2000 cultures of leadership

Cultures of Leadership Maarten van Beek, Leiden University, October 2000

1

Cultures of

Leadership

A comparative study of Dutch, British, American, Swedish, Italian and French organizational leaders.

Author: Maarten van Beek Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Leiden University, The Netherlands Academic supervisor: Prof. H. A. M. Wilke, Leiden University External supervisor: Mr. F.M. Verbruggen


2

The Dutch place emphasis on egalitarianism and are skeptical about the value of leadership. Terms like leader and manager carry a stigma. Dutch children will not tell schoolmates if their father is a

manager.

The French appreciate two types of leader: De Gaulle and Mitterand. The De Gaulle-type is a strong charismatic leader. The Mitterand-type is a consensus and coalition builder and an effective

negotiator.

The Americans value two types of leader. They ask empowerment from leaders who grant autonomy and delegate authority to subordinates, but also respect the bold, forceful, confident and risk-taking

leader, as personified by John Wayne.

GLOBE 1998


3

Contents Summary

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 A Global Economy, New Challenges on leadership 1.2 Leadership, an overview 1.3 Task- and People-Oriented leadership 1.4 Culture, an overview 1.5 Intercultural leadership, an overview 1.6 Research Question and Hypotheses Chapter 2 Methodology

2.1 Survey 2.2 Company Investigated 2.3 Sample 2.4 Data Analysis Chapter 3 Cultures of leadership: the results

3.1 Descriptive results 3.2 Test of differences between countries, assignement an industry between task and people oriented leadership. Chapter 4 Discussion Chapter 5 Conclusion Chapter 6 Final Remarks Acknowledgements Appendices References


4

Summary This study aims to outline cultural differences in leadership. It focuses on differences between countries but also provides information on leadership differences between various branches of industry and differences between managers with varying backgrounds. The study was performed in six countries, divided into three clusters: a North European cluster containing Sweden (N = 75

1) and the Netherlands (N = 89), an

Anglo-American cluster comprising the United States (N = 80) and the United Kingdom (N = 57), and a Latin European cluster containing Italy (N = 42) and France (N=40). The study uses a 163-item self-rating questionnaire, completed by 480 managers from these six countries. It consists of questions about a manager’s background, leadership behavior and attitude, and about cultural behavior and attitude. The study focuses on the following aspects of leadership: team building, giving feedback, coaching, goal achieving, production emphasis, and entrepreneurship. The first three aspects are related to people-oriented leadership, the last three to task-oriented leadership. The results can be summarized as: people oriented leadership and task oriented leadership measured by Blake & Mouton shows differences on the independent variable assignment. No differences are shown on the independent variables country and industry. The people and task oriented leadership scales which are developed for this research (PA, PB, TA and TB)show only an effect on the independent variable country. One of the leadership types (people oriented leadership, PA and PB) differs among the countries of research. Coaching (attitude and behavior) and team building (attitude) differ between countries. The Latin European countries are value people oriented leadership highest and are people oriented in the workshop as well. There are no differences between countries were it concerns task oriented leadership. People oriented leadership (PA and PB) and some of the aspects of leadership are influenced by some –mainly people oriented- culture aspects. This study provides information about the differences between Dutch, Italian, French, British, American and Swedish organization leaders and show do away with al implicit leadership theories and prejudices of managers form these countries. This study can benefit the development of cross-cultural management training, management, and consulting.

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 A Global Economy, New Leadership Challenges

In a new global economy products, services, money, businesses, and people are no longer bound by

national borders. They move relatively freely between countries and cultures. In this global economy,

companies face new challenges (Drucker, 1999) that are not just economical or technical. Human

resources are increasingly important for organizations to be competitive and profitable. Maslow (1999)

already predicted that people would become the key competitive factor. Pfeffer (1994, 1998)

demonstrates that companies investing in their employees become more efficient, effective, and

profitable. Organizations can grow more successful when they properly understand and manage their

employees’ differences in competencies, skills, and knowledge. Combining these differences will lead

to new ways of defining problems and finding more creative, efficient, and effective solutions. One of

the main organizational challenges in a global economy is combining people’s competencies, skills,

and knowledge and creating a worldwide learning organization that uses its human resources more

effectively. Companies should build on people’s strengths and help them overcome their weaknesses.

In order to exploit people’s different competencies, skills and knowledge, these first have to be

1 Number of respondents that is used in the data analysis. (Ttotal number of respondents NL: N = 122, SW: N = 87,UK: N = 72,

USA: N = 97, FR: N = 51, IT: N = 49).


5

defined. Therefore, an insight into intercultural attitudes, customs, knowledge, and skills is essential.

This study aims to contribute to this field of international human resources development.

Within the broad field of international human resources the focus will be on (organization) leadership,

an important research topic for scholars and companies because of the impact leaders have on their

organizations. Leaders set organization goals, motivate employees, make decisions, function as role

models, and contribute to an organization’s image and culture.

There have been many studies on leadership over the years (Tead, 1935; Stogdill, 1957; McGregor,

1966; Goble, 1972; Zalenik, 1977; Bass, 1980; Bryman, 1986; Brion, 1998; Yukl, 1990; Smith, 1996;

etc.). The majority of these focus on characteristics, traits, effectiveness, and task-orientation of

leaders. In the last two decades more and more scholars (Pfeffer, 1996; Peters, 1995; Argyris, 1998;

etc.) have been focusing on the human aspect of leadership, people-leadership There are several

cultural studies on leadership (Trice & Beyer, 1991; Holmberg & Akerblom, 1998, 1999; House, et al.,

1999; Brodbeck, et al., 2000), but comparative studies of leadership in different countries are scarce.

From the 1970s onwards scholars such as Hofstede (1980, 1991, 1994) and Trompenaars (1985,

1994, 1997) have studied intercultural aspects of organizations, such as power distance, uncertainty

avoidance, and femininity. In the last decades there has been an increase in articles and literature

focusing on international Human Resources Management (HRM) and labor relations. The interest in

international leadership and differences between leaders in various countries has grown in the wake of

the globalization process. Bass (1981, 1990) reviews over 100 studies on leadership behavior in

different cultures. Recent cross-cultural research carried out within the scope of the GLOBE project

(House, et al., 1998, 1999) focuses on leadership in fifty-six countries (see: Chapter 1.4).

Next to the cultural differences this thesis explores if there are other issues than culture influence

leadership behavior and attitude. For this kind of industry (chemical, pharmacy, coatings and corporate

departments) and kind of assignment (staff, production, general management) are chosen. This thesis

argues that leadership differs between the countries of research, differences between industries and

assignment are less likely (Bass, 1981) but could occur. Bass (1981), Dunnette, (1976) and Yukl

(1998) don’t mention differences between production, staff and general managers or between

mangers in the chemical industry, coatings, pharmacy or corporate centers. A comprehensive

literature study did not lead to research relevant for this thesis. Most leadership theories and research

don’t focus on differences between leaders but focus on general attributes and behaviors (section

1.2).

As mentioned before, his thesis combines and focusses theories and ideas from leadership and

cultural management studies. In a global economy, leadership can no longer be regarded in isolation.

Consequently, the subject of investigation is Leadership from an intercultural perspective. As

mentioned above, much research has been conducted into areas such as leadership characteristics

and traits. Do the results of this kind of (American-biased) research apply to all countries? Are there


6

differences in leadership practice in various countries? Hofstede (1981) argues that most management

theories, for the greater part American, are not generally applicable. The majority of theories known

and taught are based on Anglo-American thinking and not relevant to Asia, South America, or even

most European countries. Books and articles on leadership are also Anglo-American in nature. This

thesis discusses cultural differences in leadership and tries to answer the questions raised above. It

investigates six leadership aspects and two types of leadership in six different countries. Most people

have prejudiced views on leaders in other countries. Although lacking a scientific basis, these ideas

are implicit in many widespread leadership theories (House, 1998, 1999).

1.2 Leadership, an overview

Everyone has opinions and ideas about leadership. These theories are often not founded on research

but based on people’s own experience or popular literature. But even research on leadership shows

contradictory findings and assertions without coherence and interpretability (Chemers, 2000).

Leadership is one of the subjects in the field of organizational and industrial psychology that has

interested many scholars. Hundreds of books and articles have been published about leadership.

Leadership involves a wide range of aspects such as decision making, traits, effectiveness, motivation,

and types. This chapter presents an historical overview. Leadership is a broad subject, there are

numerous scientific, popular, and practical studies on leadership. Leadership is not easy to define and

several different definitions are in use. This section gives an overview of research conducted on

leadership, based on the categorization by Vroom (in: Dunnette Ed., 1976). This chapter provides a

theoretical basis and gives a historical overview of leadership. Subsequently, several classifications of

leadership are presented. This thesis wants to make a contribution to international leadership research

and do away with implicit theories.

A common definition of general leadership is the one employed by Stogdill, a pioneer in leadership

research: “Leadership may be considered as the process (act) of influencing the activities of an

organized group in its effort towards goal setting and goal achievement” (1950, p. 3). Simonton (1994,

p. 411) defines a general leader as “that group member whose influence on a group’s attitudes,

performance or decision making greatly exceeds that of the average member of the group.” The

definition used in this thesis derives from the GLOBE project mentioned before. As organization

leadership is the subject of investigation, this thesis uses a definition of organization leadership2. The

GLOBE project defines organization leadership as “the ability of an individual to influence, motivate,

and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organization of which they

are members.”

This chapter describes the theoretical perspectives on leadership. After dealing with leading theories

and scholars, the aspects of leadership relevant to this thesis will be covered. Chapter 1 gives

2 In this thesis the term leadership is understood to mean organization leadership, unless specified otherwise.


7

definitions of leadership and the aspects of leadership researched. A general description and some

additional definitions are given here.

Theories, research, and scholars

“The study of leadership is an ancient art” (Bass, 1981, p. 5). Throughout our history philosophers,

scholars, and businesses people have performed research on leadership. Nowadays leadership is

studied as part of organizational and industrial psychology, an academic discipline whose roots can be

traced back to the 1920s, when Walter Dill Scott held a presentation for a group of businessmen. The

subject of his presentation was “Psychological Potential in Advertisement.”(Ferguson, 1961).

Vroom (In: Dunnette, Ed. 1976) describes three approaches to leadership research, in chronological

order: the trait approach, the situational approach, and new approaches to leadership, which are dealt

with in this section. The new approaches to leadership described here include scholars and

researchers from the 1980s and 1990s, whereas Vroom only covers those up to the mid-1970s. Figure

6 shows the relationship between leadership behavior and various variables.

Figure 6: Schematic presentation of variables used in leadership research (Vroom, in: Dunnette, Ed. 1976)

Trait Approach

The trait approach to leadership, which regards leadership as a personal characteristic, is widespread.

The number and the manifestation of unidimensional personality traits relevant to leadership vary from

person to person. Trait approach scholars are convinced that some traits are more effective than

others. Their research programs focus on finding these effective leadership traits. In line with these

ideas, scholars argue that it is possible to measure whether people are effective leaders. Dozens of

tests have been developed, all claiming to be able to distinguish between highly effective leaders.

These effective leadership traits are supposedly the most effective ones for any situation, in any

culture or circumstance. A person featuring several traits of effective leadership is allegedly able to

manage any situation.


8

The trait approach to leadership embraces two equally important studies: the Ohio State Studies and

the Michigan Studies. The Ohio State University researchers identify four dimensions to characterize

differences in behavior of leaders, of which ‘consideration’ and ‘initiating structure’ are considered to

be the most important. ‘Consideration’ can be defined as “leadership behavior indicative of friendship,

mutual trust, respect, and warmth.” ‘Initiating structure’ can be defined as “leadership behavior focused

on the relation with subordinates, organizing, and defining group activities” (Dunnette, 1976). These

dimensions come close to the leadership types discussed in this research: viz. ‘task-oriented

leadership’ and ‘people-oriented leadership’, which Bales labels ‘socio-emotional leadership’ and

‘task-facilitative leadership’ in his research in 1949.

The Ohio State Studies use two different methods of research. The most important research

instrument is called ‘Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ),’ the other ‘Leadership

Opinion Questionnaire (LOQ).’ The LBDQ, as in this research, asks subordinates to score their

leader's behavior; the LOQ is a self-rating questionnaire for leaders themselves. Both questionnaires

focus on the two dimensions of leadership mentioned above.

The Michigan Studies, conducted by the University of Michigan, are similar to the Ohio State Studies,

the principal differences being that the Michigan researches do not pay much attention to leadership

dimensions and operate more on an ad hoc basis. They have been more successful in obtaining

objective criteria of leadership effectiveness.

The contribution of the Michigan and Ohio studies on task- and people-oriented leadership, which this

thesis focus on, will be discusses in a later section. A more detailed treatment of these studies lies

beyond the scope of this thesis. More information about the Ohio State Studies can be found in Bass

(1981), and about the Michigan Studies in Likert (1961, 1967) and Bass (1981).

Below are a few remarks on the trait approach to leadership. Stogdil (1948) reported that few traits

(most notably intelligence) were sometimes associated with reliable differences between leaders and

followers, but there was no single variable that was related to leadership across a variety of situations.

Stogdill’s findings have set the stage for theories of leadership predicting an interaction between

leader trait and situational contingencies (Chemers, 2000) as described in the next section.

Although nowadays there is a strong focus on a situational approach to leadership (see: 3.2.2), there

are still a lot of scholars and business people who argue that traits are the most important aspect of

leadership. Modern theories about leadership (see: 3.2.3) still use parts of the trait approach to

leadership, supplemented with other views, ideas or research results.

Situational Approach


9

The situational approach looks at the situation and circumstances around leadership. Scholars in this

field stress that effective leadership behavior is not simply based on specific traits that assure success

in any situation. They claim that it is far more complex.

The situational approach builds further on the trait approach to leadership. The best known

contribution to situational research, the “Least Preferred Co-worker” (LPC), places the trait approach in

a situational perspective. LPC focuses on the co-worker with whom the leader feels he can cooperate

least on a regular task. Leaders are asked to indicate, on an eight-point scale, how they think about

bipolar items, for instance whether the co-worker is friendly-unfriendly, cold-warm, or open-reserved?”

LPC researcher Fiedler has greatly contributed to this approach with his Contingency Model. The

model claims that “In essence, it is a system for predicting which leaders will be effective in different

situations” (Vroom, in: Dunnette, Ed. 1976, p. 1535). Fiedler outlines the practical implications of this

model as follows. “If our theory is correct, then the recruitment and selection of leaders can be

effective only when we can also specify the relevant components of the situation for which the leader

is being recruited. There is no reason to believe that this cannot be done or that this should not be

done in specific cases. Difficulties arise because leadership situations change over time. The

organization must then be aware of the type of leadership situations into which the individual should

be successively guided so that an electrical engineer does not get assigned to bookkeeping duties”

(Fiedler, 1967, p. 250).

The situational approach to leadership is nowadays quite common. It covers lots of models on

leadership. The situational approach is often combined with trait approach aspects. The “new

approaches to leadership” described in the next section are often influenced by the situational

approach as well.

New Approaches to Leadership

As mentioned before, leadership is a popular subject of research. Many theories about leadership and

leadership effectiveness have been developed in line with the situational approach. Vroom (in:

Dunnette, 1976) talks about two aspects that influence leadership situational variables and personal

attributes. These have been described in the first two subsections of this chapter.

In the mid-70s to mid-80s there was a movement of leadership theories focused on cognitive models,

gender, and transformational and cultural leadership theories (Chemers, 2000). Some of these

theories will be mentioned below; for cultural aspects reference is made to Chapters 4 and 5.

In the mid-70s scholars focused on cognitive models of leadership as leadership perception. Eden and

Levitan (in: Chemers, 2000) did research on the perception of leadership by asking participants to rate

leadership behavior by imaging leaders. These ratings these were compared with the leadership

behavior of actual leaders. The attribution theory (Kelley, 1967, in Gleitman 1991) provided a


10

theoretical framework for the research on leadership biases. Further research has been conducted

into inferential processes (Philips and Lord, 1981, in Chemers, 2000)

Popular books were published which argued that female traits as warmth and nurturance flexibility

made women more effective leaders than men. But some more serious research on leadership and

gender was done as well. Bass (1981) mentions in his handbook of leadership some of these

researchers. Eagly et al. (1991), for instance, conducted a series of meta-analyses on male-female

differences in leadership.

Rapid developments in business and political systems ask for leadership theories that focus on

transition and change. From the eighties we see more and more articles and books on

transformational theories and transformational leadership. Scholars as Kotter (1995), Collins & Porras

and Joyce (1999) write on organizational change and the role of leaders in it.

This third subsection finishes with describing more recent research approaches to leadership. New

approaches to leadership have various themes, which is illustrated by the titles of the following books

and articles: ‘Charismatic Leadership in Organizations’ (Conger & Kanungo, 1998), ‘Results Based

Leadership’ (Ulrich, Zenger and Smallwood, 1999), ‘Deep Change, Discovering the Leader Within’

(Quinn, 1996), ‘Inspirational Leadership’ (Den Hartog, 1997), ‘The New Leadership Paradigm’ (Sims &

Lorenzi, 1992), ‘The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People’ (Covey, 1989), and ‘A Higher Standard

of Leadership’ (Nair, 1994). Though these titles have a popular ring, most are founded on reliable

research. It is interesting to note that many recent works on leadership focus on such leadership

characteristics as inspirational, charismatic, and value-based. A large number of leadership articles

and books describe how to become a change champion or a highly effective leader. Successful

leaders of multinationals, such as Jack Welch (GE, USA), Bill Gates (Microsoft, USA), Ingvar Kamprad

(IKEA, Sweden), Jan Carlzon (SAS, Sweden) and Richard Branson (Virgin, UK) are often taken as

examples of leaders with effective or excellent leadership behavior. A majority of recent scholars on

leadership underline the importance of the characteristics mentioned above. It will remain a moot point

whether these leadership characteristics are traits, whether they can be learned and developed or

whether they are inherited. Most researches agree that effective leadership behavior depends on

circumstances. Therefore, all recommendations made by these scholars and business leaders about

“How to become an effective leader! ” are questionable. There is not one best way of management,

not only because of situational differences but also because of cultural differences (Hofstede, 1981).

Much of the research done in the 1980s and 1990s shows a new research approach. The trait and

situational approaches are mainly empirical and/or use common psychological or sociological theories.

Nowadays, research largely focuses on case studies. Such research not only relates to the

businessmen mentioned but also involves biographies of successful leaders of the past such as

Kennedy, Ghandi, Ford and Johnson..


