countries worldwide. The project's initial
research led them to propose the nine GLOBE cultural dimensions: power distance, uncertainty
avoidance, humane orientation, institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, assertiveness,
gender egalitarianism, future orientation, and performance orientation.
Based on this, the researchers then identified twenty-two leadership attributes that were
widely seen as being, in their view, universally applicable across cultures (e.g., encouraging,
motivational, dynamic, decisive, having foresight) and eight leadership dimensions that were
seen to be universally undesirable (e.g., uncooperative, ruthless, dictatorial, irritable). Several
other attributes were found to be culturally contingent; however–that is, their desirability or
undesirability was tied to cultural differences (see Exhibit 6.3 for details). These included
characteristics such as being ambitious and elitist. Here, it was found that people in some
cultures favored traits in leaders that people in other cultures rejected. For example, some
cultures (e.g., those in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the United States) often
romanticize their leaders and give them exceptional privileges and prestige; they are held in high
esteem. At the same time, however, other cultures (e.g., those in the Netherlands and
Switzerland) denigrate the very concept of leadership and are often suspicious of people in
authority. They worry about abuse of power and rising inequality.

Exhibit 6.3GLOBE cultural perspectives on leadership effectiveness

Traits universally Traits universally Culturally contingent

considered considered traits of beliefs about
facilitators of impediments to facilitators of leadership
leadership leadership effectiveness
effectiveness effectiveness
Trustworthiness Self-protective Individualistic
Visionary Non-cooperative Status-conscious
Inspirational Autocratic Risk-taker
Team-builder
The GLOBE researchers distilled their findings into six relatively distinct GLOBE
leadership dimensions: autonomous, charismatic/value-based, humane, participative, self-
protective, and team-oriented (see Exhibit 6.4). Two leadership styles (charismatic/value-based
leadership and team-oriented leadership) were strongly endorsed in all regional country clusters
used in the study. Even so, the magnitude of this endorsement varied across regional country
clusters. For example, both charismatic/value-based and team-oriented leadership styles were
most widely accepted in the Anglo, Asian, and Latin American clusters. They were still accepted
in other regions but with less intensity.

2
 Exhibit 6.4GLOBE leadership dimensions
GLOBE Characteristics of dimensions Regions where leadership dimensions
leadership are widely endorsed
dimensions

Autonomous Individualistic, independent, Endorsed in Eastern European and

leadership unique Germanic clusters; weaker
endorsement in Latin American
cluster
Charismatic/ Visionary, inspirational, self- Endorsed in all regions, but
value-based sacrificing, decisive, particularly in Anglo, Asian, and
leadership performance-oriented Latin American clusters; weaker
endorsement in Arab cluster
Humane Modest, tolerant, sensitive, Endorsed particularly in Anglo,
leadership concerned about humanity Asian, and sub-Saharan African
clusters; less so elsewhere
Participative Active listening, non-autocratic, Wide variations in endorsements
leadership flexible across all regions, but less so in
Arab and Latin American clusters
Self-protective Self-centered, procedural, status- Wide variations in endorsements
leadership conscious, face-saving across all regional clusters
Team-oriented Collaborative, integrating, Endorsed in all regions, but
leadership diplomatic particularly in Anglo, Asian, and
Latin American clusters; less so in
Arab cluster

Meanwhile, the other leadership styles were found to be more culturally contingent.
Humane leadership was strongly endorsed in the Asian, Anglo, and sub-Saharan African clusters
and less strongly endorsed in the Latin American and Nordic clusters. Autonomous leadership
was generally seen as neither facilitating nor inhibiting a leader from being effective. Within the
Eastern European and Germanic clusters, however, this leadership style was considered to be
more positively related to outstanding leadership than in other culture clusters. Finally, for self-
protective and participative leadership, there was substantial variability in the degree to which
these styles were endorsed within the different country clusters. For more details and country
breakdowns using the GLOBE methodology, see Exhibit 6.5.

