Corporate Culture and OrganizationalEffectiveness:

Is Asia Different From theRest of the World?

DANIEL R. DENISON STEPHANIE HAALAND PAULO GOELZER

O ne of the most difficult challenges forthe field of international management

is the application of theories and modelsdeveloped in one part of the world to under-stand phenomena that occur in another partof the world. Much of the early concern aboutthis issue concentrated on the relevance ofAmerican theories abroad. But more recently,the same problem has been faced by Japanesetheories of quality control and knowledgecreation; or by European theories of jointventures or organizational design. The goalof these efforts is to develop a useful generalframe of reference, but also allow for theneeded sensitivity to local variation.

Some of the biggest challenges for devel-oping theories with cross-cultural relevance

come in the area of organizational studies.Differences in behavior, work values, andculture have been studied by many research-ers in many different countries. Several frame-works have proven useful for understandingcultural differences (e.g., Trompenaars andHofstede) and have helped to establish somerelatively universal dimensions (e.g., indivi-dualism, power distance) that can be useful inunderstanding differences across nationalcultures. But few researchers have attemptedto understand the impacts these behavioraldifferences have in different national contexts.

The logic of cross-cultural comparisonand validation has been discussed at lengthby several authors. In most areas of the lit-erature, however, the biggest challenge is the

Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 98–109, 2004 ISSN 0090-2616/$ – see frontmatter� 2003 Published by Elsevier, Inc. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2003.11.008www.organizational-dynamics.com

R E S E A R C H I N A C T I O N

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the International Institute for ManagementDevelopment for their support of this research. In addition, we are grateful for the involvement

of all the managers and executives who participated in this study.

98 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

almost total absence of comparative data.Our literature review found very few studiesthat offered a comparison of the effectivenessof organizations across several countries thatcould be linked to differences in organiza-tional culture, work values, and behavior.The evidence global leaders need in orderto understand the impact of the organiza-tional cultures they are creating is usuallyunavailable.

This paper takes a bold but riskyapproach to these challenges by examiningthe link between organizational culture andeffectiveness with two separate studies. Thefirst study examines this link with data from230 organizations in Europe, North Americaor Asia, and reveals a surprising level ofsimilarity in the results across these regions.The second study examines the same topicusing data from 218 organizations fromseven countries: Canada, Australia, Brazil,U.S.A., Japan, Jamaica, and South Africa.The second study focuses on samples ofsupermarkets that were part of an indepen-dent cooperative operating in a similar fash-ion in each country. The results show a highlevel of similarity in five of the countries, buta divergent pattern of findings from Japanand Jamaica. These two studies constitute apreliminary and exploratory step rather thana comprehensive study, but they do illustratethat a general theory about organizationalculture can be applied in multiple contexts,with results that highlight both similaritiesand differences across regions.

The paper begins by describing a modelof organizational culture used in this studyand discusses some of the research, con-ducted primarily in the U.S.A., that hasestablished a link between culture and effec-tiveness. We then pose several generalresearch questions that guided our study.After that, we describe our samples, the datacollection and analysis strategies, and reportour results for both of the studies. Our dis-cussion at the end of this paper summarizesour findings, reflects upon their implicationsfor cross-national research and then consid-ers some of the approaches that might facil-itate future research in this area.

CORPORATE CULTURE ANDORGANIZATIONALEFFECTIVENESS

A number of scholars have developed inte-grative frameworks of organizational cul-ture, but little consensus exists with regardto a general theory. Since culture is a complexphenomenon ranging from underlying beliefsand assumptions to visible structures andpractices, healthy skepticism also exists asto whether organizational culture can actuallybe ‘‘measured’’ in a comparative sense.Research on the link between organizationalculture and effectiveness is also limited bylack of agreement about the appropriate mea-sures of effectiveness. Despite these chal-lenges, better understanding of this topicremains critical to the development of orga-nizational studies.

The current literature has its roots in theearly 1980s and focused attention on the stra-tegic importance of organizational culture.Kotter and Heskett expanded on this by explo-ring the importance of adaptability and the‘‘fit’’ between an organization and its en-vironment. This paper applies the cultureframework developed by Denison and hiscolleagues. This stream of research has devel-oped an explicit model of organizational cul-ture and effectiveness and a validated methodof measurement. Using data from 764 organi-zations, Denison and colleagues showed thatfour different cultural traits (mission, consis-tency, adaptability and involvement) wererelated to different criteria of effectiveness.Their research found that the traits of missionand consistency were the best predictors ofprofitability, the traits of involvement andadaptability were the best predictors of inno-vation, and the traits of adaptability and mis-sion were the best predictors of sales growth.Later research has linked the elements of themodel to differences in customer satisfactionin two industries, and others have presentedan application of this model to foreign-ownedfirms operating in Russia.

The Denison model is based on fourcultural traits of effective organizations thatare described below. Suggested references

99

are included in the subsequent bibliographysection.