11

1.3 Leadership Types: Task and People Oriented Leadership

Leadership as defined above has many different aspects. This thesis divides leadership into two types:

people-oriented leadership and task-oriented leadership. People-oriented leadership and task-oriented

leadership are related to democratic and autocratic leadership, respectively. In the literature the

following synonyms can be found for task-oriented: task-centered, directive, instrumental, and

initiating. For people-oriented the terms employee-centered, supportive, considerate, relations-

oriented, and human relations-oriented occur. Kerr and Jermier (1978) distinguish between

relationship-oriented/supportive/people-centered leadership on the one hand and task-

oriented/instrumental/job-centered leadership on the other. This distinction between the task- and

people oriented leadership is made by (Likert, 1961, 1967) and Yukl (1997) as well. Likert added a

third leadership styles when he categorized leadership research: participative leadership. Yukl added

change-oriented leadership as a third leadership style. Next to these sholars many other used the

distinction between people- and task- oriented leadership. Further the Michigan and Ohio studies

made an comparison of effective and ineffective leadership. The LPC research conducted by Fiedler

(1956, 1955, 1967, see: 3.2) has similarities with the leadership types discussed in this section. In this

research leaders who view poorly performing coworkers in very negative terms (revealing a very

strong emphasis on effective task performance) are differentiated from those who view poorly

performing coworkers in less negative terms (focusing on interpersonal relationships, or people-

oriented leadership Some early research found that task-oriented leaders were more effective, but

subsequent research showed that people-oriented leadership were more successful in teams. In the

sections below I mention some other studies in which Fiedler made nuances in the effectiveness of

people- and task-oriented leadership.

This research reveals some interesting information about leadership behavior, relevant for this

research (Bryman, 1986). It should be noted that not all of these findings have been proved to be

consitend (Yukl, 1998). The sections below will discuss task- and people oriented leadership in more

detail.

This research uses the definitions of Bass on people-oriented and task-oriented leadership. Bass

refers to people oriented leadership as (1979, p.331): “Leaders also differ in their concern about the

group members in the extent to which they pursue a human relations approach and try to maintain

friendly, supportive relations with followers. Those with such strong concern are identified as relations-

oriented (Katz, et al., 1950), emphasizing employees (Fleisman, 1957), concerned for group

maintenance (Carthright & Zander, 1960; Wofford, 1970), concerned for people (Blake & Mouton,

1964), people-centered (D.R. Anderson, 1974), interaction-oriented (Bass, 1967b), and in need of

affiliation (McClelland, 1961). Usually associated with a relations orientation is a sense of trust in

subordinates, less felt need to control them, and more general rather than close supervision.”

Bass (1981, p. 331) says the following about task -oriented leaders in his Handbook on Leadership.

“Leaders differ in their concern for the group’s goals and the means to achieve them. Those with


12

strong concern are seen as task-oriented (Bass, 1967b, Fiedler, 1967a) concerned with production

(Blake & Mouton, 1964), in need of achievement (McClelland, 1961; Wofford, 1970), production-

oriented, (Katz, et al., 1950), production emphasizing (Fleisman, 1957), goal achieving (Cartwright &

Zander, 1960), and work-facilitative and goal emphasizing (Bowers & Seahore, 1966). Such leaders

are likely to keep their distance psychologically from their followers and to be more cold and aloof

(Balu & Scott, 1962). When coupled with an inability to trust subordinates, such concern for production

is likely to manifest itself in close, controlling supervision (McGregor, 1960

Likert, Fiedler and Yukl all acknowledge a kind of people and task ortiented leadership. This

distinctions has been made by many other scholars (Blake& Mouton, 1985) but is still relevant

nowadays. Hereunder people and task oriented leadship will be explored some more.

People-Oriented Leadership

Despite the focus on task-oriented leadership inherited from Taylor, many scholars (Herzberg, 1966,

1976; Fiedler 1967; Cane, 1996; Ulrich 1997; Pfeffer 1994, 1998, etc.) have underlined the importance

of the human factor in work. People-oriented leaders focus on this human factor. People-oriented

leaders coach their subordinates, ask for their opinions, give honest feedback, and prefer teamwork.

People-oriented leadership is most effective in moderate situations (Fiedler, 1967). For extreme

situations task-oriented leadership is more effective as we have seen in the previous section.

Nowadays, scholars (Goleman, 1999) argue that people-oriented leadership is more effective in most,

even extreme situations, but there is no empirical and incontrovertible evidence to back this up.

Goleman claims that effective leaders score high on self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation,

empathy, and social skills. The first three aspects are related to self-management, the last two to a

person’s ability to manage relations with others.

Maslow (1999) points out that “the nice thing about this whole new management (enlightened

management) is that from whichever point you start, whether from the point of view of what is the best

for the performance of people or what is best for making a profit and turning out good products, the

results seem to be almost exactly the same – that which is good for personal development is also

good for turning out products and so on.” Goleman (1998, 1998, 2000; Pfeffer, 1994, 1998) argues

that people- leadership is at least as important as task-oriented leadership, and probably more

important.

Within people-oriented leadership the focus will be on team building, coaching, and giving feedback.

These aspects are defined in Chapter 1. Several scholars (Ulrich, Zenger, Smallwood, 1999; Pfeffer,

1998, 1994; Covey, 1998) argue that these aspects are necessary for effective leadership. Effective

leaders should be champions in coaching and team building and should give their employees honest

feedback about their performance, goals, behavior, etc. on a regular basis.

Task Oriented Leadership


13

The focus of this thesis is on task- and people-oriented leadership. Frederick Winslow Turner argued

in his famous article “The principles of scientific management” (1911) that work should be rationally

divided into small pieces. With this article he made an distinction between the tasks of managers.

Turner believed that managers should focus on tasks only. Turner’s principles are still widespread in a

lot of western countries, particularly in the United States. Hackman & Oldham (1980) pointed out in

“Work redesign” that Turner’s vision is limited and that motivation, satisfaction, interpersonal relations,

etc. are also important factors in effective labor. This focus on the humane side of management was

underlined by Herzberg in his motivation and hygiene theory (1976) and by McGregor’s theory X and

theory Y (in: Greenberg & Baron, 1997). Researchers have been exploring the influence of people-

and task-oriented leadership for decades, but it is still an interesting starting point. The fact that not

much research has been done on task- and people-oriented leadership in different countries makes it

even more interesting.Task-oriented leaders focus on production and process. Quality and production

results are most important to them. They spend most of their time on production-related issues and

are interested in the technical aspects of their job. Hollander (1964, Hollander & Juan 1970) found that

people in groups gain status through the demonstration of task-oriented behavior. Task-oriented

leaders perform best in situations of high control and predictability or very low control and predictability

(Fiedler, 1967).

Task-oriented leaders focus on production and process. Quality and production results are most

important to them. They spend most of their time on production-related issues and are interested in

the technical aspects of their job. Hollander (1964, Hollander & Juan 1970) found that people in

groups gain status through the demonstration of task-oriented behavior. Task-oriented leaders perform

best in situations of high control and predictability or very low control and predictability (Fiedler, 1967).

The Managerial Grid

Blake and Mouton (1970, 1978) have done research on leadership styles in organizations. As

mentioned earlier, Blake & Mouton have developed “the managerial grid’ to measure leadership style

the managerial grid survey is used in this research to measure task and people oriented leadership.

Blake & Mouton developed the grid in the seventies, but it is still an good instrument to measure task-

and people-oriented leadership. The grid is a nine to nine matrix, with production-oriented and people-

oriented as the two dimensions. In this matrix there are 5 leadership types, the 1,1; 1,9, 9,1; 9,9 and

5,5 manager. Each leadership type is extensively explained in ‘the managerial grid’ and the ‘new

managerial grid’ (see Figure 7).

1,9 country club leadership - takes care of his subordinates, is friendly, and worships friendly relations in his work; this leads to friendly and comfortable working conditions 1,1 contents less leadership - doesn’t put in more effort than necessary to keep his job 9,1 autocratic-disciplinary leadership - strong focus on production and efficiency, resulting in less attention to

human side of work


14

9,9 cooperative leadership - high performance through match between focus on production and efficiency and focus on human factors of work

5,5 functional leadership - average to good performance through focus on production and

efficiency and boosting morale

Figure 7: The new managerial grid, Blake & Mouton, 1978

Further in this thesis the leadership profiles of the countries of research are described in the terms of

Blake & Mouton. This practical grid is also suitable for a good overview of the differences in leadership

between the countries. The paragraphs about people and task oriented leadership could give the idea

that leaders are either people- or task-oriented. This is wrong; leaders can be excellent in both. For

example, Mouton & Blake mention the 9,9 manager, a manager who is highly effective on the people

and the task dimension of the grid

Six aspects of leadership

It is clear by now that the focuss of this thesis is on people- and task-oriented leadership. Within both

leadership styles a distinction is made. People- and task oriented leadership both can be analysed in

three elements.

Within people-oriented leadership the focus will be on team building, coaching, and giving feedback.

These aspects are defined in Chapter 1. Several scholars (Ulrich, Zenger, Smallwood, 1999; Pfeffer,

1998, 1994; Covey, 1998) argue that these aspects are necessary for effective leadership. Effective

leaders should be champions in coaching and team building and should give their employees honest

feedback about their performance, goals, behavior, etc. on a regular basis.

Within task-oriented leadership the focus will be on goal achieving, entrepreneurship, and production.,

which have been defined in the first chapter. These three aspects have been mentioned again and

again as important leadership skills (Ulrich, Zenger, Smallwood, 1999). Entrepreneurship leads to

new products, methods, or marketing methods that keep or make a company competitive. Leaders

should reach their own and the company’s goals, and they must place a strong emphasis on

increasing quality and production (Fiedler, 1967).

This study deals with three aspects of people-oriented and three of task-oriented leadership.

Team building, coaching and giving feedback are aspects of people-oriented leadership.

‘Team’ in ‘team building’ is understood to mean “a group of members who have

complementary skills and are committed to a common purpose or set of performance goals for

which they hold themselves mutually accountable.” (Greenberg., J. Baron, R.A., 1997, p. 588).

The term ‘team building’ refers to “an OD technique in which employees and employers

(organization leaders) discuss problems related to the workgroup’s performance.” On the

basis of these discussions, specific problems are identified and plans for solving them are

devised and implemented.


15

Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart and Wright (2000, p. 337) define a ‘coach’ as ”a peer or manager

who works with an employee to motivate him, help him develop skills, and provide

reinforcement and feedback.” Accordingly, a leader who acts as described above can be

called ‘coaching.’

Giving ‘feedback’ is giving “knowledge about the results of one’s behavior” (p. 94) and

”knowledge about the impact of messages on receivers” (p. 291, Greenberg., J. Baron, R.A.,

1997).

Goal achieving, entrepreneurship, and production emphasizing are aspects of task-oriented

leadership.

Wright, P.M., Noe, R.A. (1996) define ‘goals’ as “statements of what an organization hopes to

achieve in the medium to long term.” In this perspective ‘goal achieving’ is achieving the

organization’s medium- to long-term goals.

‘Entrepreneurship’ can be defined as “exploring possibilities and taking up challenges to

create new ideas, methods and products.” Entrepreneurs are innovative and break rules to

create better ones.

‘Production emphasizing’ can be defined as “putting a strong emphasis on production and

production-related issues in the workplace.” People who are strongly production-oriented

concentrate on production in everyday work.

Figure 8: Two styles and six aspects of leadership (leadership scales)

Leading scholars in the field of Human Resources and leadership such as Pfeffer (1994, 1999),

Argyris (1998), and Ulrich (1996) argue in favor of an emphasis on people-oriented leadership.

Goleman’s new book “Working with Emotional Intelligence” (1998) underlines the importance of this

leadership style. These scholars stress the value of “people/relations-oriented leadership,” but in

practice most organization leaders still focus on task-oriented leadership (Pfeffer, 1973, 1994, 1999;

Argyris, 1998, Manzony & Barsoux, 1998).

The focus on the six aspects of leadership described above is unique in leadership research. Most

research focuses on general leadership types as this research does as well or on general personnel

traits as extrovert, charismatic or assertiveness. The six aspects discussed here are more practical

and in this way useful of businesses.

1.4 Culture, an overview

Coaching Team Building Giving Feedback

People-oriented Leadership

(PA, PB)

Goal Achieving Entrepreneurship Production Emphasizing

Task-orieneted Leadership

(TA, TB)

Organization Leadership


16

This section presents a theoretical perspective of cultures. The leadership types and aspects

discussed in section 1.3 are measured on the independent variable country. This section want to give

the readers some background knowledge on cultural studies and the countries of research: the

Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, the USA, France and Italy.

What is culture ?

Everyone acts, thinks, and feels differently. These differences are determined by human nature,

culture, and personality traits. These three aspects influence people to varying degrees (Hofstede,

1980, Triandis, 1994). In line with Hofstede (1980) this thesis argues that human nature is inherited

and generally the same for all people. Thus, American businessmen and Swedish whale fishermen

both share the ability to feel love, anger, and fear, and both need people around them. Human nature

can be described as an individual’s basic abilities. What people do with these abilities largely depends

on their (social) culture. Cultural differences occur at different levels. For instance, a country, a town

and a boy scout group each have their own culture. An individual learns the cultural differences from

the group. Culture is difficult to define. Where human nature stops and culture begins or where culture

stops and personality starts is still a moot point for social scientists. The third background aspect that

determines people’s behavior, thinking and feeling is personality. Personality traits such as

extroversion and openness are partly inherited and partly acquired. The triangle below measures

personality and culture at the two uppermost levels (Figure 8).3

The definition used here is the one employed by GLOBE (House, et al., 1998, 1999), which is

consistent with traditional theories about cultures (Hofstede, 1980, Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1980;

Triandis, 1994 in: House, Wright, Aditya, 1996). “Cultures are distinctive normative systems consisting

of model patterns of shared psychological properties among members of collectivities that result in

compelling common affective, attitudinal and behavioral orientations that are transmitted across

generations and that differentiate collectivities from each other.”

This study measures personal preferences and behavior in leadership styles and cultural differences

between countries. This research makes the assumption that countries are cultural carriers. Countries

are political units, which have constantly been changing over the years. In the history of mankind,

countries are relatively new. It should be noted that countries can be multilingual and multi-ethnic. It

could be argued that these countries possess several nationwide cultures. Although the countries

investigated in this thesis generally show consistent cultural patterns, there are arguments against

using countries in cultural studies. Practical circumstances and the relative consistency in the

countries investigated are the main reasons for using countries in this research.

3 A comprehensive discussion of the nature-nurture debate is beyond the scope of this thesis. For this reference can be made

to: , Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1980; Triandis, Dunette 1976


17

Figure 9:Three levels of uniqueness in human mental programming (Hofstede, 1991).

Human behavior is guided by culture. It shapes perception, beliefs, and behavior and acts as a

standard against which other cultures are measured. These may then be regarded as unnatural,

hostile or desirable. Terpstra and David (1991) define culture as follows: ”Culture is a learned, shared,

compelling, interrelated set of symbols whose meanings provide a set of orientations for members of a

society. These orientations taken together provide solutions to problems that all societies must solve if

they are to remain viable.” Hofstede uses another definition of culture in which he draws an analogy

with a computer (1991): “the collective programming of the mind, which distinguishes one group or

category of people from another.” A third definition of culture is one specified by anthropologists.

Kuckhohn and Kroeber (in: Adler, 1986) give the following definition: “Culture consists of patterns,

explicit and implicit of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the

distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiment in artifacts: the essential core of

culture consists of traditional (i.e. historical derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached

values: culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as producers of action, on the other

hand as conditioning elements of future action.” Although the three definitions focus on different

aspects, they all argue that culture categorizes people into different groups. Consequently, culture can

be used to point out and explain differences in people’s behavior, attitudes, values, and beliefs.

In order to compare different cultures, differences in behavior, values, attitudes, and feelings must be

categorized. A common way to do so is in terms of symbols, rituals, heroes, practices, and values

(Hofstede, 1991).


18

Figure 10: The onion diagram, manifestation of culture at different levels of depth, Hofstede 1991.

Symbols in the onion diagram means words and pictures that are recognized by, and have the same

meaning for, people in the same culture. They have been assigned to the outer layer because they are

most easily displayed and developed. Heroes are role models for a culture. They have prestigious

characteristics, or their deeds are highly valued. Rituals are patterns of behavior that have a specific,

culture-bound meaning. Values are components of cultures that indicate the difference between good

and bad, done and not done, etc. and are firmly embedded in the culture and difficult to change.

Aspects of cultures that can be seen, are called “practices” by Hofstede. Practices can be symbols,

values, heroes, or rituals.

After this brief discussion of the concept of culture and its manifestations, consideration will now be

given to national differences. In order to establish cultural differences, it is necessary to find different

patterns in how people think in different countries. Cultural comparisons often look at the way people

solve problems (Trompenaars, 1997). For this purpose common problems have to be translated into

general terms. Kluckhohn and Strothbeck (in: Adler, 1986) identify six cultural orientations: Who am I?

How do I see the world?, How do I relate to other people?, What do I do?, How do I use space?, and

How do I use time? Given these orientations, they argue that mankind faces five basic problems:

What is the relationship of the individual to others? (Relation Orientation); What is the temporal focus

of human life? (Time Orientation); What is the modality of human activity? (Activity Orientation); What

is a human being’s relation to nature? (Man-Nature Orientation); and What is the character of innate

human nature? (Human Nature Orientation). These orientations reflect values with behavioral and

attitudinal implications. Hofstede developed a similar set of tools to analyze culture.

Hofstede’s research

Hofstede is one of the authorities on research into different cultures. In the late 1960s and early 1970s

Geert Hofstede (1980, 1991) collected data on organizations and cultures. He covered 38 professions

from 72 countries, in 20 different languages on two occasions (1968, 1972), using 116,000

questionnaires. Trompenaars also carried out research into national cultures relevant to this thesis.

His results mark a breakthrough in cultural research. The dimensions he uses--and others, such as

Bond and Hoppe, after him (see Bond and Hofstede, 1984; Hoppe, 1990)--are Small Power Distance

vs. Large Power Distance, Collectivism vs. Individualism, Femininity vs. Masculinity, Weak Uncertainty

Avoidance vs. Strong Uncertainty Avoidance. He adds a fifth dimension suggested by Bond (1987) in

the context of cross-cultural research with reference to Asian Confucian thinking. Hofstede calls this


19

dimension Long-term Orientation vs. Short-Term Orientation. Some of Hofstede’s results for the

countries covered in the present study are cited in the following paragraphs.

Trompenaars’ research

Another important scholar in cultural studies is Fons Trompenaars. His 7-D model derives from an

extensive file of cross-cultural data obtained though his work as a consultant and trainer in cross-

cultural business. Trompenaars uses dilemmas to point out cultural differences. Some examples of

dilemmas are given in the last sections of this research. Trompenaars recognizes seven cultural

dilemmas: Universalism vs. Particularism, Individualism vs. Communitarianism, Specificity vs.

Diffuseness, Neutrality vs. Affective Response, Achievement vs. Ascription, and Internality vs.

Externality, as well as time (past, present, future. Besides Hofstede’s findings, this study also uses

some of Trompenaars’ data in describing national differences in culture.

Both Hofstede’s and Trompenaars research show differences in cultural values, attitudes and behavior

between the countries investigated. Focussing on the leadership types and leadership aspects of this

research differences between the countries could be exxpected. The hypothesis formulated in section

1.5 points this out.

Western Paradigm and Clusters

This study centers on six countries of the west. All of these countries are western democracies, a fact

which has no doubt simplified the work compared with studies also encompassing Asian or Eastern

European countries. The countries investigated can be divided into three clusters: the North

European cluster (Sweden and the Netherlands), the Latin European cluster (France and Italy) and

the Anglo-American cluster (United States and United Kingdom).