Exhibit 6.5Cultural beliefs about leadership styles

Country Autonomous Charismatic Humane Participative Self- Team

leadership leadership leadership leadership protective leadership
leadership

Australia 3.95 6.09 5.09 5.71 3.05 5.81

Brazil 2.27 6.01 4.84 6.06 3.50 6.17
Canada* 3.65 6.16 5.20 6.09 2.96 5.84
China 4.07 5.57 5.18 5.05 3.80 5.57
Denmark 3.79 6.01 4.23 5.80 2.82 5.70
Egypt 4.49 5.57 5.14 4.69 4.21 5.55
Greece 3.98 6.02 5.16 5.81 3.49 6.12

3
 India 3.85 5.85 5.26 4.99 3.78 5.72
Ireland 3.95 6.08 5.06 5.64 3.01 5.82
Israel 4.26 6.23 4.68 4.96 3.64 5.91
Japan 3.67 5.49 4.68 5.08 3.61 5.56
Mexico 3.86 5.66 4.71 4.64 3.86 5.75
Nigeria 3.62 5.77 5.48 5.19 3.90 5.65
Philippines 3.75 6.33 5.53 5.40 3.33 6.06
Poland 4.34 5.67 4.56 5.05 3.53 5.98
Russia 4.63 5.66 4.08 4.67 3.69 5.63
Singapore 3.87 5.95 5.24 5.30 3.32 5.77
South Korea 4.21 5.53 4.87 4.93 3.68 5.53
Spain 3.54 5.90 4.66 5.11 3.39 5.93
Sweden 3.97 5.84 4.73 5.54 2.82 5.57
Thailand 4.28 5.78 5.09 5.30 3.91 5.76
Turkey 3.83 5.96 4.90 5.09 3.58 6.01
UK 3.92 6.01 4.90 5.57 3.04 5.71
USA 3.75 6.12 5.21 5.93 3.16 5.80

In this exhibit, scales range from 1.0 to 7.0, depending on how important each society, on
average, sees the six dimensions for leadership effectiveness, with 1.0 being very unimportant
and 7.0 being very important. Two things should be remembered here. First, these are mean
scores, and considerable variations can be found within them. Second, it is probably more
helpful to look at these numbers as relative differences, not numeric ones. In any case, these
results and the GLOBE study in general provide some evidence that acceptable managerial
behaviors– including leader behaviors–are, to some degree, culturally contingent. To see how
this works in actual practice, consider an example from Brazil.
According to the findings of the GLOBE study, Brazilian managers tend to be–or try to
be–charismatic, participative, and team-oriented. A manager’s personal style is considered
significant, and one’s vision and bearing are typically seen as equally important to their technical
abilities. Relationships are critical in this culture, and the boss and subordinates make great
efforts to foster a relationship based on trust and respect for personal dignity. Still, managers are
expected to manage. The boss is expected to give direct instructions, and it is expected that these
instructions will be carried out without too much discussion or debate. If there is a debate, it is
done privately to avoid showing any public disrespect to the manager.
On an operational level, while managers in many countries value advance planning,
Brazilian managers often rely on luck and improvisation. They rely on a practice that
corresponds to a last-minute approach to finding solutions to problems and may include breaking
the rules, asking for favors, or creative fixes. Brazilian leaders are expected to have jogo de
cintura, that is, finding creative and improvisatory solutions to deal with problems. It is a general
belief that there is no need to worry about obstacles, as almost everything can be arranged. This
“arrangement of things” mostly concerns exempting certain rules and using favors. In this sense,
personal contacts play an important role. For example, if a manager missed a deadline to turn in
a document to the HR department but has a friend working in this department, the manager could

4
easily ask the friend to slip in the document so it is not obvious that it was late. Thus, even
though the manager missed the deadline, all will be well. Such an approach might drive
managers from some other countries crazy, but it works well in Brazil; it gets the job done.
Questions:
1. How does the GLOBE framework help explain leadership in Brazil as described here?
2. For many people, waiting until the last minute to solve problems and then bending the
rules to help accomplish this sounds more like chaos or perhaps irresponsibility than
leadership. What is your opinion of this seeming contradiction?
3. How easy would it be to transfer this leadership style to other cultures or countries? As
part of your answer, consider which cultural values in Chapter 2 seem most aligned with
jeitinho? In what other countries might this approach work? Why? And where would this
approval not work?
4. Consider: Your team has been sent to work with a small Brazilian tech firm in São Paulo
to help the Brazilian company complete the development of a new technology that your
firm hopes to exploit for global markets. Your employer has advised you that building a
working relationship—and completing the development of the new technology—is
critical. However, when you meet your new Brazilian team leader, you are met with
impromptu, autocratic, and at times volatile comments that cause you to lack confidence
in her ability to deliver. You are not sure you can trust her. Still, you have been sent to
secure the rights to the technology, and the team leader seems to have the upper hand.
What steps can your team take to verify that your team and the team leader are ‘on the
same page’ regarding timely technology development?