Involvement

Effective organizations empower their peo-ple, build their organizations around teams,and develop human capability at all levels.Executives, managers, and employees arecommitted to their work and feel that theyown a piece of the organization. People at alllevels feel that they have at least some inputinto decisions that will affect their work, andthat their work is directly connected to thegoals of the organization.

Consistency

Organizations also tend to be effectivebecause they have ‘‘strong’’ cultures that arehighly consistent, well coordinated, and wellintegrated. Behavior is rooted in a set of corevalues, and leaders and followers are skilledat reaching agreement even when there arediverse points of view. This type of consis-tency is a powerful source of stability andinternal integration that results from a com-mon mindset and a high degree of conformity.

Adaptabil i ty

Ironically, organizations that are well inte-grated are often the most difficult ones tochange. Internal integration and externaladaptation can often be at odds. Adaptableorganizations are driven by their customers,take risks and learn from their mistakes, andhave capability and experience at creatingchange. They are continuously changingthe system so that they are improving theorganizations’ collective abilities to providevalue for their customers.

Mission

Successful organizations have a clear sense ofpurpose and direction that defines organiza-tional goals and strategic objectives andexpresses a vision of how the organizationwill look in the future. When an organization’s

underlying mission changes, changes alsooccur in other aspects of the organization’sculture.

Like many contemporary models of lea-dership and organizational effectiveness, thismodel focuses on the contradictions that occuras organizations try to achieve internal inte-gration and external adaptation. For example,organizations that are market-focused andopportunistic often have problems with inter-nal integration. On the other hand, organiza-tions that are well-integrated and over-controlled usually have a hard time adaptingto their environment. Organizations with atop-down vision often find it difficult to focuson the empowerment and the ‘‘bottom-up’’dynamics needed to implement that vision. Atthe same time, organizations with strong par-ticipation often have difficulty establishingdirection. Effective organizations are thosethat are able to resolve these contradictionswithout relying on simple trade-offs.

At the core of this model are underlyingbeliefs and assumptions. The ‘‘deeper’’ levelsof organizational culture are typically quiteunique to each firm and are thus difficult tomeasure and harder to generalize about.They are often best understood from a qua-litative perspective. Nonetheless, they pro-vide the foundation from which behaviorand action spring. The four traits of organi-zational culture presented by Denison andMishra have been expanded upon to includethree sub-dimensions for each trait, for a totalof 12 dimensions. This version of the model ispresented in Fig. 1.

This model is often used as part of adiagnostic process to profile specific organi-zations in order to highlight the strengthsand weaknesses of their cultures and to sug-gest ways in which the organization’s culturemay influence its effectiveness. The follow-ing example helps illustrate the applicationof the model.

Example of a Japanese ConsumerElectronics Company

This section of the paper illustrates the appli-cation of the culture model by presenting a

100 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

brief example of the globalization of a majorJapanese consumer electronics company.Like most, this company began by designingand producing their products in Japan, anddeveloping extensive sales organizations anddealer networks in Europe, the U.S.A., andother markets. As the company evolvedthrough the 1980s and 1990s, they graduallymoved some low-end production out ofJapan, primarily to other, lower-cost produc-tion locations in Asia. The strength of thecompany’s products and technology, andtheir established global brands and market-ing presence allowed them to continue suc-cessfully throughout the 1990s despite thedecline in the Japanese economy.

By the late 1990s, however, they began toconsider a different model of globalization.Growing emphasis on the Internet in busi-ness and consumer applications led toincreasing demand for their products to beintegrated with more general informationtechnology solutions. Selling discrete pro-ducts (‘‘boxes’’) was still the core of theirbusiness, but they experienced growingdemand for both integration and for thecustomization of their products to meet theneeds of local and regional markets. Thesechanges led the company to begin planningthat the next stage of their evolution wouldinvolve the creation of more fully-integratedoperations in each of the major geographic

FIGURE 1 THE DENISON ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE MODEL

101

regions. Research and product development,as well as production, needed to be estab-lished in each of the regions outside of Japan.

The culture profile for a top managementsample of this organization is presented inFig. 2. The data for this profile came from asurvey of 75 executives who were two tothree levels from the top of the organization,represented all geographic regions, andincluded both expats and locals. Each ofthe 12 indexes are measured by five surveyitems, using a five-point Likert scale, whichare averaged to produce an index score. Theresults are presented here in terms of per-centile scores, indicating the percentage oforganizations in the benchmark database of

over 700 organizations that scored lowerthan the organization being profiled.

Examination of this culture profilereveals some key organizational issues.Overall, the highest scores are only slightlyabove average, pointing to the many chal-lenges that face management. Two of theindexes, creating change (21st percentile)and coordination and integration (16th per-centile) are particularly low, pointing to thechallenges the organization faces in reactingto the demands in the marketplace. Whenboth adaptability and consistency scores arelow, this usually points to an organizationthat is struggling with the logic of their valuechain or trying to reinvent their value chain.