As mentioned in the introduction chapter, these clusters are based on research from Ronen & Kraut

(1977, in Bass: 1981). Later Ronen and Shenkar (1985) identified five European Clusters: the Anglo

cluster (Ireland, United Kingdom), the Nordic Cluster (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden), Germanic

cluster (West Germany, Switzerland), Latin cluster (Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France) and the

Near East cluster (Greece, Turkey). With the exception of the Netherlands (in: Kraut & Ronen, 1977)

and the United States (in: Ronen & Shenkar, 1985) these clusters are similar to the ones used in this

research. The Ronen & Kraut and Ronen & Shenkar clusters are based on the most comprehensive

review of cross-cultural studies within European countries (Bass, 1981). The clusters have several

similarities and are geographically close to each other.

Hofstede probably is right in stating that there is no single generally valid management theory. Most

leadership theories and ideas are greatly influenced by western (primarily American) thinking.

Japanese leadership theories, for instance, tend to give greater prominence to issues such as “trust,”

“facilitation” and “respect” (Trompenaars, 1994) than do occidental ones. This research is western

biased as well. The aspects of leadership discussed in this research are based on western


20

management theories. Team building, giving feedback, coaching, entrepreneurship, production-

oriented and goal achieving are mentioned in lots of management books and articles as aspects that

lead to excellent leadership. Most of these books and articles are written by western scholars and

writers, based on western management philosophies and experience.

The following table gives the dimensions, relating to Trompenaars’ 7-D model, for five of the six

countries in this study (Italy is not included.).

Universalism Particularism USA, Sweden, UK France Analyzing Integrating USA, Netherlands, France Sweden, UK Individualism Collectivism UK, USA, Sweden, France the Netherlands Obtain status Ascribe status USA, Sweden France UK, Netherlands Equality Hierarchical USA, Sweden, France UK, Netherlands Chronological thinking Synchronic thinking USA, Sweden, UK, France Netherlands

Table 1: An overview of country values: Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1994

The present chapter outlines some characteristics of the countries in this study. A few items of general

knowledge are combined with some of Hofstede’s and Trompenaars’ findings. This overview is not

exhaustive butt gives the reader some feeling and background knowledge, before the results

concerning these countries are presented.

North European Cluster

Both Sweden and the Netherlands are run on social democratic lines, and equality, consensus, and

high standards of living and labor are greatly valued there (Hofstede, 1980; on Sweden also see

Holmberg and Akerblom, 1998, 1999). Most Dutchmen and Swedes hate hierarchy and autocratic

leadership (Hofstede, 1980).

Sweden

Sweden is the country of the golden mean. The country’s economic success is based on a balance

between socialism and capitalism. It is a nation that sets great store by humanitarian values, socially

responsible conduct, equality, and a high standard of environmental hygiene. Sweden is also famous

for its high-quality products, manufactured by such companies as VOLVO, SAS, IKEA, BAHCO, and

Ericsson. Sweden has one of the world’s lowest unemployment rates and the highest percentage of

working people and working women. The country has an excellent educational system and a highly

educated population. Sweden is also very internationally oriented. Trompenaars’ study ranks the


21

Swedish first and the Dutch third (see Figure 10). Figure 10 above presents some of the other results

of Trompenaars’ research. Note that Sweden, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the United

States are in line in five of the six two-dimension values, despite their very different social and

economic backgrounds. Despite these similarities, we will also see that there are several cultural

differences between these countries.. Figure ** in the appendix provides more details on the

responses of the Swedes and the other nations to Trompenaars’ questions. Trompenaars classifies

Sweden as a social individualistic country. The Swedish score high on individualism, while paying

attention to the social aspects of society. As a matter of fact Sweden is one of the world’s most

egalitarian societies. This claim is substantiated by its rating on Hofstede’s Power Distance scale.

Power distance FR IT USA NL UK SW rank 15/16 34 38 40 42/44 47/48 PDI-score 68 54 40 38 35 31 Table 2: Power distance, Hofstede, 1991

The Netherlands4,

The two countries of this cluster share an egalitarian outlook and an emphasis on socially responsible

behavior. The Dutch can be characterized as bourgeois and smug. In its social and economic

structure the country has a great deal in common with Sweden. Like the Swedes, the Dutch seek to

involve all parties in decision-making, as is illustrated by their consensus model (also known as polder

model). Furthermore, the Dutch see their work environment and their social life as two separate things

that should not interfere with each other (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1994). The Netherlands

emerges as one of the most “feminine” countries in Trompenaars’ research (as witness the scores in

Figure 14). Hofstede also rates the Netherlands very high on femininity. In both studies, the Swedish

and the Dutch ratings are quite close.

Femininity Sweden 95 The Netherlands 86 France 57 United Kingdom 34 United States of America 34 Italy 30 Table 3: Femininity, Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1994

Latin European Cluster

France and Italy form the Latin European cluster of the research. Both countries are situated in

Southern Europe and are well known for their temperament, strong family bonds, and the art of

enjoying life. The French and Italian look chaotic and rude in their way of communicating with each

other. Both countries value seniority, work, and family life (Bajzikova, `999). Disagreeing with an older

person will be seen as disrespect and rude. Most people in both countries are catholics. This religion

occupies an important place in society and family life.

4 Although Ronen and Kraut (1977) do not cluster the Netherlands, research by Hofstede (1980) and Ronen and Shenkar

(1985) shows that the Netherlands fit the North European cluster well.


22

France

France scores highest on particularism. Figure 2 in the appendix shows a score of 50 for the question

whether it is deemed important to stick to universal rules. France is a country with a hierarchical

management system, where managers still demand and receive a high measure of respect from their

subordinates (Barsoux and Lawrence, 1991; Hofstede, 1980; d’ Iribarne, 1989). The majority of French

managers went to one of the grandes écoles where they were trained in analytical and mathematical

skills. After graduation they become part of the French cadre (Barsoux and Lawrence, 1991). Unlike

the American and in common with the Italians, the French believe in synergy. Despite their highly

developed analytical skills, the French tend to look at similarities when trying to resolve a problem.

In is not possible to describe the French without referring to their history. Some remarkable facts in

French history still have an influence today. Three important historical events will be mentioned here.

The French revolution led to an emphasis on equality, individual rights and freedom, without paying

attention to the social aspects of the society. Descartes laid the basis for a society in which there was

a clear distinction between the government and the people (hierarchy). It is Descartes who pleaded for

a strong power distance, which can still be seen in French society. And finally Napoleon who created a

strong centrally organized government. The French still have one of the most bureaucratic

governments (Bajzikova, 1999).

Uncertainty avoidance FR IT NL USA UK SW

Rank 10/15 23 53 46 35 29 UAI-score 86 75 53 46 35 23 Table 4: Uncertainty avoidance, Hofstede, 1991

Italy

The Italians have some interesting similarities with the French, as far as backgrounds are concerned.

Most striking and famous is the Italian masculine and macho culture (Figure 18), in which there is a

traditional distinction between men and women. Even more than in France, family life is important.

This is embedded in the whole society, at home, in the villages and towns, in industry and trade and in

Italy’s political system. Italy is often described as a chaotic country and accordingly its economic

system is characterized as chaotic capitalism (Bajzikova, 1999). In this perspective it is not surprising

that in the Italian government, Secretaries and coalitions come and go. The political world and the

world of business have strong ties. Power is important to Italian men, it gives them respect. Losing

power or not getting the respect they think to deserve may lead to temperamental discussions.

Masculinity IT UK USA FR NL SW Rank 4/5 9/10 15 35/36 51 53 MAS score 70 66 62 43 14 5 Table 5: Masculinity, Hofstede, 1991

Anglo-American Cluster

The United Kingdom and even more so the United States are prime examples of capitalist countries.

As such, they abound with business schools launching one management theory after another


23

(Hofstede, 1980, d’ Iribarne, 1989). In both countries individualism is rife (Hofstede, 1980) and

managerial ability and leadership are highly esteemed (House, 1999).

United States

The United States is the only not European country in this research, but it has many similarities with

the United Kingdom. Most American people still believe in the “’American Dream”. In this perspective

entrepreneurship and taking responsibility for your own career and education is important. People with

inherited status or money are valued less than people who became a millionaire after starting out as a

newspaper boy. People are responsible for their own success, which leads to a highly competitive

society. Universalism, individualism, and equality are highly valued in the USA (Trompenaars &

Hampden-Turner, 1996, Hofstede, 1991).

In this case too it is useful to make a few remarks about the country’s history. The American have

great respect for their history. They are proud of the mentality of their founding fathers (the Pilgrim

Fathers) and their Constitution. American children learn more about the history of their country than

most children of European countries (Bajzikova, 1999). In American classrooms there is always a flag

and a picture of the President. The children are reminded of the achievements their grandfathers

fought for and they are proud to be Americans. In spite of this nationalism, there is a great diversity

within the American population. It is a melting pot of cultures. Americans have ancestors all over the

world from Europe, Africa and--more recently--South America.

Individualism USA UK NL IT SW FR Rank 1 3 4/5 7 10/11 10/11 IDV score 91 89 80 76 71 71

Table 6: Individualism, Hofstede, 1991

United Kingdom

The UK and the USA share a lot of values. The USA is most extreme in these values, but the UK

scores often second. The UK is the most capitalistic and liberal country in Europe. The unions have

less power than in most other European countries, there are less labor laws, and the UK has a limited

system of social services. Hierarchy, ancient status, and traditions are highly valued and integrated in

British society. It is interesting to note that Thatcher has had an important influence on British society

as it is today. In the UK there still is still a big difference between the ancient rich, a small group of

society, and the majority of hard working, or unemployed people (Bajzikova, 1999).

1.3 Intercultural leadership

The previous two chapters presented a theoretical background to the discussion of leadership and

culture and provided some information about the countries concerned and national aspects of

leadership. This chapter gives an overview of relevant research on leadership from an intercultural

perspective.


24

While Hofstede and Trompenaars mainly concentrate on national cultural differences in general and in

business, this thesis focuses on leadership. Bass (1990) and House, Wright and Aditya (In: Early and

Erez (Ed.), 1997) give an overview of studies on international leadership. This research singles out

research which is relevant for the countries discussed here or research which has a big influence on

cultural research on leadership. For a more extensive description for the research mentioned below

see the references.

Hofstede, Bond, and Luk (1993) reanalyzed data from an earlier survey on organizational culture

(Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, and Sanders, 1990) covering the responses from 1,300 people in 20

different countries, two-thirds of them managers. The findings of this reanalysis were that, by looking

at the data at the individual level, the dimensions of organizational culture completely disappeared to

be replaced by a new set of dimensions inherent in what can be called psychological culture.

Smit et al. (1994) ran a survey in 14 countries using a questionnaire distributed to middle

management. Managers were requested to rate each of eight sources of meanings for each of eight

organizational events on a 5-point scale. The survey resulted in an analysis at national level, with

adjustments to individual scores being made for demographic differences. One of the findings was that

managers in Hofstede’s study from countries judged high on individualism and low on power distance

placed greater reliance on their experience and their subordinates, while managers in countries rated

low on individualism and high on power distance tended to rely to a much greater extent on formal

rules.

Smith, Dugan and Trompenaars (1996) examined the values of managers, using various methods and

earlier data gathered by Trompenaars in the course of training programs in Europe, Asia, and the

United States. (The nonrandom samples varied from 29 to 1,121 respondents per country, and the

number of countries included was 43.) Two dimensions emerged: egalitarianism vs. conservatism and

loyalty. These correlated with each other (.83).

Smith and Peterson (1994) ran surveys in 25 countries asking respondents to rate, on a five-point

scale, their reactions to eight critical organizational events. They targeted middle management in the

public and private sectors. Their research found three factors describing managers’ various

combinations of reliance on rules and procedures, belief, unwritten rules, advice from subordinates,

colleagues, and superiors, and personal experience. Leader event management processes were

consistently related to the differences in national cultures that Hofstede identified.

Smith, Misumi, Tayeb, Patterson, and Bond (1986) conducted research aimed at supervisors in

various countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States. The questionnaire used

Misumi’s Performance (P) and Maintenance (M) scales and asked employees to score their immediate

superiors’ behavior. It emerged from this work that there are similarities and differences between


25

general leadership styles across nations. Only in the United States there was a clear distinction

between M and P behaviors.

Global Leadership Organization Behavior Effectiveness Research Program

(GLOBE)

Major research on leadership from a cultural perspective is done by the GLOBE research group. So

far, GLOBE has conducted research in 62 countries. Some of the results have already been presented

in various journals, but most of the findings from the GLOBE project are not published yet. House et al.

(1998, 1999) presented some of the first findings and discussed the research methods used in the

GLOBE project.

Brodbeck et al. (2000) focused on the European countries in the GLOBE project, which led to some

interesting conclusions with regard to thesis. Based on Shaw (1990), the GLOBE researchers make

the assumption that there are pre-existing leadership prototypes and expectations which are a

potential source of variance across cultures. Accordingly, the GLOBE researchers formulated the

research question that “leadership prototypes vary as a function of cultural differences in Europe” (p.

6). The second research question is “address the identification of leadership prototypical dimensions

that describe differences between European countries and regions” (p. 7). The third research question

covers addressing the possibility of different cultural dimensions emerging as a result of using different

regional sub-samples of European countries (p. 7). In accordance with these hypotheses the following

conclusions can be drawn. The GLOBE research presents evidence that leadership concepts are

culturally endorsed in Europe. Secondly, GLOBE has come to a validated set of dimensions

representing core differences in leadership between the countries of research (see appendix).

Looking at the European countries of this research (exclusive of the United States), a prototypical

ranking of the leadership attributes of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, and Italy

can be made (see table below). The countries are ranked within four categories 9high positive, low

positive, low negative, high negative) there is no ranking within each category. Note that Sweden and

the Netherlands have the same scores. Both are part of the Nordic cluster. The United Kingdom is

part of the Anglo-Saxon cluster, Italy of the Latin cluster and France stands more or less alone.

UK NL SW FR IT High performance integrity integrity nonautocratic team integrator positive inspirational inspirational inspirational performance visionary team integrator team integrator inspirational team integrator performance performance integrity integrity decisive decisive visionary decisive nonautocratic nonautocratic decisive participative participative participative administrative diplomatic collaborative low non-autocratic collaborative collaborative inspirational nonautocratic positive administrative self-sacrificial self-sacrificial integrity participative diplomatic diplomatic diplomatic team integrator self-sacrificial collaborative administrative administrative performance modesty


26

modesty conflict avoider conflict avoider visionary humane self-sacrificial humane humane decisive status-conscious humane modesty modesty diplomatic conflict avoider conflict avoider nonautocratic collaborative conflict avoider administrative modesty low autonomous autonomous autonomous self-sacrificial procedural negative status conscious status conscious status conscious status- conscious autonomous procedural procedural procedural autonomous humane procedural high face saver face saver face saver face saver face saver negative self-centered self-centered self-centered malevolent self-centered malevolent malevolent malevolent self centered malevolent

table 7:, Prototypical rankings of leadership attributes by country, Brodbeck, et. al 2000

It should be noted that there are no surprising differences in leadership attributes. The types on which

all countries score ‘high negative’ are exactly the same. The types on which the countries score ‘high

positive’ (and ‘low positive’, and ‘low negative’) are more or less the same. The differences are small.

Only France is an exception, but the GLOBE researchers have several valid arguments to explain this

(Brodbeck, 2000). Another striking point is that the all these western countries share typologies on

which they score high (e.g. integrity, team integrator, decisive) and on which they score low (e.g. face

saver, self-centered and malevolent). In Chapter 7 the findings of Brodbeck et al., will be compared

with this research.This thesis subsequently deals with the six countries researched, viz. Sweden, the

Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, and France. The previous section

mentioned that earlier research (Hofstede, 1980; Trompenaars, 1985, 1994, 1997) shows that there

are many cultural similarities between these clusters and several differences between these countries

(Brodbeck, 2000).

The cultural items of the survey, which aims to measure some generally cultural aspects, are used in

and developed for the GLOBE research. These aspects are uncertainty avoidance, assertiveness,

future planning, humane orientation, performance orientation, and two aspects of collectivism: social

emphasis and family cohesiveness.

Figure 11: Cultural aspects of research (GLOBE-scales)

The research described in this thesis is limited to European countries. Aside from practical issues, a

focus on European countries only may yield important and interesting conclusions and result in

practical applications. European cultures are diverse and will not merge easily, making this research

useful (Brodbeck, 2000), both from a practical and a theoretical point of view. In practice, a better

understanding of the cultural differences in leadership behavior and attitudes is useful for managers.

Knowing the differences can help managers to better work with people from other cultures and give

uncertanty

avoidance

assertiveness future

planning

power

distance

collectivism,

social emphasis

collectivism

family cohesiveness

humane

orientation

performance

orientation

cultural scales

GLOBE


27

consultants and trainers tools to work on cultural awareness. The increased cooperation in the

European community and--in a broader perspective-- the globalization of business and politics are

examples in which research on intercultural leadership can be used. Furthermore, intercultural

research on leadership is quite new. This study makes a contribution and may provide new insights

into cultural differences between leaders in the countries of research.

The research described above concentrated on general aspects of cultures, while the underlying

research aims to examine practical aspects of leadership such as team building or entrepreneurship.

Furthermore, this research will examine which of the aspects of leadership discussed in this research

are a function of cultural aspects categorized by earlier research (House et all, 1998, 1999). It can be

expected that the cultural differences describes by Trompenaars, Brodbeck and Hofstede lead to

differences on people and task oriented leadership To explore these differences some hyphothesis

have been formulated.

1.5 Research Question and Hypotheses

The introduction chapter showed that there leadership types differ within countries (House, et al, 1998,

1999; Brodbeck, 2000). Further it is mentioned that leadership could differ within industries and kind of

assignment, although no evidence on this is found. This thesis explores if task and people oriented

leadership and their components (teambuilding, giving feedback, entrpreneurship, coaching, goal

achieving and production emphasis) differ on the independent variables country, industry and

assignment. To examine this the following (first) research question has been formulated “What are the

differences between the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, the USA, France and Italy regarding the type

of assignment, the kind of industry.”

The branches of industry investigated in the scope of this investigation are the pharmaceutical

industry, the chemical industry, and industrial coating. A fourth area included here is management at

the corporate level. Kind of assignment is divided into three components: general management, staff

management and production management. Because of the explorative character of the research

question there is no theoretical framework. Kind of industry and kind of assignment will be briefly

described in the chapter which describes the results. A wide range of educational levels, disciplines

and specific assignments have been examined as well but won’t be analysed.

1. People- and task-oriented leadership differ between general managers, production managers and

staff managers.

2. People- and task-oriented leadership differs between the chemical industry, industrial coating,

pharmaceutical industry and corporate & country management.

The main goal of this research is “to obtain knowledge about the differences in leadership between

Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, and France. This knowledge


28

should lead to a more effective and efficient use of human capital by leaders in the countries

investigated. The second research question is: ”What are the differences between Swedish, American,

British, Dutch, Italian, and French leaders?”. Derived from this research question several hypotheses

and sub-hypotheses have been formulated. These (sub)hypotheses focus on the differences in

leadership in countries.

This thesis focuses on two equally significant types of leadership, i.e. people-oriented and task-

oriented leadership. These leadership styles have been discussed in the introduction. 1.3 Presented

information about the Netherlands, Sweden, France, the UK, the USA, and Italy. Research from

Brodbeck (2000), Hofstede (1980) and Trompenaars (1996) suggests that there are differences

between the national cultures of the the six countries. People- and Task- Oriented Leadership and

the cultural differences between the countries investigated underlie the first hypothesis.

3. People- and task-oriented leadership differs between Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Italy, the

United Kingdom, and the United States.

This hypothesis can be split in two subhypothesis, which focus on the clusters of countries (Brodbeck,

2000; Kraut & Rohnen, 1977; Rohnen & Shenkar, 1985). Focusing on people and task oriented

leadership this subhyphothesis are:

3a. The Latin European (France and Italy) countries are more people oriented that the North

European Countries (Sweden and the Netherlands) and the Anglo-American countries (UK and USA)

3b. The Anglo-American countries (UK and USA) are more task oriented than the Latin

European(France and Italy) and the Northern European countries (the Netherlands and Sweden).

In order to corroborate the hypothesis above it is necessary to determine the differences in leadership

types between the various countries. Furthermore, it should also be examined how the countries of

research score on the people- oriented and task-oriented leadership. Chapter 2 shows that the

difference between taks and people oriented leadership is measured by two kind of scales the Blake &

Mouton scale and the PA, PB, TA and TB-scale. There is no hypothesis that tries to explain any

differences between the countries, but Chapter 5 briefly describes possible explanations for

differences based on earlier research. When the specific leadership aspects were examined, the

differences between actual behavior and attitude towards preferred leadership behavior have been

considered. This distinction has been made for all hypotheses.

:

4. Swedish, Dutch, American, English, French, and Italian organization leaders differ in respect to

team building, coaching, giving feedback, entrepreneurship, goal achieving, and product orientation

4a. France and Italian managers (Latin European cluster) in real live act more on and are more


29

positive about team building, coaching and giving feedback.

4b. UK and USA (Anglo-American cluster) in real live act more on and are more positive about

entrepreneurship, production emphasis and goal achieving.

When the third hypotheses shows significant differences between countries on task- or people-

oriented leadership. It is interesting to know to which leadership aspects (team building,

entrepreneurship, goal achieving, coaching, giving feedback, production emphasis) these national

differences are linked.

The fifth hypothesis aims to establish whether the expected differences in leadership between leaders

from different countries influence more general aspects of cultural behavior or attitude in these

countries, such as uncertainty avoidance, assertiveness, planning, power distance, collectivism,

people orientation, or performance orientation. The hypothesis on the correlation between the six

aspects of leadership behavior, attitudes, and cultural aspects mentioned above is:

5. Team building, entrepreneurship, goal achieving, production emphasizing, giving feedback, and

coaching vary as a function of cultural aspects of the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the

United States, Italy, and France.

The outcome of this research and the conclusions in Chapters 3 and 4 should provide an insight into

the two leadership types, the six aspects of leadership in the six countries investigated and do away

with implicit leadership theories and prejudices of leaders in the countries investigated.

Chapter 2 Methodology

2.1 Survey

This thesis is based on a comparative survey of six aspects of leadership in six different countries and

can be categorized as a field study. The hypotheses formulated in Chapter 1 will be corroborated or

proved wrong by the results obtained through the survey.

The survey aims to measure leadership behavior and attitude of leaders, focusing on such

characteristics as team building, coaching, giving feedback, entrepreneurship, goal achieving and

production emphasizing. Furthermore, it aims to measure cultural aspects as uncertainty avoidance,

assertiveness, future planning, power distance, collectivism (social emphasis), collectivism (family

emphasis), humane orientation, and performance orientation. The respondents have been asked to

score their own behavior or give their opinion about how people in their country think and act. The

mean scores can be generalized. For instance, should Swedish leaders score best on team building, it


30

may be concluded that Swedish leaders possess the best team building capabilities. A leadership

profile can be drawn up for each country on the basis of the results.

The questionnaires used have been specifically developed for this research. The International

Leadership Behavior & Attitude Survey (ILBAS) consists of three parts: a general part in which

respondents are asked to provide information about themselves, their background, education and job,

and a second part focusing on leadership, and a third part which focuses on cultural aspects (see

Appendix 1).

The survey contains 163 items, 74 on leadership, 75 on cultural aspects, and 14 background

questions. The items feature a 5-point scale (1 to 5), with the exception of those taken from Blake and

Mouton (1970. 1985), which use the original 6-point (0 to 5) scale. In addition, questions AL1 and AL2

do not yield a score at all, as they require the respondent to put six aspects of leadership in order of

importance or time spent. The survey is self-rating.

The survey includes items specifically developed for this research, besides items from previous

surveys in this field. The part on leadership makes use of Blake and Mouton’s (1970, 1985)

Managerial Grid Questionnaire, which measures whether people are task- or people-oriented. In

addition, items from Cameron and Quinn (1999, in Managerial Behavior Self-Rating Form (MSAI)),

from Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Kesch (1979, in: Seahorse, Lawler, Morvis, Cammann, 1982)

have been included. Finally the part on leaderships uses items from the Cameron & Quinn (1999)

“Competing values framework”. The part on culture uses items from House et al. (1998, 1999). These

items are also used in the GLOBE project. The two major advantages of using items from previous

studies are first of all that the items or scales have already been validated, and secondly, that the

findings can be compared with results from earlier research. Previous findings are described in

Chapters 4 and 8. Unfortunately, most results from the GLOBE project cannot be included as they

have not been published yet.


31

International Leadership Behavior & Attitude Survey

Introduction

part I Leadership Questions

People-oriented leadership team building, coaching, giving feedback

Task-oriented leadership

goal achieving, entrepreneurship, production emphasis

includes Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid

part II Cultural Questions

People-oriented leadership team building, coaching, giving feedback

Task-oriented leadership

goal achieving, entrepreneurship, production emphasis

GLOBE Uncertainty avoidance, assertiveness, planning,

power distance, collectivism, human orientation, performance orientation

part III

Background Questions

Figure 12: Questionnaire structure

The survey has been developed after intensive literature research on leadership and intercultural

studies. In addition to this literature study, sixteen managers were interviewed (four from Sweden,

three from the United Kingdom, four from the Netherlands, one from France, and four from the United

States). These interviews provided in-depth knowledge about the practical aspects of leadership. The

interview questions are based on the Behavior Event Interview technique (BEI) (Twijnstra Gudde,

1998). This BEI is based on Flanagan’s Critical Incidents Method (1954). Furthermore, the interviews

aim to make sure that the concepts used in this survey as ‘coaching,” “giving feedback” or

“entrepreneurship” mean the same and have (more or less) the same associations in the countries

investigated. The interviews and literature research together yielded the items used in the survey

(Appendix II). The principles of the European Institute for Advanced Management, as specified in ‘The

development of a core attitude survey questionnaire for international use” (Hofstede, Kraut, Simonetti,

1976), the guidelines by Dillman (1978) and Owens, and Weiss and Bouchard (in: Dunnette, 1978)

have been used to develop the questionnaire.

Hofstede limited his research to managers at one company, IBM. This questionnaire and the

interviews likewise concentrate on a single company, as well. The reason for this is that these

managers form a representative population for the various countries, similar in all respects, except for

their nationalities.

All surveys are in American English. This has been done to rule out any variation in the surveys as a

result of translation. The respondents are sufficiently fluent in English.

2.2 Company Investigated


32

The research has been performed at an international company, headquartered in the Netherlands,

which conducts its activities through decentralized business units that report directly to the Board of

Management. The company serves customers around the world with healthcare products

(pharmaceuticals), coatings, and chemicals5. In a number of countries, national organizations or

representative offices coordinate local activities. Business units have considerable freedom of

operation within the broad strategic framework set by the Board of Management. The Supervisory

Board exercises supervision over the Board of Management's policies and business conduct and

provides advice in these areas. Overall finance and control, human resources, strategy, technology

and the environment, corporate communications, and legal affairs are handled at the corporate level.

The company employs 68,000 people and has activities in 75 countries. The multinational considers

the cultural diversity of its employees as one of its strengths. The multicultural nature and the fact that

the company regards people as its most important resource form a beneficial climate for the research.

2.3 Sample

The total response rate to this survey after 40 days was 55% percent (N = 480). By country, these

figures break down as follows: Netherlands: 76%, N = 122; Sweden: 54%, N =87; USA: 61%, N = 97;

UK: 45%, N = 72; Italy: 45% N = 49; France: 46%, N = 51.

The respondents are all people in middle management, which is defined by their job grades (for the

company investigated this means between 56 and 61). All respondents were born in the country in

which they now work and have not been abroad for more than three years. Furthermore, all

respondents who did not have direct subordinates reporting to them were removed from the database,

so that reliable results are acquired (Brewster, 1991). Expatriates were also excluded from the survey.

After cleaning up the database in this way there were 383 respondents (N = 383). By country, these

figures break down as follows: Netherlands: N = 98; Sweden N = 75; USA:

N = 80; UK: N = 57; Italy: N = 42; France: N = 40.

The company investigated has a two-layer top structure, i.e. business units and a corporate center.

The respondents originate from business units in the United Kingdom, the United States, the

Netherlands, Sweden, France and Italy. Each country has respondents from at least three different

business units.

Personnel Departments at headquarters and the various BUs provided the sample. The addresses

were taken at random from the personnel files. All respondents received numbered questionnaires to

ensure confidentiality.

2.4 Data Analysis

5 This thesis will refers to the company investigated as a chemical company (the pharmaceutical, coatings and chemical units all

have a chemical environment in common.


33

As stated in Chapter 1, this research is mainly a comparative study. The two leadership types (1st

hypothesis) and all six aspects of leadership (2nd

hypothesis) are compared between the independent

variables country, kind of assignment and kind of industry. Furthermore, efforts have been made by

computing ANCOVA’s to examine if the aspects of leadership vary as a function of the cultural aspects

of research (3rd

hypothesis).

Hofstede, Bond, and Luk (1993) argue that it is necessary to be clear about the analysis used in

quantitative comparisons among cultural entities. They distinguish four types of analysis based on the

work of Leung and Bond (1989). House, Wright and Aditya (1997, In; Earley & Erez, 1997) refer to

these types as ‘levels of analysis’ and they distinguish ‘between ‘levels’ and ‘methods’. House, Wright,

and Aditya describe three basic methods of research that may be carried out at one or more levels of

analysis. Three of these methods that are commonly used or used in this thesis are described:

comparison of group means, correlation and dimensionalization.

Comparison of group means

The most common way is to compare group means, either in simple, descriptive form or through more

formal procedures using tests of significance. Most comparative quantitative studies of cultural units

examine mean scores of groups or individual scores based on numerical responses to questionnaires.

These mean data are taken to represent ‘cultural’-level variables defined a priori on the basis of

theoretical or conceptual definitions. These means are then compared across cultural units, generally

using rank ordering and statistical methods such as analysis of variance or paired comparisons

(MANOVA, ANOVA). This method was used to examine differences in leadership (and other

background variables) in the countries investigated. group means and rankings are presented in

Chapter 6. ANCOVA’S are computed to to investigate the influence of the aspects of culture on the

aspects of leadership and leadership types.


34

Correlations

A second method of analysis is computation of correlations between variables, this research doesn’t

use correlation to distinguish if the cultural and leadership aspects are related. Therefore ANCOVA’s

are used. Correlations can be computed at several levels of analysis. Measuring correlations between

two variables taking all individual observations regardless of the cultural unit to which the observations

belong is called pan-cultural analysis (GLOBE, 1998, Hofstede, Bond, Luk, 1993). Within group

correlations can also be computed between two variables. This results in as many correlations of the

two variables as there are cultural units. Hofstede, Bond and Luk call this within-group analysis.

GLOBE refers to this analysis as within-group analysis. A third method of computing correlations is

using group means, instead of individual scores. This method has the effect of dampening with

individual variations and enabling one to work with scores that function as culture indicators. Groups

are the unit of analysis here. The results of these correlations are presented in Chapter 6. This

method is called ecological analysis Hofstede, Bond, and Luk.

Dimensionalization

A commonly used method but not employed in this research dimensionalization. Dimensionalization is

used to extract cross-cultural dimensions of factors and is based on some form of statistical procedure

such as factor analysis or multidimensional scaling. Dimensions may be extracted from individual level

as well as aggregate level data. Although this method presupposes a large number of variables, it is

again based on correlations, which means that the levels of analysis mentioned in the paragraph

above are applicable.

Finally individual analysis has to be mentioned. This method takes individual scores together, but the

cultural component of the core is eliminated by subtracting the group mean from each individual score

or by standardizing the scores over the entire sample.

Before comparing the group means and computing the correlations, the questionnaire had to be

validated. The results of the surveys were entered in an SPSS database The leadership types

(people-oriented and task-oriented) and the six aspects of leadership were measured by several

scales. Each scale was built from several items.

Two kind of scales aim to measure people and task oriented leadership. People- and task-oriented

leadership was measured by the managerial grid of Blake & Mouton (6 point scale from 0 to 5; 0 =

‘never’, 5 = ‘always’). 9 items measured the people oriented scale (Cronbach’s alpha =.60 ; M = 3.13 ;

SD = .54) and 9 items measured the task-oriented scale (Cronbach’s alpha =.75 ; M = 3.18 ; SD

=.47).

The other people and task leadership oriented scales are especially designed for this research. The

PA-leadership scale (people oriented leadership attitude), the PB-leadership scale (people oriented

leadership behavior), the TA-leadership scale (task oriented leadership attitude) and the TB-


35

leadership scale (task oriented leadership behavior) aim to measure task and people oriented

leadership at behavior and attitude level. As can be seen in the table below all scales score good on

reliability (Cronbachs alpha).

scale items M SD Cronbach’s

alpha

PA-leadershio 6 items 2.07 .64 .72

PB-leadership 6 items 2.36 .52 .66

TA-leadership 10 items 2.21 .52 .69

TB-leadership 11 items 2.04 .55 .74

Table 8, PA, PB, TA and TB leadership scales

The PA, PB, TA and TB leadership scales measure leadership types. These leadership types can be

analysed in aspects of leadership. People oriented leadership (PA and PB) has three aspects: team

building, coaching and giving feedback. Task oriented leadership (TA and TB) has three aspects as

well: entrepreneurship, goal achieving and production emphasis. These six aspects of leadership are

measured by six scales. These six scales contain several items as well. The reliability scores

(Cronbach’s Alpha) of these six scores are in table **)

Category of questions

scale items M SD Cronbach’s alpha

people- oriented leadership

Coaching

2 behavior items

1 attitude item

2.77 1.62

.47

.86 .65 --

Giving feedback

2 behavior items

3 attitude items

2.09 1.47

.53

.43 .63 .73

Team building

2 behavior items

2 attitude items

2.22 3.12

.59

.63 .67 .68

task-oriented leadership

Entrepreneurship

6 behavior items

3 attitude items

1.89 1.68

.47

.54 .72 .62

Production emphasis

3 behavior items

3 attitude items

2.19 3.19

.51

.53 .76 .71

Goal achieving 2 behavior items

4 attitude items

2.05 1.77

.66

.50 .69 .71

Table 9: Scales and items leadership section ILBAS

To obtain the highest alphas possible for each scale some items have been removed. These items

have not been used in further analysis. Overall, the alpha scores are not high, but they can be defined

as ‘reasonable’ (between .60 and .80, based on De Heus, Van der Leeden, Gazendam, 1995).

The cultural aspects were measured on a behavior and attitude level as well. To measure the cultural

aspects items from the GLOBE research (House, et. al, 1998, 1999) were used. Eight scales from the

GLOBE research were used; each scale was measured at behavior (now) level and attitude level.

Category of questions

scale items M SD Cronbach’s alpha

GLOBE cultural scales

Uncertainty avoidance 5 behavior items

4 attitude items

2,72 3.64

.61

.77 .68 .81

Assertiveness

2 behavior items

3 attitude items

2.76 3.00

.82 1.01

.72

.73

Power distance

4 behavior items

2 attitude items

3.03 3.48

1.03 .95

.77

.79

Collectivism, social emphasis

2 behavior items

2 attitude items

2.62 3.12

.67 1.08

.82

.67


36

Collectivism, family cohesiveness 4 behavior items

2 attitude items

2.94 2.21

.68

.76 .76 .55

Future planning

2 behavior items

2 attitude items

2.36 2.05

.71

.71 .68 .79

Humane orientation

4 behavior items

2 attitude items

2.56 2.25

.53

.63 .63 .72

Performance orientation 3 behavior items

4 attitude items

2.79 2.00

1.09 .67

.82

.79

Table 10: Scales and items cultural section ILBAS used from GLOBE

Again, some items have been removed to obtain the highest alphas possible for each scale. The alpha

scores for the culture scales are not high, but they can be defined as ‘reasonable’ (between .60 and

.80) and ‘good’ (.80 and above, De Heus, Van der Leeden, Gazendam, 1995).

2.5 Results

As stated above, the research should provide information about the two leadership types and the six

aspects of leadership of managers from six countries. Furthermore, it should be ascertained whether

these leadership aspects are culturally endorsed. Besides the cultural differences in leadership,

consideration will be given to the differences in leadership, focusing on other background variables.

The data should provide some insight as to whether cultures are a distinctive factor in leadership or

whether industry or education has a greater influence on leadership types. These results may benefit

cross-cultural management, management training, coaching, and consulting. This thesis is the

academic product of this research.

Chapter 3 Cultures of Leadership: the Results

This chapter presents the findings of this research. The results have been analyzed by SPSS (relevant

SPSS output can be find in the appendixes), as described in Chapter 2. The present chapter simply

lists the findings, which are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. The findings described below are

based on the sample figures mentioned below (see also Chapter 2). The total response rate after 42

days was 55% percent (N = 480). By country, these figures break down as follows: Netherlands: 76%,

N = 122; Sweden: 54%, N = 87; USA: 61%, N = 97; UK: 45%, N = 72; Italy: 45% N = 49; France: 46%,

N = 51.

All respondents that have been abroad for more than three year, do not have any

subordinates/coworkers directly reporting to them, and do not work, live and are born in the same

country were removed from the database. After cleaning up the database in this way the response per

country was as follows: Netherlands: N = 89; Sweden N =75; USA N =80; UK: N = 57; Italy: N = 42;

France: N = 40 (total: N = 383). These are the actual figures on which the analyses are based. The

figures below give some personal characteristics of the respondents.

First some information about the respondents will be given: descriptive results. After that it will be

examined it if the independent variable country, kind of industry and kind of assignment have effects


37

on the leadership types (people oriented leadership (B&M) task oriented leadership (B&M), PA, PB,

TA and TB).

3.1 Descriptive results

Background Variables

This section deals with the characteristics of the respondents. These characteristics have been

measured on the basis of the answers given to several questions in the background section of the

survey. Because this research focuses on cultural differences, the mean-scores for each country are

given. The average age of the respondents was about 42 (SD: 1.65). The majority of the respondents

is male (87%). These figures are not surprising for middle managers.

Chapter 2 showed that the company investigated has three main industries. The percentage of

respondents from these industries are 15% (N = 59) from pharmaceuticals, 16% (N = 61) from

coatings, 64% (N = 250) from chemicals, 1% (N = 5) from country and service offices and 1% (N = 5)

from the corporate level. Most respondents are from the chemical industry. Although the sample was

random, the chemical group is big and surveys like these conducted by the corporate level are more

valued by this group than by the other groups of he company, according to some managers from

several groups and the corporate level. In their opinion these responses by groups could be

anticipated. The low percentage of respondents at the corporate level and from the service offices is

not surprising, because these units are small within the organization.

some high school high school bachelor, HBO,

Ing. MA, MSc., MBA, drs., Ir

PhD., Dr.

NL 3.4 9.0 37.1 41.6 9.0

SW 6.8 12.3 21.9 53.4 5.5

USA 2.5 2.5 48.8 38.8 7.5

UK 9.1 10.9 47.3 20.0 12.7

IT 2.4 43.9 9.8 22.0 22.0

FR 5.0 15.0 20.0 37.5 22.5

total/average 4.8 13.0 33.3 37.6 11.4

Table 11: Educational level frequencies (in %)

It is also worthy of note is that most of the respondents have a grade at bachelor or master’s level

(table: 1). This is not surprising because the respondents are all middle managers, who may be

expected to have reached a certain educational level. Furthermore, it can be noted that more than one

fifth of the managers in the Latin European countries have a doctorate.

Eng Che Pha ITC Physics Law Soc. Sc Bu & Ad Langu other

NL 26.2 33.3 4.8 3.6 1.2 3.6 4.8 20.2 0.0 2.4

SW 45.2 35.6 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 4.1 9.6 1.4 2.7

USA 39.2 22.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 22.8 1.3 10.1

UK 13.7 37.3 5.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 15.7 3.9 15.7

IT 12.8 46.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 15.4 2.6 17.9

FR 15.0 35.0 7.5 0.0 5.0 2.5 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0

total 28.4 33.6 3.6 1.1 1.1 1.4 3.0 18.0 1.4 8.5

Table 12: Fields of graduation frequencies (in %), Eng = engineering, Che = chemistry, Pha =pharmacy, Soc. Sc = social sciences, Bu &A = business & administration, Langu = languages


38

The company of investigation is an industrial company with a strong focus in the chemical industry.

Taking this in consideration it is not surprising that most of the respondents have a background in

engineering or chemistry. There are two explanations for the low percentage of people with a

background in pharmacy. Firstly, only 15 percent of the middle managers that participated in this

research are employed in the pharmaceutical industry. Secondly, not all countries make a proper

distinction between a major in chemistry and pharmacy. Sometimes pharmacy is a specialization

within the broad field of chemistry.

GM SM Mn Q/P HSE M&E Mr Sa Ts L&M P R&D Te F IT HRM oth

NL 4.5 8.0 14.3 2.6 2.6 15.6 9.1 5.2 3.9 15.6 0.0 5.2 3.9 5.2 7.8 7.8 0.0

SW 4.1 9.5 22.2 1.6 6.3 7.9 19.0 4.8 0.0 3.2 1.6 12.7 6.3 6.3 1.6 6.3 0.0

USA 6.3 2.5 26.4 4.2 5.6 4.2 11.1 11.1 2,8 1.4 1.4 11.1 0.0 11.1 2.8 5.6 1.4

UK 5.3 5.3 20.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 2.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 2.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 0.0

IT 12.2 12.2 3.6 0.0 0.0 3.6 21.4 25.0 7.1 3,6 0.0 7.1 3.6 10.7 7.1 3.6 3.6

FR 10.0 15.0 6.7 13.3 0.0 3.3 10.0 20.1 23.3 3,3 0.0 16.7 0.0 6.7 3.3 3.3 0.0

total 6.3 7.9 17.8 4.4 3.4 8.4 12.5 10.0 3.8 6,9 1.3 10.0 2.8 7.8 3.8 6.3 0.6

Table 13: Assignment frequencies (in %), GM = general management, SM = service management, Ma = manufacturing, Q/P = quality/process control, M&E = maintenance & engineering, MR= marketing, Sa = sales, Ts = technical sales, F=finance, HSE=Health, Safety and environment, L&M = Logistics & material management, P = purchasing, R&D = research & development, T = technology, HRM = human resource management, oth = other.

Almost all jobs are represented in the table, which does not show any surprising outcomes.

Manufacturing, R&D, marketing and sales have the highest percentages, which is quite normal for a

customer-oriented chemical company.

The tables above showed some of the background variables. The analyses in the sections below will

concentrate on three background variables in particular: assignment, country and industry. For this the

background variables “kind of assignment (B8)”, “country of work (B10)” and “group of industry (B13)”

will be examined further (see: appendix for questionnaire items). Country still is the most important

variable in this research.

For “kind of assignment” there have been made three categories based on the data in table 3:

general management (N= 47) which includes overall service and general management),

production (N = 71) which includes quality and process control) and staff (N= 261) which

includes all other answer categories for example: IT, R&D, HRM and manufacturing).

“Group of industry” has been recategorized as well. There are four groups: corporate and

country offices (N=10), chemical industry (N=250), pharmaceutical industry (N=59) and

coating industry (N=61).

For “country” , the main scope of this research, the original values are used: Sweden (N=75),

the Netherlands (N=89), the UK (N=57), the USA (N=75), France (N=40) and Italy (N=42).

The other background variables will not be further examined, though some their groupmeans per

country are presented in section 6.1 and the appendixes of the thesis. Reason why the other

background variables are not of further research are various. Examining further male-female


39

differences was not useful in the scope of this research. Where it concerns educational level there

haven’t been done further analysis because ‘level of education’ was not of direct interest of this

research as well. The same counts of ‘subject of education’.

People and task oriented leadership

People and task oriented leadership in this research is measured by two kind of separate scales. The

managerial grid from Blake & Mouton (1970) measures differences in task and people oriented

leadership. Next to that four scales were developed for this research: one to measure people oriented

leadership attitude (PA-leadership), one to measure people oriented leadership behavior (PB-

leadership), one to measure task oriented leadership attitude (TA-leadership) and finally on to

measure task oriented leadership behavior (TB-leadership), PA, PB, TA &TB scales is described

below.

The Managerial Grid

The introduction chapter already mentioned that that Blake & Mouton (1970) make a distinction

between people and task oriented leadership. These two leadership types are examined in this

chapter. Firstly, the countries, kind of industry and kind of assignment are scored in the managerial

grid. Secondly, more extensive analyses (multiple ANOVA) are used to draw more mean full

conclusions.

The original managerial grid (1970) scores are measured by the following formula: total score on

people oriented leadership items x .02 and total score on task oriented leadership items x .02. The two

scores from this formula are put in a matrix as shown in figure 1. In this research these scores have

been computed for countries, assignment and industry.

For countries the scores are as follow: 5,4 (people-task)-5,8 for the Netherlands, 5,6-5,4 for Sweden,

5,8-5,8 for the UK, 5,8-5,8 for the USA, 5,2-6,0 for France and 5,2-6,0 for Italy. What is striking about

the overall outcome is that the differences between the countries are minimal. All countries score more

or less around 5,5. It should also be noted that the Latin-European cluster and the Anglo-American

cluster score exactly the same.

For industry the following scores can be mentioned: 5,8-5,8 for general management (GM), 5,6-5,2 for

production management (PM) and 5,6-5,8 for staff management (SM).

The scores on the managerial grid for industry are: 5,6-6 for the pharmaceutical industry (P), 5,8-6.2

for the coating industry (Co), 5.6-5.8, for the chemical industry (Ch)and 5,2-5,6 for the corporate level

and the country offices (CC).

↑ people oriented 1,9

9,9


40

SW UK, USA GM, SM, P, Co, Ch

5,5

NL, IT, FR, PM, CC

1,1

9,1

Figure 12: Leadership styles in the managerial grid, Blake & Mouton 1971 → task oriented

Figure 12 gives a interesting overview of the scores of the countries, groups of industry and kind of

assignment on the Managerial Grid. What strikes most from the matrix above is that the differences

between countries, assignment and industry seem to look minimal. Although the matrix gives a good

picture of the effects, more detailed and scientific analyses are necessary to draw mean full

conclusions.

In the context of task- and people-oriented leadership two questions were devoted to how much time

is spent on ‘motivating, giving feedback and coaching people’ and ‘how much time is spent on

technical job-related issues’. When group means are considered, the results are as follows: all

countries scored between 21% and 40% on people-oriented leadership. On “technical job related

issues” (task-oriented) the Netherlands, Sweden, the France, and Italy scored between 21% and 40%

and the United Sates and UK scored between 41% and 60%.

3.2 Tests of differences between countries, assignments and

industry between Task and People oriented Leadership

Next to the descriptive results presented in 3.1, analyses within SPSS are conducted. Within the

Univariate Analysis of Variance the main effects of the dependent variables people and task oriented

leadership on the independent variables country, industry, assignment can be measured. Within the

multiple ANOVA the groupmeans of the people and task scales are used. When the results of the

multiple ANOVA show significant main effects, a Tukey test (Bryman & Cramer, 1999; Stevens, 1996)

is used to examine the differences within the effect showed. The analyses only focus on main effects,

interaction effects between the independent variables are not taken into consideration. These

analyses should answers the first three hypotheses formulated in 1.5.

people

oriented leadership (B&M)

task oriented leadership (B&M

Countries Netherlands 3.11 3.16

Sweden 5.15 3.02


41

UK 3.09 3.29

USA 3.15 3.21

France 3.09 3.27

Italy 3.24 3.22

Assignment General 3.30 3.26

Production 3.00 3.01

Staff 3.14 3.21

Industry Pharmacy 3.15 3.30

Coatings 3.26 3.29

Chemicals 3.11 3.13

Corporate 2.94 3.02

table 14: groupmeans leadership types6

No significant effects were found for task oriented leadership (B&M) (country p=.282 , F(df=5)=1.258,

assignment p=.092, F(df=2)=2.400, industry p=.305, F(df=3)=1.213). People oriented leadership

(B&M) from the managerial grid only is significant on assignment (p=.014, F(df=2)= 4.362). Country

(p=.298, F(df=5)=1.223) and industry (p=.447, F(df=3)=.889) did not show significant effects. Further

testing of assignment by groupmeans with the Tukey test shows that the differences between the

general, production and staff managers can split as follows: general managers (M= 3.30) are

significantly (p=.011) more people oriented than production managers (M=3.00). In rank order from

most to less people oriented leadership: general management (M=3.30), staff management (m=3.14)

and production management (M=3.00). There are no other significant differences between the kind of

assignments.

The only difference which has been shown was within assignment. For assignment it can be

concluded that general managers are more people oriented than production managers. This means

that when it concerns the Blake & Mouton scales the first hypothesis “People- and task-oriented

leadership differs between general managers, production managers and staff managers.” can be

corroborated. The ANOVA’s analyses showed significant differences on the independent variable

assignment.

It can be concluded that the managerial grid doesn’t show mean full significant differences for country

and industry. It can be concluded that the second (People- and task-oriented leaderships differs

between the chemical industry, industrial coating, pharmaceutical industry and corporate & country

offices.”) and third (“People- and task-oriented leadership differs between Sweden, the Netherlands,

France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States.”) hypothesis can be proved wrong looking at

the results on the Managerial Grid.

PA-, PB-, TA- and TB leadership

In addition of the Managerial Grid people- and task-oriented leadership is measured as well on the

attitude and behavior level. Therefore the attitude and behavior scales of coaching, teambuilding and

giving feedback are taken together which resulted respectively in the PA- and PB-leadership scales.

The same has been done to create an attitude and behavior scale for task oriented leadership, now by

combining the attitude and behavior scales of entrepreneurship, production emphasis and goal

achieving to the TA- and TB leadership scales (see: table 1). PA, PB, TA and TB are also –alike the


42

Blake & Mouton scales- analysed on the independent variables country, kind of industry and kind of

assignment.

No significant effects of the PA, PB, TA and TB on the independent variables industry and assignment

can be mentioned. The first two hypotheses which examine if people- and task-oriented leadership

differ on the independent variables industry and assignment can be proved wrong, both for industry

and assignment no significant effects can be showed. All significant effects are on the independent

variable country, as shown below.

PA PB TA TB

countries Netherlands 2.10 2.42 2.34 2.11

Sweden 2.02 2.44 2.15 2.17

UK 2.19 2.44 2.29 1.99

USA 2.16 2.39 2.13 1.94

France 1.89 2.19 2.16 1.99

Italy 1.98 2.11 2.15 1.99

assignement General 2.05 2.26 2.17 1.87

Production 2.13 2.47 2.27 2.06

Staff 2.06 2.35 2.20 2.07

industry Pharmacy 2.09 2.30 2.22 2.05

Coatings 1.69 2.19 2.16 1.91

Chemicals 2.09 2.41 2.22 2.07

Corporate 2.41 2.41 2.27 2.13

table 15: groupmeans leadership types7

The PA- and PB leaderships scales both show significant results. Country shows a significant outcome

(p=.034, F(df=5)=2.439) on the PA-scale. Industry and assignment both don’t show significant effects

(industry: p=561, F(df=3)=.687; assignment: p=.614, F(df=2)=.488) Looking at the countries separately

(Tukey) the following is observed be mentioned for PA. The Netherlands, the UK and the USA all

show significant differences with France (respectively. p=.060, .004 and .008). France managers

(M=1.89) believe people oriented leadership (PA) is most important followed by Italy (M= 1.98),

Sweden (M=2.02) and the Netherlands (M=2.10) the USA (M=2.16) and the UK (M=2.19). The UK is

less people oriented and shows the strongest difference with France who’s managers believe people

are most important at the workplace.

The PB-leadershipscales shows one significant main effect. Industry (p=.97, F(df=3)=2.127) and

assignment (p=.311, F(df=2)=1.171) don’t show significant effects. Country shows a significant score

(p=.024, F(df=5)=2.618). Looking closer at country the following can be noted. The Netherlands,

Sweden, the UK and the USA all significantly differ from Italy (respectively the significant scores are

p= .000, p=.000, p=.000 and p=.002). Further the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK differ significantly

from France as well (resp.. p= .023, p=.008, p=.018). The USA shows a significant score of p=.082

and shows there is an effect as well, but this is not significant. The groupmeans show that Italy

(M=2.11) and France (M=2.19) are ranked first and second concerning people oriented leadership

behavior (PB), followed by the USA (M=2.39), the Netherlands (M=2.42), and Sweden and the UK

(both M=2.44).

6 For general (B&M) counts: 6-point scale, 0 is most negative, 5 is most positive.

7 For the six aspects of leaderships counts: 5-point scale, 1 is most positive and 5 is most negative.


43

The results of the TA- and TB-leadership scales show no main effects on country, industry or

assignment. The outcomes for TA-leadership are p=.887 (F(df=5)=.343) on country, p= .791

(F(df=2)=.235) on assignment and p= .363 (F(df=3)=1.068) on industry. The outcomes for TB-

leadership are p=.414 (F(df=5)=1.007) for country, p= .094 (F(df=2)=2.385) on assignment and

p=.313 (F(df=3)=1.192) on industry. Task oriented leadership won’t be furher examined, because of

this lack of significant effects.

Looking at the Hypothesis. The third hypothesis can be corroborated. Although TA and TB don’t show

significant effects, PA and PB differ between the countries of research. Overall it can be concluded

that the Latin European countries score highest on people oriented leadership. Italy were it concerns

behavior (France is second) and France were it concerns attitude (Italy is second). People oriented

leadership (PA & PB) differ among countries. In this perspective subhypothesis 3a can be

corroborated “The Latin European (Italy and France) countries are more people oriented than the

North European (the Netherlands and Sweden) and the Anglo American countries (UK and USA).”

Subhypothesis 3b “The Anglo American (UK and USA) countries are more task oriented than the Latin

European (Italy and France) and the North European countries (Sweden and the Netherlands).” can

be proved wrong as shown above there are no significant differences on the TB and TA scales. Task

oriented leadership (TA and TB) doesn’t differ among countries, no significant differences can be

mentioned.

The analyses (TA, TB) above show some interesting significant effect from the independent variable

country. In contrast to the Blake & Mounton outcomes the multiple ANOVA analyses show that there

are significant differences between some countries. These differences are described above and will be

discussed in more detail in chapter 4. Industry and assignment don’t show effects on PA, PB, TA and

TB. The next section will examine the differences found on a lower level: leadership aspects. The

assignment effect on the Blake & Mouton scales won’t be further discussed. There are no subscales

within the Blake & Mouton managerial grid scale.

Team Building, Coaching, Giving Feedback

Where the previous chapter focused on leadership types this chapter focuses on leadership aspects

and tries to examine the 4th hypothesis. 6.2 Showed some interesting and significant effects on the

independent variable country. These effects only occurred for PA- and PB leadership. PA- and PB-

leadership will be examined on a second level in this section: aspects of leadership. Because the TA

and BA leadership scales did not show any effects for the independent variables assignment and

industry their aspects won’t be discussed here. Table 8 in the appendices shows the groupmeans for

the TA and TB scales on the variable country, below (figure 16) these groupmeans for PA and PB are

given.


44

Table 16: Means leadership scales within countries of research (A= attitude, B= behavior)

After examining the leadership styles scales this section focuses on the aspects of leadership. As

mentioned in the introduction chapter people oriented leadership in this research contains coaching,

entrepreneurship and giving feedback.

As mentioned in the previous section above PA- and PB-leadership show significance on the

independent variable country. Both scales will be split in their components (teambuilding, coaching,

giving feedback & entrepreneurship, goal achieving and production emphasis. The groupmeans on all

leadership aspects are presented in figure 16 (table in the appendix shows the rankings) First the

people oriented attitude (PA) scales will be examined.

Coaching attitude shows significance (p=.042, F(df=5)=2.331) on the independent variable country.

Looking at the countries separately the following can be noted: Sweden (M=1.36) significantly differs

from the UK (M=1.88) and the USA (M=1.76). The significant scores are respectively p=.010 and

p=.068.The Swedes value coaching higher than the other countries investigated. Note: the previous

section showed that Sweden didn’t how any effects on PA and PB.

Giving feedback doesn’t show significant outcomes at the independent variable country (p=.579,

F(df=5)=.436).

The last component of people oriented leadership at the attitude level team building attitude shows a

significant effect (p=.054, F(df=5)=2.199) on country as well. Looking at the countries separately the

following can be mentioned: independent from each other Italy (M=2.81) and France (M=2.81 ) show

significant results with The Netherlands (M=3.13), Sweden (M=3.20), the UK (M=3.22) and the USA

(M=3.29). The significant differences for Italy are p=.051 with the Netherlands, p=.011 with Sweden,

p=.008 with the UK and .001 with the USA. For France these scores are p=.048 with the Netherlands,

p=.011 with Sweden, p=.008 with the UK and p=.001 with the USA. There are no significant

differences between: Italy and France; and the UK, the USA, Sweden and the Netherlands. These

results show that Italy and France (the Latin European countries) are value team building higher than

the other countries investigated.

team building

coaching giving feedback

A B A B A B

countries NL 3.13 2.33 1.65 2.79 1,51 2.15

SW 3.20 2.25 1.36 2.84 1.48 2.21

USA 3.29 2.27 1.76 2.81 1.42 2.09

UK 3.22 2.30 1.88 2.95 1.46 2.07

IT 2.81 2.89 1.57 2.48 1.56 1.95

FR 2.81 2.07 1.42 2.60 1.42 1.92


45

Looking at the components of people oriented leadership (behavior) the following significant

differences on the independent variable country can be mentioned. Coaching behavior shows a

significant effect at p=.002 (F(df=5)=3.767). Looking at the countries separately the following can be

noted: the Netherlands (M=2.79), Sweden (M=2.84), the UK (M=2.95) and the USA (M=2.81) show

significant differences with Italy (M=2.48). These differences are p=.005 with the Netherlands, p=.001

with Sweden, p=.000 with the UK, p=.003 with the USA. The UK, the USA, the Netherlands and

Sweden don’t show significant differences between each other or other countries. Italian managers

pay more attention to coaching (significant) then the other countries investigated. Second scores

France (M=2.60) which significantly scores differently from the UK and the USA. The Latin European

countries pay more attention to coaching in day to day work.

Giving feedback (behavior) shows a significant score of p=.823 (F(df=5)= .436) which means that

there are no effects on the independent variable country.

Team building behavior shows a significant effect of p=.111 (F(df=5)=1.807) on the independent

variable country which isn’t significant.

The previous section concluded that the Latin European Clusters values people oriented leadership

(PA) most and also acts like it (PB). Italy scores is the most people oriented country followed by

France. From this section it can be concluded that Swedish managers value coaching most, further

French and Italian managers value team building higher than all other countries investigated. Further

the Latin European countries are best on coaching in day to day work. Feedback doesn’t show any

effects on the variable country. In line with the findings above the following conclusions can be drawn.

The 4th hypothesis “Swedisch, Dutch, American, English, French and Italian organization leaders differ

in respect to team building, coaching, giving feedback, entrepreneurship, goal achieving and product

orientation.” can be proved wrong. Although some differences on the independent variable country

can be mentioned, not all aspects of leadership differ between countries. In line with the finding in the

previous section which explored the differences between leadership styles it can be mentioned that

coaching (attitude) and teambuilding (attitude and behaviour) vary between countries. Subhypothesis

4a which examines if “France and Italian managers (Latin European cluster) in real live act more on

and are more positive about team building, coaching and giving feedback.” could be corroborated

although no effects are shown for feedback (attitude and behavior and attitude) and coaching

(behavior). The results above lead to the conclusion that subhypothesis 4b can be proved wrong. UK

and USA managers don’t are more task oriented (attitude and behavior). As showed the section

before, task oriented leadership doesn’t differ between countries.

Cultural influence of Leadership Aspects

The fifth hypothesis is: “Team building, entrepreneurship, goal achieving, production emphasizing,

giving feedback, and coaching vary as a function of the cultural aspects of the Netherlands, Sweden,


46

the UK, the USA, Italy and France.” The last part of this section focuses on the cultural influence on

the leaderships aspects investigated. To investigate if the aspects of culture influence the aspects of

leadership ANCOVA’S are computed (see section 1.2). The overall cultural differences as measured

by the GLOBE scales (House, et al., 1998, 1999). The independent variables are countries,

assignment and industry. If there are overall differences for a given dependent variable further

analyses by a Tukey test are computed. Thereafter mediational analyses are performed. In this way

the question can be answered whether observed significant differences in task and people oriented

leadership (see previous chapter) can be explained by cultural differences observer. Following Baron

& Kenny (1986) this is the case when 1) a variable (e.g.) country affects a specific way according to

ANOVA, 2) when the same variable (e.g. country) affects cultural differences, according ANOVA, and

3) when the effect of (1) is significantly reduced when cultural differences are taken into account

according to ANCOVA.

First the effects of the independent variables are measured. Multiple ANOVA’s are computed to

analyse if the aspects of cultures showed results on the independent variables country, kind of

assignment and kind of industry. The dependent variables uncertainty avoidance, assertiveness,

future planning, power distance, collectivism: social emphasis, collectivism: family cohesiveness,

humane orientation and performance orientation didn’t show significant effects on the independents

variables industry and assignment. Several significant effects on the independent variable country can

be mentioned. This is not striking because the culture scales are especially developed (by House, et

all, 1998, 1999) to measure differences between countries. These effects are further examined by

ANOVA’s and Tukey tests. The results of the ANOVA’s are presented below. These ANOVA’s are

computed by the groupmeans of the aspects. As described in chapter two each culture scale contains

several items which have been put together in a scale (see table 8 and 9.). When the ANOVA shows a

significant effect on the independent variable country the Tukey test is used to examine if and which

countries show significant differences. All analyses are based on the groupmeans of the scales

investigated.

Table 17: Means GLOBE culture scales within the countries researched (a= attitude, b= behavior; un.av = uncertainty avoidance, soc.em= social emphasis, fam.coh.= family cohesiveness) 5

For uncertainty avoidance the attitude effect on the independent variable country is p=.000

(F(df=5)=1.589)and for behavior the effect is p=.000 (F(df=5)=1.271) as well. Both effects are

* GLOBE culture scales

un. av. assertiveness

future planning

power distance

Coll. Soc.em

coll. fam.coh

humane orientation

perform. orientation

a b a b a b a b A b A b a b a b

NL 3.68 2.49 3.12 2.52 2.10 2.23 3.51 3.33 3.17 2.76 2.48 3.15 2.29 2.67 2.20 2.83

SW 4.01 2.52 3.32 3.50 2.15 2.21 3.44 3.54 3.08 2.48 3.50 3.38 2.43 2.33 1.93 2.88

US 3.66 2.96 2.52 2.18 1.72 2.16 3.40 2.87 2.96 2.63 2.18 2.73 2.21 2.65 1.81 2.36

UK 3.43 2.89 3.17 3.11 1.85 2.38 3.43 2.66 3.40 2.65 3.11 2.99 2.11 2.53 2.00 3.17

IT 3.29 2.93 2.95 2.73 2.54 3.13 3.75 2.71 3.25 2.74 2.73 2.33 2.05 2.40 2.02 2.96

FR 3.47 2.63 2.89 2.64 2.24 2.52 3.43 2.59 2.85 2.40 2.64 2.68 2.29 2.78 2.06 2.70

tot 3.64 2.72 3.00 2.76 2.05 2.36 3.48 3.03 3.12 2.62 2.76 2.94 2.25 2.56 2.00 2.79


47

significant. Looking at the separate countries for the attitude scale the following can be noted. Sweden

which scores lowest (M= 4.01) significantly differs from all other countries. Swedish managers score

lowest on uncertainty avoidance attitude, Swedisch managers therefore value a more risk taking

attitude then the managers investigated. The differences for Sweden are p=.058 with the Netherlands

(M=3.68), p=.000 with the UK (M=3.43), p=.040 with the USA (M=3.66), p=.004 with France (M=3.47)

and p=.000 with Italy (M=3.29). Italy scores highest on uncertainty avoidance, Italian manager value

uncertainty avoidant most in business. Further the Netherlands differs significantly from Italy with a

significant difference of p=.057. Dutch managers are more positive towards uncertainty then their

Italian opponents.

Looking at behavior the following can be noted: The Netherlands who’s managers avoid uncertainty

most (M=2.49) followed by Sweden (M=2.52) significantly differ from the UK (M=2.89), the USA

(M=2.69) and Italy (M=2.93). The significant difference for the Netherlands are p=.001 with the UK,

p=.000 with the USA and p=.001 with Italy. For Sweden the significant differences are p=.003 with the

UK, p=.000 with the USA and p=.003 with Italy. It is clear that the North European countries avoid

uncertainty more compared with the other countries of research. Note for the Swedish managers that

this is the opposite of their attitude towards uncertainty avoidance. Further the USA shows a

significant difference with France (p=.038)

The assertiveness attitude scale shows a significant effect on the independent variable country (p=

.000, F(df=5)= 6.107). Looking at the country differences by a Tukey analyses the following can be

noted: The USA (M=2.52) significant differs from the two North European countries. US managers find

assertiveness most important and value it. Netherlands (M=3.12), Sweden (M=3.32) and the UK

(M=3.17). The significant differences are respectively p=.001, p=.000 and p=.002. The Netherlands,

the UK and Sweden don’t show significant differences between them. The Northern managers don’t

value assertive in their work. There are also no significant differences showed between other

countries.

The assertiveness behavior scale shows a signficant score on country of p=.000 (F(df=5)=6.173).

Sweden (M=3.50), the USA (M=2.18) and the UK (M=3.11) differ from all other countries of research

and from each other.). USA scores highest on assertiveness and Sweden lowest. In other words US

managers are most assertive, and Swedish managers less. The significant differences are

respectively p=.000, p=.000 and p=.017. France (M=2.64) and Italy (M=2.73) both significant differ

from Sweden the UK and the USA. Both Latin American countries don’t differ from each other.

Future planning attitude and behavior both show significant effects at the independent variable

country. Attitude shows a significant difference of p=.000 (F(df=5)=6.107) and behavior of p=.000

(F(df=5)=4.962). For attitude the following can be noted: Italy (M=2.54) shows significant differences

with the countries of the North European cluster (NL (M=2.10), p=.008; Sweden (M=2.15) p=.039) and

with the countries of the Anglo-American cluster ( UK (M=1.85) p=.000, USA (M=1.72) sign: .000).


48

France (M=2.24) shows significance differences with the countries of the Anglo American cluster (UK

p=.055, USA p=.001). The USA shows significant differences with both countries of the North

European Cluster Sweden (p=.001) and the Netherlands (p=.003). Finally Sweden shows a significant

difference with Sweden (p=.001) The countries within the clusters don’t show significant differences

between them. It can be concluded that the Anglo-American countries highly value future planning,

contrary to the Latin European countries which score lowest on the importance of future planning in

everyday life.

Concerning the behavior scale the following outcomes can be mentioned. Italy (M=3.13) scores lowest

on future planning and shows significant differences with all other countries (p=.000 for the USA

(M=2.16), the UK (M=2.38), Sweden (M=2.21) and the Netherlands (M=2.23) and p=.001 for France

(M=2.52). Italian managers don’t plan their lives and work as the managers from the other countries of

research. Further the USA shows a significant difference with the other Latin European country:

France (p=.053). French (2nd

highest score) managers don’t plan their lives and work as North

European or Anglo-American managers No other significant differences are showed. There are no

significant differences between the clusters.

Power distance behavior shows a significant effect on the independent variable country. The

significant score on the attitude level is p=.489 (F(df=5)=.489). There are no significant differences in

the way the countries value power distane. On the behavior (p=.000, F(df=5)=10.297) scale more

significant differences can be noted. The countries of the North European (Sweden, M=3.54, the

Netherlands M=3.33) cluster show significant differences with the countries of the other two clusters.

Dutch and Swedish managers are less hierarchical (high negative towards power distance) in society

and work. The Netherlands (M=3.33) significantly differs from the UK (p=.001), the USA (p=.026),

France (p=.001) and Italy (p=.016). The significant difference between Sweden (M=3.54) and all the

other countries is p=.000.

Collectivism: social emphasis behavior shows the only significance effect (p=.021, F(df=5)=1.187).

Tukey analysis from the separate countries shows only that the Netherlands (M=2.76) which scores

lowest significant differs from France (M=2.68; p=.046). Dutch managers less friendly, sensitive to

others and concerned about others compared with the other countries of research. This research

shows that Dutch managers show more individualistic in society and at work. There are no

significance differences between the clusters or other countries. The way collectivism social emphasis

is values (= attitude) doesn’t differ between the countries of research.

Collectivism: family cohesiveness attitude shows significant effects for country both on attitude

(p=.000, F(df=5)=9.198) and behavior (p=.000, F(df=5)=22.191). Starting with attitude. The

Netherlands (M=2.48) scores second highest and shows significance differences with both Anglo

American countries, p=.000 with the UK (M=3.11) and p=.000 with the USA (M=2.18). American (1st)

and Dutch (2nd

) managers value family cohesiveness highest. France (M=2.64) shows a significant


49

difference with the USA (p=.000) and UK (p=.049) as well. Sweden (M=3.50) scored lowest but only

show a significance difference with the USA (p=.000). The outcomes don’t show further significant

differences. Again there are no significant differences between the clusters.

Looking at behavior; Italy (M=2.33) scored highest and shows significant differences with both the

North European cluster (p=.000 with the Netherlands (M=3.15), p=.000 with Sweden (M=3.38)) and

the Anglo American cluster (p=.000. with the UK (M=2.99) and p=.007 with the USA (M=2.73). Italian

managers find family life most important and family plays the most important role in Italy. France

(M=2.68) shows only significance differences with the North European cluster (p=.001 with the

Netherlands, p=.000 with Sweden). Further the Netherlands show a significant difference with the USA

(p=.000) and Sweden shows significant differences with both Anglo American countries (p=.003 with

the UK and p=.000 with the USA). Family life is less important for the managers in the North European

countries (the Netherlands M=3.15 and Sweden M=3.38). Non of the countries shows any differences

within their own cluster.

Humane orientation shows a significant effect on attitude (p= .013, F(df=5)=2.928) and on behavior

(p=.000 (F(df=5)=6.749) on the independent variable country. ). In actual behavior (= behavior scale)

there are no significant differences between the countries. Looking at the attitude scale for the

countries of research the following differences can be noted. Sweden (M=2.88) who’s managers value

humane oriented less, show a significant difference with the UK (M=2.53, p=.041) and with Italy

(M=2.40, p=.016). Italians value humane oriented most. Italian managers are most people oriented in

day to day life. No further significant differences are noted. For behavior the following significant

differences can be noted: the Netherlands (M=2.29) and Sweden (M=2.33) significant (resp. p=.000

and ,063) differ from Italy (M=2.05). Italian managers don’t only value human orientation most they

only are more humane oriented in day to day life.

Finally the effects from performance orientation on the independent variable country. Both the attitude

(p=.008, F(df=5)=3.196) and behavior (p=.001, F(fd=5)=4.412) scale show significant effects. Looking

at the country differences more closely by a Tukey test one significant difference is can be showed.

The Netherlands (M=2.20) which has the lowest score significant differs from the USA (M=1.81) who

has the highest score, with a significant difference of p=.002. US managers tend to value performance

oriented more and Dutch managers less.

The behavior scale shows significant differences between the USA (M=2.36) who scores highest

again and the Netherlands (M=2.83, Sweden (M=2.88), UK (M=3.17) and Italy (M=2.96) who all score

less and don’t show significant differences between them. These differences are respectively p=.052,

p=.034, p=.000 and p=.038. In this case US managers also are most performance oriented in every

day life. So, US managers both have the most positive attitude towards performance orientation and

are more performance oriented in day to day life.


50

The ANOVA’s above show if the cultural scales differ significant within the countries of research. The

results of the analyses above show that for uncertainty avoidance (attitude and behavior),

assertiveness (attitude and behavior), future planning (attitude and behavior), power distance

(behavior), collectivism: family cohesiveness (attitude and behavior), collectivism: social emphasis

(attitude), humane orientation (attitude and behavior), performance orientation (attitude and behavior)

there is a significant main effect for the independent variable country. Although we now know which

cultural aspects differ between countries, we don’t know if these aspects influence the leadership

types (TA and TB) and aspects of leadership discussed earlier, this follows below.

ANCOVA’s should give more information if the aspects of culture which have been proved significant

influence the aspect of leadership and leaderships types. Therefore ANCOVA’s for people oriented

leadership (TA and TB) and coaching (attitude and behavior) and feedback which all showed

significant effects on the independent variable country are computed with country as the independent

variable and the aspects of culture which showed main effects as covariate. Now the results are

shown if the cultural aspects which showed significant effects influence the leaderships styles and

aspects which showed significant effects. These analyses show which aspects of culture influence

which leadership types and aspects of leadership.

The covariate analyses of the people oriented leadership attitude showed the following results:

collectivism social emphasis behavior (p=.042, F(df=1)=4.146), collectivism family cohesiveness

attitude (p=.015, F(df=1)=5.988), collectivism family cohesiveness behavior (p=.015, F(df=1)=6.014)

and assertiveness attitude (p=.003, F(df=1)=8.993). It can be concluded that most aspects of culture

aspects which influence the people oriented leadership attitude of managers are social aspects as

well.

The covariate analyses showed that uncertainty avoidance attitude (p=.014, F(df=1)=6.132), humane

orientation attitude (p=.035, F(df=1)=4.484) humane orientation behavior (p=.003, F(df=1)=8.649),

collectivism: family cohesive behavior (p=.004, F(df=1)-8.214), assertiveness attitude (p.022,

F(df=1)=5.317) and assertiveness behavior (p=.050, F(df=10=3.864) influence people oriented

leadership behavior in the countries of research. Again, it is not surprising that the humane linked

culture aspects especially humane orientation (behavior and attitude) influence people oriented

leadership behavior for managers.

Now the influences of the cultural aspects on the relevant leadership styles have been shown, the next

section will focus on the aspect of leadership. Covariate analyses are only computed for those aspects

of leadership which vary on the independent variable country.

The results for coaching attitude are; Collectivism: family cohesiveness behavior (p=.06,

F(df=1)=4.997), collectivism: family cohesiveness attitude (p=.001, F(df=1)=10.870), assertiveness

attitude (p=.045, F(df=1)=4.054). For coaching behavior no significant results can be mentioned only


51

assertiveness attitude is almost significance (p=.058, F(df=1)=3.605). Finally feedback attitude which

shows significant results with performance orientation attitude (p=.005, F(df=1)=7.927), humane

orientation behavior (p=.009, F(df=1)=6.827), future orientation behavior (p=.002, F(df=1)=9.483),

collectivism; family cohesiveness behavior (p=.020, F(df=1)=5.4980), collectivism: family

cohesiveness behavior (p=.055, F(df=1)3.962), assertiveness attitude (p=.006, F(df=1)=.7.564).

The fifth hypothesis “Team building, entrepreneurship, goal achieving, production emphasizing, giving

feedback, and coaching vary as a function of cultural aspects of the Netherlands, Sweden, the United

Kingdom, the United States, Italy, and France.” can not be corroborated. People oriented leadership

attitude and behavior are only influenced by some cultural aspects as shown above. Further some

aspect of people oriented leadership (coaching attitude and feedback attitude) are influenced by

some cultural aspects as well. Task oriented leadership can not be influenced because no significant

effects on the independent variable country were measured (ANOVA’s) in the previous section

Chapter 4 discussion (wordt nog aan gewerkt...!)

This chapter discusses the results found in chapter 3 and will focus on the tests of differences

presented in 3.2. The title of the thesis is “cultures of leadership”. The introduction chapter discussed

that there are many different leadership styles and aspects. The same chapter argued that in line with

Hofstede (1980) there is no one best way of management, although a majority of leadership literature

pretends to be the one and only best practice for effective, efficient or result based leadership. The

previous chapter showed that there are differences in leadership styles and these differences are

cultural influenced. The kind of industry (coating, chemicals, pharmaceutical) managers work in

doesn’t lead to differences in leadership types. Managers in the coating, pharmaceutical and chemical

industry don’t differ in people and task oriented leadership (PA,PB, TA, TB and the Blake & Mouton

Scales) or their aspects. The result of kind of assignments are not this convincing. The Blake &

Mouton scales show differences between the managers, general managers seen to be more people

oriented than their colleagues in the production, but these differences did not show up in the PA, PB,

TA and TB scales. Were it concerns cultural differences, the main focus of the thesis, the outcomes of

the Blake & Mouton scales and the PA, PB, TA and TB scales are not in line as well. The analyses

on the Blake & Mouton scales did not show cultural differences, were the PA and PB scales showed

significant differences between the countries of research.

The countries, industries and assignments investigated score only slightly different on the Blake &

Mouton scales which measure people- and task-oriented leadership. All score around 5,5 in the Blake

& Mouton grid. The 5,5 leadership type is characterized as “functional leadership”. Functional leaders

perform well on people-oriented and task-oriented leadership style but do not show excellent behavior

on both dimensions. Although the leaders from the countries investigated can be categorized as 5,5

leaders, there are distinctions in the scores in the two dimensions of the matrix. Although the Blake &

Mouton scales are a good measurement tool, this research focuses on the PA, PB, TA and TB scales .


52

These scales have been especially developed for this research to measure leadership differences

among cultures (se chapter 2).

The tests of differences showed some more meanfull results than the Blake & Mouton matrix. The

Latin European countries – especially Italy- seem to be more people oriented (TA, TB) than the other

countries of research. Italy, for instance, scores highest on people-oriented leadership and the United

Kingdom scores highest on task-oriented leadership. Italian managers and Italians value people, a

friendly environment, etc. at work and at home. This is in line with earlier research (Hofstede, 1980;

Trompenaars, 1995; Brodbeck, 2000). The second important outcome is that the countries of research

don’t significant differ on people oriented leadership (TA, TB). Most other research (Hofstede, 1980,

Trompenaars, 1994) argues that the Anglo-American countries are more task oriented than other

countries. Again, this can not be concluded from this research. A possible reason for this is that in a

high competitive environment as the industries of research task orientedness is no issue. People have

to perform excellent to make the company profitable and competitive. Next too this it has been

underlined for years –starting with Taylor- that task orientation is very important. Although the focus on

people oriented leadership nowadays, task oriented is still important in day to day work. Managers are

being judged by getting targets and making profit and not if they are loved by their employees. The

fact that there are differences in people oriented leadership (PA, PB) can be declared by aspects of

countries. Countries with a more humane oriented society tend to value people oriented leadership

more important and pay more attention to it in day to day life. Looking at the components of People

oriented leadership (PA, PB), the following is can be mentioned. Coaching (attitude and behavior) and

team building (attitude) differ between countries. Again countries who are more humane oriented and

more collectivistic find team building and coaching more important than countries who aren’t. It strikes

that there are no cultural differences between countries where if concern giving feedback.

As mentioned in the introduction chapter this research is unique because it concentrates on six

practical leadership aspects divided into two types. No research was found on cultural differences

between these aspects, therefore it can’t be compared with earlier work.

As can be seen in the previous chapter (Figure 12 and table 14), the differences on the managerial

grid and the TB and TA scales are minimal. This section aims to explain why these differences are

minimal. People-oriented leadership is measured by such items as team building, feedback, friendly

working environment, counseling subordinates; task-oriented leaderships is based on items such as

entrepreneurship, analytical skills, goal achieving (Blake & Mouton 1971). In western management

theory these aspects are generally considered to be key factors in achieving effective and efficient

leadership. These (western-biased) ideas are widespread. Based on the results, it can be assumed

that most middle managers who participated in this research are familiar with these ideas and value

them. This is a possible explanation for the minimal differences. In light of Brodbeck’s results (Figure

21), it can be noted that the differences in leadership styles in GLOBE’s European sub-sample of

GLOBE are minimal as well. Sweden, the United kingdom, the Netherlands, and Italy score more or


53

less positive on the same styles. Together with France these countries score the same on the negative

styles (The USA was not included in this research).

table 17 shows the means on the cultural scale. When we compare these means with outcomes from

Hofstede and Trompenaars (Chapter 1), both similarities and differences can be observed. It should

be noted that this research involves middle management from a chemical company, whereas

Trompenaars used data from all kinds of industries, and services. Hofstede uses data that were

mainly obtained from an electronics company (IBM) in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Most

importantly, Hofstede and Trompenaars do not make a distinction between attitude and behavior in

their country rankings. On of the most important differences is the fact that this research measured al

cultural aspects on a attitude and behavior level, something the earlier mentioned researchers did not

do. Despite these differences in respondents and method, a number of remarks can be made.

What strikes from the results above is the influence of assertiveness attitude. Assertiveness shows

several significant effects. in line of this it could be argued that managing people ask for assertive

managers. Further are most of the cultural aspects which influence the leadership attitude and

behavior social aspects (such as: humane orientation and family cohesiveness.). The next chapter will

discuss this some more.

Beyond the scope of this research but one of the striking outcomes of this research are the differences

between the attitude and behavior scales for the leadership types, the aspects of leadership and the

cultural aspects . Most of the group means show a gap –performance gab- (Rothwell, 1996) between

actual behavior and attitude towards the aspect investigated. Although differences between attitude

and behavior scales (Dunette, 1976) scarcely come as a surprise, it should be noted that these

differences are quite large. At the beginning of this chapter it is argued several times that American

management theories are widely accepted in the countries researched. The high attitude scores show

that the managers emphasize the importance of giving feedback or entrepreneurship but do not act

put it into practice.. There are several reasons why managers do not put their words into action..

Firstly, they do not really believe in these American management and leadership theories, but are

acquiescent because they believe it is expected from them (socially desired answers). Secondly, the

managers believe in these management theories, but do not apply them on the shop floor because

they do not work or fit the circumstances. Hofstede (1990) argues that there should not be nor is there

one overall management theory. American management and leadership books pretend to offer a

general, solution but because they do not work in practice they are not used. Of course, there are

more explanations; some are specific to this case, others relate to general differences and explain

why people act and think differently (see: Dunette, 1976).

Finally, this thesis had the goal to explore cultural differences in leadership. This goals is achieved for

the leadership types and aspects of research. There are cultural differences between some of the

countries of research but only for people oriented leadership (PA and PB). Italian managers –for

instance- value people oriented leadership more than the other countries of research. The last section


54

of the 3.2 even showed that people oriented leadership and some of its aspects are influenced by

specific cultural aspects. An important finding is that only people oriented leadership (PA and PB)

differs between the countries of research. In general I hope this research has made a little contribution

in the field of international leadership studies.

Chapter 5 Concluding remarks

The research that was conducted to write this thesis is mainly explorative, as is most intercultural

research on leadership. Although the outcomes are by no means revolutionary, they are useful for the

company investigated. Furthermore, this research hopefully makes a small contribution to the field of

intercultural leadership studies. As mentioned in the introductory chapter, no previous research has

been done into the six aspects of leadership discussed in this thesis in the countries concerned. Most

studies of intercultural behavior are conducted on a more general level. This research aims to furnish

useful information on practical aspects of leadership such as: coaching, giving feedback, team

building, entrepreneurship, production emphasis, and goal achieving. These are aspect which are

highly valued by companies but which have not been investigated in different cultures.

Further research

This study compares aspects of leadership in different countries and offers possible explanations for

the differences found, based on earlier work (mainly Hofstede, 1981). The effectiveness of leadership

styles in particular countries has not been discussed. However, now that we know about the

differences between countries, further research on its effectiveness could in my opinion be both

interesting and useful.

As mentioned there are striking differences on the attitude and behavoir scales. Further interest can

focus on these outcomes. Shows each country these differences, and how can we declare them in

more detail.

Acknowledgements

It was in September 1999 during my study at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, against the backdrop of

the quiet and inspirational environment of the Finger Lake District that I started thinking about writing

my thesis on international leadership and wrote the first draft of the research proposal. Now, more

than a year later it is finished. During this last year I have received the support of several people whom

I now would like to thank.

I would like to express my gratitude to a number of people without whom this research could not have

been conducted. They are my external advisors Rene Dahmen, Mike Brown, and Frans Verbruggen

who gave me the opportunity to do my research within their company. Frans also was a great


55

intellectual sparring partner and provided excellent, constructive criticism to earlier versions of this

thesis and of the questionnaire.

Prof. Robert House, Dr. Staffan Akerblom and Dr. Deanne den Hartog from the GLOBE project

supported me to find literature and introduced me to some scholars from the GLOBE project who

where of use as well. Special thanks go to Prof. House who provided me with some items and scales

which were used in this research to measure cultural aspects.

I also would like to thank Maria Minguez of the International Labor Organization (ILO) who gave me

the opportunity to do some literature research during my internship at the ILO.

This thesis could not have been written without the critical support and encouragement of my

academic adviser Prof. Henk Wilke. Prof. Wilke urged me constantly to consider fresh avenues, gave

constructive criticism of earlier versions of this thesis, and was an excellent mentor. Without his

support and enthusiasm, this thesis would not have achieved the quality it has now.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Henk and Bertie, who encouraged and sponsored me during

the six years of my study. Thanks mum and dad.

Leiden,

Maarten van Beek

References

• Adler, N.J., 1991, International Dimensions of Organisation Behavior, Boston Kent Publishing Company

• Argyris, Ch, 1998, Empowerment: The Emperor’s new clothes, In Harvard Business Review, May-June 1998, Boston, Harvard Business School Press

• Bajzikova, L, 1999, HRM in Europe, outlines presented during the seminar HRM in Europe, Cornell University, Ithaca NY

• Bass, B.M., 1981, Stogill’s Handbook of Leadership, New York, Free Press • Barham, K., Oates, D., 1991, De internationale manager, Amsterdam, de Business

Bibliotheek • Barsoux, J.L., Lawrence, P., 1991, The making of a French Manager, in Harvard Business

Review July 1991, pg. 62., Cambridge, Harvard Business Press • Blake, R.B., Mouton, J.S., 1970, The managerial grid, Houston: Gulf Publishing • Blake, R.B., Mouton, J.S. 1978, the New managerial grid, Houston, Texas, Gulf Publishing

Company • Brewster, Ch., 1991, The management of Expatriates, Cranfield, Cranfield School of

Management • Brion, J.M., 1998, Organization Leadership of Human Resources, The knowledge and the

skills, part I, II & III, Greenwich JAI Press Inc. • Brodbeck, et al (2000), Cultural variation in prototypes across 22 European countries, in the

Journal of Occupational and Organization Psychology, 200,nr. 73, p. 1-29, The British Psychology Society.

• Cane, S., 1996, Kaizen Strategies for Winning through People, London, Pitman Publishing


56

• Chemers, M.M., 2000, Leadership research and theory: a functional integration, In: Group Dynamics, Theory research and Practice, vol. 4, p.27-43

• Bryman, A., Cramer, D., 2000, Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 8 for windows, New York, Roudledge

• Bryman, A., 1986, Leadership and Organizations, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul • Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C., Nord, W.R. (Ed.), 1996, Handbook of Organization Studies, London,

SAGE • Conger, J.A., Rabindra, N.K., 1998, Charismatic Leadership in Organization, Thousand Oaks,

Sage Publications • Collins, J.C., Porras, J.I., 1996, Managing change, the art of balancing, in Harvard Business

Review, 1995 September-October, Boston, HBS • Covey, R.C., 1989, De zeven eigenschappen van effectief leiderschap, Groningen, Wolters-

Noordhoff. • Dunette, M.D. (Ed.), 1976, Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago,

Rand McNally College Publishing • Drucker, P.F., 1999, Management Challenges for the 21

st century, New York, Harper

Business • Eagly, A.H., Jonson, B.T., 1990, Gender and leadership style, a meta analysis, in:

Psychological Bulletin, 108, p.233-256 • Early, P.C., Erez, M. (Ed.), 1997, New Perspectives on International Industrial/Organization

Psychology, New York, Free Press • Ferguson, L.W., 1961, The development of industrial Psychology. In: Haller Gilmer, B., von

(Ed.), Industrial Psychology, New York, McGraw-Hill • Fiedler, F.E., 1967, A theory of leadership effectiveness, New York, McGraw-Hill • Gestner, C.R., Day D.V., 1994, Cross-cultural comparisation of leadership prototypes. in:

Leadership Quarterly, 5 (2) 121-134 • Gleitman, H., 1991, Psychology 3rd edition, New York, Norton & Company • Goble, F., 1972, Excellence in Leadership, American Management Organization • Goleman, D., What makes a leader?, In: Harvard Business Review, November-December

1998, Boston MA, HBS • Goleman, D., Leadership that get results, In Harvard Business Review, March-April 2000,

Boston MA, HBS • Greenberg, J., Baron, R.A., 1997, Behavior in Organizations, Upper Saddle River, NJ,

Prentice Hall • Hackman, J.,R., Oldham, 1980, Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company • Hartog, den. D.N., 1997, Inspirational Leadership, Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit • Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz Quintanilla, A.S., Dorfman, P.W. Culture

specific and cross cultural generalization implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?, in Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2), 219 to 256, Elsevier Science

• Herzberg, F., 1966, Work and the Narture of man, Cleveland, World • Herzber, F., 1974, One more time: how do you motivate employees? in: Harvard Business

Review, 1974 Sept.-Oct., 70-80, Cambridge, MA • Herzberg, F., 1976 The managerial choice, Homewood, IL, Dow Jones-Irwin • Hesselbein, F, Cohen, P.M. Ed., 1999, Leader to leader, from the Drucker foundation, San

Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass Publishers • Heus, de P., Van der Leeden, r., Gazendam, B., 1996, Toegepaste data-analyse, Utrecht,

Lemma BV • Hofstede, G., 1994, Uncommon Sense about Organizations, Beverly Hills, SAGE • Hofstede, G., 1980, Culture’s Consequences, Beverly Hills, SAGE • Hofstede, G., Bond, M.H., Luk, C.L., 1993, Individual perceptions of organization cultures. a

methodological treatise on levels of analysis. In: organization studies, 14, 483-503. • Hofstede, G., 1991, Cultures and Organizations, Sofware of the Mind, London, McGraw Hill • Hofstede, G., Kraut, A.L., Simonetti, S,H., 1976, The Development of a core attitude survey

questionnaire for international use, Brussels, European Institute for Advanced Management Studies

• Hollander, E.P., 1964, Leaders, groups and influence, New York, Oxford University press • Holmberg, I., Akerblom, S., (1998) “Primus inter Pares” Leadership and Culture in Sweden,

Stockholm School for Economics


57

• Holmberg, I., Akerblom, S., (1999), The Production of Outstanding Leadership, An analysis of Leadership Images in Swedish Media, Stockholm School of Economics

• House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz Quintanilla, S.A., Dorfman, P.W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., Gupa, V., (1999), Cultural Influences on Organizations, GLOBE project, in: Advances in Global Leadership. Volume 1 171 to 233, JAI Press.

• Iribarne, d’, Ph. 1989, La Logique de l’honneur, Paris, Seul/Sociologie • Kerr, S., Jermier, 1978, Substituted for leadership : their meaning and measurement, in:

Oganization Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 62-82 • Kotter, J.P., 1995, Leading Change, Why transformational efforts fail, in Harvard Business

review March April 1995, Boston, HBS • Joyce, M.F., 1999, Mega Change, New York, Free Press • Manzoni, J.F., Barsoux, J.L., 1998, The set-up-to-fail-syndrom, In Harvard Business Review,

March April 1998, Boston, Harvard Business School Press • McGregor, D., 1966, Leadership and Motivation, Essays of Douglas McGregor, Cambridge,

M.I.T.press • Maslow, A.H., 1998, Maslow on Management, new York, john Wiley & Sons Inc. • Noe, R.A., Holdback, JR, Gerber, B., Wright, P.M., Human Resource Management, IRWIN /

McGraw-Hill • Nair, K., 1994, A higher standard of Leadership, Schema, Scrotum • Pfeffer, J., 1994, Competitive advantage through people, Cambridge MA, HBS • Pfeffer, J., 1998, Six dangerous myths about Pay, In Harvard Business Review, May-June

1998, Boston, Harvard Business School Press • Pfeffer, J., 1999, Human Equation, Cambridge MA, HBS • Quinn, R.E., 1996, Deep Change, discovering the leaders within, San Francisco, Jossey –

Bass

• Ronen, S., Shenkar, O., 1985, Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis, In: Academy of Management Review, 10, 435-454.

• Rothwell, W.J, 1996, Beyond training and development, New York, American Management Association

• Stogdil, R.M., 1948, Personal factors associated with leadership, A survey of literature, In: Journal of Psychology 24, p35-71

• Taylor, F.W., 1911, The principles of scientific management, New York, W.W. Norton • Shaw, J., B., 1990, A cognitive categorization model for the study of intercultural

management, In: Academy of management Review, 15, 626-645 • Simms, H.P. jr., Lorenzi, P., 1992, the New Leadership Paradigm, Newburry Park, Sage

publications • Smith, P.B., Dungan, S., Trompenaars, F. 1996, National culture and the values of

organizational employees: A 43 nation study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 231-264

• Smith, P.B., Peterson, M.F., 1994, Leadership as event management: a cross-cultural survey based on managers from 25 nations. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Congress of psychology, Madrid.

• Smith, P.B., Peterson, M.F, Misumi, J., 1994, Event management and work team effectiveness in Japan, Brittain and the USA., in: Journal of Occupational and Organization Psychology, 67(4), 33-43

• Smith, P.B., Misumi, J., Tayeb, M.H., Paterson, M., Bond, M.H., 1989, On the generality of leadership styles across cultures. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 97-110

• Somonton, D.K. (1994), Greatness: Who makes history and why, New York, Guilford Press • Stevens, J., 1996, Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, New Jersey,

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers • Stogdill, R.M., Coons, A.E. (Ed.), 1957, Leader Behavior, Its description and measurement,

Columbus, Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University • Stogdill, R.M., 1950, Leadership, Membership and Organization, In: Psychological Bullitan 47,

1 - 14. • Taylor, F.W. What is scientific management?, In: Classics in Management 67-71, New York,

American Management Association • Tead, O., 1935, The Art of Leadership, London, McGraw Hill • Terpstra, V., David, V., 1991, The Cultural Environment of International Business 3

rd edition,

Cincinnati, Sount-Western Publishing. • Triandis, H.C., 1982, The analysis of subjective culture, New York, Wilye Interscience


58

• Trice, H.M., Beyer, J.M., 1991, Cultural Leadership in organizations, In: Organization Science Volume 2, May 1991, Institute of Management Sciences

• Trompenaars, F., 1985, The organization of meaning and the meaning of the organization: A comparative study on concepts of organizational structure in different cultures. University of Pennsylvania.

• Trompenaars, F., Hampden-Turner, Ch., 1994, Zeven Gezichten van het Kapitalisme, Amsterdam, Contact

• Trompenaars, F., Hampden-Turner, Ch., 1997, Riding the waves of Culture, London, Nicolas Brealey Publishing

• Ulrich, D, 1996, Human Resources Champions, Cambridge MA, HBS • Ulrich, D., Zenger, J., Smallwood, N., 1999 Results based Leadership, Cambridge, MA, HBS • Wright, P.M., Noe, R.A., 1996, Management of Organization, IRWIN • Yukl, G., 1997, Effective leadership behavior, A new taxonomy and model, Paper presented at

the Eastern Academy of Management International Conference, Dublin, Ireland • Yukl, G., 1998, Leadership in Organizations, 4

th edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall

Appendices Scales GC Questionnaire items

visionary .85 visionary, foresight, anticipatory, prepared, intellectually, stimulating,

future-oriented, plans ahead, inspirational, inspirational .84 enthusiastic, positive, encouraging, morale booster, motive arouser,

confidence builder, dynamic, motivational. self- sacrificial .63 risk taker, self-sacrificial, convincing integrity .84 honest, sincere, just, trustworthy performance oriented .63 willful, decisive, logical, intuitive team collaborative .76 group-oriented, collaborative, loyal, consultative, mediator, fraternal team integrator .65 clear, integrator, subdued, informed, communicative, coordinator,

team builder diplomatic .29 diplomatic, wordy, win/win problem solver, effective bargainer malevolent .93 irritable, vindictive, egoistic, noncooperative, cynical, hostile,

dishonest, nondependable, intelligent administrative .84 orderly, administratively skilled, organized, good administrator self-centered .92 self-interested, nonparticipative, loner, asocial status consciousness .83 status consciousness, class consciousness conflict inducers .79 intra-group competitor, secretive, normative face saver .87 indirect, avoids negatives, evasive autocratic .92 autocratic, dictatorial, bossy, elitist ruler, domineering procedural .88 ritualistic, formal, habitual, cautious, procedural participative .87 none-individual, egalitarian, none-micro manager, delegate humane orientation .83 generous, compassionate modesty .66 modest, self-effacing, patient

autonomous .77 individualistic, independent, autonomous, unique

GC: Generalizability coefficient. This coefficient, which gives an estimate of scale consistency and societal level consensus, was calculated for each scale using data from the main GLOBE study, which involved 15,322 middle managers from 61 different countries representing a total of 779 local (non-multinational) organizations.

Figure 1: Leadership prototype scales GLOBE, Brodbeck et. al, 2000

In a store there has been a fire. Should the shop owner get a loan himself to rebuild his business or should he ask help from his brothers and sisters? Get a loan himself SW UK NL USA IT FR 88 75 75 73 67 61 When is a job done best? When you know your colleagues personally and accept them or when they respect you for doing your job, friends or no friends. Knowing and accepting the person SW NL IT FR UK USA 56 35 34 25 24 18 Your boss gives, in your opinion, a wrong order. What should be done? Are you going in discussion with him, or do you


59

just do what he tells you to avoid problems. Going into discussion NL SW UK FR USA IT 96 96 94 94 90 81 An employee who has worked for a company for 15 years recently does his work poorly. Should you fire him, because of his poor work, or take the fifteen years of good work for the company in consideration. Acknowledge his good state of service for the company

SW FR IT NL UK USA 75 74 73 63 58 43 Figure 2: Social individualism in Sweden, Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1994

Stick to universal rules USA NL UK IT FR 95 87 83 52 50 Analyze versus synthesize: A company can be reduced into functions, takes, and making profit. USA SW NL IT IT FR 55 46 44 42 UK 26 Figure 3, Particularism, Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1994 It is important that a manager can answer specific questions of subordinates about their work.

IT FR UK USA SW Agree 66 53 27 18 10 Most managers pursue power rather than reaching certain goals IT FR SW USA UK NL agree 63 56 42 36 32 26 Through their jobs managers play an important political role in society. FR IT SW USA NL UK Agree 76 74 54 52 45 40 Figure 4: Italian managerial behavior, Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1994 Criteria to lay someone off. (Objective criteria versus special obligations and needs.) Someone does not perform according to objective criteria.

USA UK NL IT FR 77 42 37 28 26 When should someone be a boss? When he/she has excellent skills, or because of his/her power? USA FR SW IT UK NL Skills 79 75 70 68 64 62

Figure 5: American managerial behavior, Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1994

people oriented leadership task oriented leadership

team a

team b

feed a

feed b

coach a

coach b

goal a

goal b

prod a

prod b

entr a

entr b

P team a

1.000

.175**

-.042

.127**

-.021

.169**

.011

.080

.029

.069

.023

.159**

team b

.175**

1.000

.206**

.320**

.178**

.345**

.245**

.339**

.035

.188**

.266**

.368**

feed a

-.042

.206**

1.000

.462**

.155**

.155**

.246**

.233**

-.083

.210**

.155**

.155**

feed b

.127*

.320**

.462**

1.000

.100

.247**

.146**

.254**

-.011

.171**

.198**

.408**

coach a

-.021

.178**

.155**

.100

1.000

.017

-.002

-.033

.000

.175**

.071

.069

coach b

.169**

.345**

.040

.247**

. 017

1.000

.115*

.222**

.063

-.068

.099

.306**

T goal a

.011

.245**

.246**

.146**

-.002

.115*

1.000

.455**

-.019

.526**

.210**

.387

goal b

.080

.339**

.233**

.254**

-.033

.222**

.455**

1.000

.051

.388**

.247**

.503**


60

prod a

.029

.035

-.083

-.011

.000

.063

-.019

.051

1.000

.070

.061

.074

prod b

.069

.188**

.210**

.171**

.-.068

.063

.526**

.388**

.070

1.000

.247**

.372**

entr a

.023

.266**

.249**

.198**

.071

.099

.210**

.247**

.061

.150**

1.000

.394**

entr b

.159**

.368**

.155**

.408**

.069

,306**

.387**

.503**

.074

.372**

.394**

1.000

table 1, correlations between leadership scales. *correlation is significant at 0.01 level; ** correlation is significant at 0.05 level.

people-oriented leadership task-oriented leadership

team a

team b

feed a

feed b

coach a

coach b

goal a

goal b

prod a

prod b

entr a

entr b

uncertainty avoidance a

.139**

.014

-.082

-133**

.-.041

-.036

.026

.021

.033

.147**

.189**

-.027

uncertainty avoidance b

.022

-.099

.010

-.097

.046

.066

..032

.032

.016

.045

-.090

-.024

assertiveness a

.035

.044

.149**

.146**

.074

.107*

.164*

.093

-.053

.113*

.112*

.082

assertiveness b

.021

.078

.055

.117*

-.023

.037

.122*

,076

-.014

,115*

.085

.104*

future a

-.165*

-.028

.174**

.020

.025

-.144

.199**

.107*

.002

.114*

.026

.157**

future b

-.108*

-.035

. 069

-.043

.063

-.126*

,107*

.041

.006

.006

-.062

.047

power distance a

.113*

-.045

-.071

-.045

-.036

.029

.034

.-.003

.0.62

.090

-.013

-.056

power distance b

.058

.016

.019

.106*

-.071

.078

.046

-.027

.-.016

.097

-.105*

-.035

coll. soc. emph a

,020

.038

.002*

.023

.042

.080

-.012

-.010

.058

-.050

-.014

-.037

coll. soc. emph b

.063

.102**

.027

.067

.111**

-.047

.052

.031

.048

-/014

.037

.054

coll. fam. coh. a

-.103*

,067

.108*

.085

.114*

-.094

.310**

.157**

.018

.118*

.102**

.198**

coll. fam. coh. b

.070

.177**

.108*

.182*

.071

.175**

.136**

.172**

-.004

.169**

.089

.144**

humane orientation a

.170**

.139**

.085

.117*

.006

.007

.133*

.108*

.046

.100

-.005

.113*

humane orientation b

.004

.102**

.116*

.108*

.037

.072

.022

.022

.051

.016

.210**

.149**

performance orientation a

-.107*

.101

.154**

.051

-.037

-.107*

.274**

.213**

.060

.156**

.162**

.206**

performance orientation b

.048

.112*

.010

-.029

-.056

.054

.102*

.128*

.069

.129*

.078

.168**

Table 2: Correlations between leadership scales and culture scales (GLOBE). *correlation is significant at 0.01 level; ** correlation is significant at 0.05 level.

* people-oriented leadership task-oriented leadership

general (B&M)

team building coaching giving feedback

general (B&M)

entrepr. ship

goal achieving

production emphasis

a b a b a b a b a b a b

Pha 3.15 3.14 2.18 1.81 2.82 1.36 1.97 3.30 1.70 1.91 1.70 2.04 3.28 1.70

Coa 3.25 2.93 2.02 1.48 2.62 1.46 1.95 3.27 1.64 1.73 1.63 1.92 3.22 1.63

Che 3.12 3.15 2.27 1.61 2.81 1.51 2.15 3.13 1.68 1.92 1.82 2.07 2.16 1.82

CO 3.07 3.25 2.20 1.20 2.07 1.40 2.67 3.36 1.40 1.87 1.60 2.10 2.20 1.60

CU 2.80 2.60 2.87 1.40 2.87 1.33 1.27 2.80 1.67 1.97 2.10 2.30 2.53 2.10

total 3.14 3.12 2.22 1.61 2.77 1.47 2.09 3.18 1.68 1.89 1.77 2.05 3.19 2.19

Table 3: Means leadership scales within groups of industry (a= attitude, b= behavior, Pha= pharmaceuticals, Coa= coatings, Che=chemicals, CO= country offices, CU=central units (corporate)) 5


general (B&M)


general (B&M)

entrepr. ship

goal achieving

production emphasis


61


s H 3.11 3.11 2.43 2.00 2.70 1,52 2.28 2.85 1.69 1.94 1.84 2.15 3.50 2.21

High 3.11 2.97 2.04 1.41 2.61 1.52 1.97 3.28 1.69 1.88 1.75 1.99 3.07 2.10

BA 3.15 3.09 2.26 1.63 2.86 1.42 2.09 3.20 1.71 1.87 1.74 2.04 3.23 2.14

MA 3.14 3.21 2.21 1.64 2.80 1.49 2.12 3.13 1.68 1.96 1.81 2.06 3.20 2.31

PhD 3.11 3.12 2.12 1.63 2.64 1.50 2.02 2.25 1.61 1.71 2.79 2.07 3.06 2.06

total 3.13 3.12 2.23 1.62 2.77 1.47 2.09 3.17 1.68 1.89 1.78 2.05 3.19 2.19

Table 4: Means leadership scales within level of education (a= attitude, b= behavior, s H= some high school, H= high school, BA= bachelors/HBO, MA= Masters/drs/ Mr/ Ir, PhD=PhD/dr.) 5 * people-oriented leadership task-oriented leadership

general (B&M)


general (B&M)

entrepr. ship

goal achieving

production emphasis


Eng 3.10 3.25 2.26 1.54 2,86 1.48 2.16 3.04 1.68 1.95 1.84 2.12 3.23 2.27

Che 3.10 3.07 2.15 1.62 2.69 1.51 2.07 3.21 1.69 1.87 1.77 2.07 3.03 2.19

Pha 3.20 3.00 2.41 2.46 2.85 1.38 2.00 2.98 1.67 1.92 1.77 1.73 3.18 2.12

ITC 2,06 3.38 2.33 1.75 3.17 1.25 2.25 3.06 1.83 2.08 1.50 1.75 2.78 2.25

Phy 2.83 2.88 2.67 1.50 2.92 1.17 2.00 3.39 1.83 1.79 1.69 1.75 3.58 1.94

Law 3.22 2.90 1.73 1.00 2.33 1.27 1.93 3.44 1.47 1.70 1.75 2.20 3.80 2.15

Soc 3.36 2.86 2.48 1.55 3.03 1.30 2.00 3.10 1.47 1.80 1.82 2.09 3.39 2.27

B&A 3.22 3.01 2.16 1.58 2.71 1.48 2.02 3.26 1.69 1.83 1.72 1.92 3.21 2.09

Lan 3.16 3.60 2.73 1.20 2.73 1.60 2.13 3.53 1.58 2.00 1.70 2.60 3.07 1.95

oth 3.14 3.26 2.30 1.77 2.87 1.42 2.10 3.32 1.67 1.96 1.73 2.08 3.37 2.27

tot 3.14 3.13 2.23 1.61 2.78 1.47 2.08 3.18 1.68 1.89 1.77 2.05 3.18 2.20

Table 5: Means leadership scales within disciplines. (a= attitude, b= behavior, Eng = engineering, Che = chemistry, Pha =pharmacy, Soc. Sc = social sciences, Bu &A = business & administration, Langu = languages, oth= other) 5


general (B&M)


general (B&M)

entrepr. ship

goal achieving

production emphasis


GE 3.48 3.15 1.94 1,71 2.60 1,36 2.03 3,32 1.69 1.63 1.56 1.77 3.28 1.99

SE 3.23 3.09 2.21 1.47 2.59 1.36 1.02 3.23 1.53 1.79 1.90 1.69 3.21 2.17

Mn 3,09 3.20 2.35 1.63 2.86 1.52 2.22 3.06 1.80 1.95 1.79 2.01 3.26 2,21

Q 2.81 3.00 2.26 1.71 2.76 1.69 2.31 3.06 1.95 1.96 1.89 2.04 3.14 2.41

M&E 2.91 3.28 2.22 1,78 2.85 1.49 2.28 2.91 1.88 2.17 1.99 2.33 3.46 2.35

HSE 2.96 3.18 2.33 1,27 2.73 1.39 2.12 3.20 1.70 1.89 2.05 2.25 3.03 2.28

Mr 3.24 3.13 2.21 1.65 2.72 1.50 2.06 3.30 1.59 1.85 1.73 1.98 2.97 2.21

S 3.24 3.02 2.09 1.53 2.60 1.47 2.00 3.26 1.59 1.81 1.63 2.08 3.21 2.17

TS 3.14 2.92 2.09 1.58 2.50 1.53 1.75 3.26 1.64 1.64 1.88 2.00 3.03 2.38

L&M 3.20 3.09 2.06 1.64 2.85 1.41 2.11 3.21 1.53 1.99 1.81 2.14 3.36 2.09

P 3.00 3.38 2,58 1.50 2.92 1.33 1.75 3.47 1.89 1.75 1.88 2.13 2.83 2.06

R&D 3.03 3.39 2.24 1.84 2.91 1.51 2.10 3.14 1.58 1.89 1.77 2.14 3.07 2.20

Te 2.98 3.22 2.56 1.44 2.81 1.59 2.15 3.05 1.93 2.19 1.91 2.22 2.93 2.61

F 3.35 2.94 2.25 1.56 2.88 1.59 2.01 3.31 1.67 1.94 1.76 2.12 3.16 2.18

IT 2.93 3.08 2.22 1.67 3.03 1.56 2.22 3.15 1.78 1.90 1.85 1.96 3.12 2.19

HR 3.13 2.95 2.47 1.40 2.88 1.30 2.07 3.01 1.57 1.85 1.81 2.07 3.32 2.29

oth 2.78 3.25 2.00 1.50 3.17 1.67 2.33 3.28 1.67 2.25 1.75 1.75 3.17 2.13

total 3.10 3.13 2.25 1.62 2.81 1.50 2.11 3.15 1.69 1.92 1.80 2.09 3.19 2.22

Table 6: means leadership scales within type of assignment (a= attitude, b= behavior, GM = general management, SM = service management, Ma = manufacturing, Q/P = quality/process control, M&E = maintenance & engineering, Sa = sales, Ts = technical sales, L&M = Logistics & material management, P = purchasing, R&D = research & development, T = technology, HRM = human resource management, oth = other. ) 5


62

Table 7: Means leadership scales within countries of research (a= attitude, b= behavior) Gen= general management, prod= production management, staff= staff management, Pha=pharmaceutical industry, Co=coating industry, Ch=chemical industry, Cor= corporate and country offices.

Table 8: Means leadership scales within countries of research (a= attitude, b= behavior) Gen= general management, prod= production management, staff= staff management, Pha=pharmaceutical industry, Co=coating industry, Ch=chemical industry, Cor= corporate and country offices.

team building


entrepr. ship

goal achieving production emphasis


countries NL 3.13 2.33 1.65 2.79 1,51 2.15 1.77 1.98 1.90 2.13 3.32 2.23

SW 3.20 2.25 1.36 2.84 1.48 2.21 1.53 1.99 1.81 2.14 3.12 2.36

USA 3.29 2.27 1.76 2.81 1.42 2.09 1.59 1.82 1.69 1.93 3.11 2.09

UK 3.22 2.30 1.88 2.95 1.46 2.07 1.86 1.88 1.71 1.98 3.30 2.12

IT 2.81 2.89 1.57 2.48 1.56 1.95 1.62 1.76 1.74 2.02 3.09 2.18

FR 2.81 2.07 1.42 2.60 1.42 1.92 1.74 1.81 1.67 2.06 3.11 2.13

Assign Gen 3.13 2.09 1.64 2.63 1.35 2,05 1.62 1.72 1.63 1.80 3.27 2.10

Prod 3.19 2.34 1.66 2.86 1.54 2.22 1.82 1.96 1.81 2.03 3.22 2.21

Staff 3.11 2.21 1.61 2.76 1.48 2.07 1.65 1.90 1.79 2.09 3.17 2.21

Industry Pha 3.14 2.18 1.78 2.79 1.37 1.95 1.68 1.91 1.71 2.05 3.27 2.17

Co 2.92 2.01 1.48 2.63 1.47 1.95 1.65 1.73 1.62 1.93 3.19 2.08

Ch 3.15 2.27 1.61 2.81 1.50 2.15 1.69 1.92 1.82 2.07 3.16 2.22

Cor 3.56 2.56 1.33 2.59 1.33 2.07 1.56 1.91 1.86 2.17 3.41 2.31

team building


entrepr. ship

goal achieving production emphasis


countries NL 3.13 2.33 1.65 2.79 1,51 2.15 1.77 1.98 1.90 2.13 3.32 2.23

SW 3.20 2.25 1.36 2.84 1.48 2.21 1.53 1.99 1.81 2.14 3.12 2.36

USA 3.29 2.27 1.76 2.81 1.42 2.09 1.59 1.82 1.69 1.93 3.11 2.09

UK 3.22 2.30 1.88 2.95 1.46 2.07 1.86 1.88 1.71 1.98 3.30 2.12

IT 2.81 2.89 1.57 2.48 1.56 1.95 1.62 1.76 1.74 2.02 3.09 2.18

FR 2.81 2.07 1.42 2.60 1.42 1.92 1.74 1.81 1.67 2.06 3.11 2.13

2000 cultures of leadership

Documents

leadership differences

leadership behavior

value of leadership

intercultural leadership

taskoriented leadership

task oriented leadership

peopleoriented leadership

people oriented leadership