FIGURE 2 PROFILE OF a JAPANESE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS COMPANY

102 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

Both are true in this case. Another area thatpresents a major challenge is capabilitydevelopment (31st percentile). Creating amore fully integrated organization in eachmajor region of the world will require asignificant change in the competencies andcapabilities of executives and employees. Inthe past, investment in career developmentwas primarily targeted at Japanese employ-ees who were on foreign assignment.

As our brief example shows, thisapproach was useful in helping to highlightseveral key cultural issues that are critical tothe company’s future evolution. The surveyand model has been translated into 14 lan-guages and used with organizations in over30 countries. In practice, the model hasworked well in many different national con-texts. As we noted in our literature review, anumber of studies have examined theempirical link between culture and effective-ness in North America, but very few haveattempted to examine this link across cul-tures. That is the purpose of this paper.

EXPLORING CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

This study explores one basic research ques-tion: Are there cross-cultural differences in therelationship between organizational culture andeffectiveness? The general research questionhas many facets, but in this paper, we focuson whether the pattern identified in the ori-ginal research in North America is similar tothe pattern in other parts of the world, andwhether there are distinctive patterns thatare unique to specific countries. This ques-tion also requires us to see whether the cul-ture data itself varies significantly acrossdifferent regions of the world. A final ques-tion concerns the explanation for the patternof findings—which factors account for theobserved differences or similarities? Theseare the general research questions thatguided the research presented in this chap-ter.

The sample for the first study reported inthis chapter was drawn from the archive of

organizations that have completed the Deni-son Organizational Culture Survey over thepast five years. The sample comprised36,820 individuals from 230 organizationsdrawn from different industries, and includ-ing organizations of all sizes and stages ofgrowth. In order to be part of the study, firmshad to have at least 25 respondents from arepresentative population of employees inthe firm. On average, the response rate foreach of these organizations was around 60percent, from internal samples that variedfrom management teams to a complete censusof the organization. The majority of compa-nies in the sample are based in North America.Eight of the companies are based in Asia, and34 are from Europe/Middle East/Africa(EMEA). Global companies headquarteredin all regions typically have many respon-dents from outside of the region.

Of the companies in this sample, 48 per-cent are listed in the Forbes Global 1,000 Listfor 2001. Approximately 20 percent are fromthe consumer cyclical industry—includingautomotive sales and dealerships, homebuilding companies, publishing, and retail.Another 13 percent come from the consumerstaples industry, including restaurants, bev-erage manufacturers, personal care products,food, and tobacco sectors. Companies in thetechnology sector account for 13 percent ofthe companies in this sample, and the healthcare sector, basic materials sector, and finan-cials sector each account for 11 percent.Seven percent of the companies come fromthe capital goods sector, 3 percent each fromthe utilities sector and the communicationssector, and 1 percent from the transportationsector. The remaining 7 percent come frompublic or non-profit organizations such asschools and government agencies.

The sample for the second study reportedin this chapter included 2,162 employees ofindependently-owned local grocery storeswithin seven countries. The number of parti-cipants and stores per country are as follows:749 respondents from 92 stores in Australia,326 respondents were from 17 stores in Brazil,197 respondents from 13 stores in Canada, 306respondents from 18 stores in Jamaica, 96

103

respondents from 20 stores in Japan, 185respondents from 20 stores in South African,and 255 respondents from 38 stores in theUnited States. All respondents were full-timeemployees with positions ranging from non-management to management to store owner.

In total, 6,736 surveys were mailed outworldwide. Total response rate was 42 per-cent, but 658 of the surveys could not be usedbecause respondents didn’t complete enoughof the questions or could not be linked back tothe appropriate store. This resulted in a usableresponse rate of 32 percent.

The stores participating in this study arepart of the International Grocers Alliance(IGA). IGA, headquartered in Chicago, IL,was founded in 1926 and today is a globalalliance of more than 4,000 licensed stores,with aggregate annual sales of $21 billion.IGA currently has operations in 40 countries,commonwealths, and territories. Retailerswho choose to join IGA, a voluntary non-profit supermarket network, acquire the sizeand strength to compete in the marketplace,while maintaining their flexibility and auton-omy as small business operators. IGA isowned by a set of wholesalers and retailers.The system is made up of supermarketsaffiliated with IGA wholesalers and distribu-tors in each country. There are two types ofaffiliation that supermarkets may have withIGA: (1) as a corporate store, where the whole-saler is the owner of the store, or (2) through a‘‘sponsorship,’’ where the owner-operatorjoins the IGA system as a licensed store.

Countries selected to participate in thisstudy contained a minimum of 15 IGA-affiliated stores. All stores in Brazil andJamaica were surveyed because a smallernumber of total stores exist in these two coun-tries. In Canada, Australia, and South Africa,supermarkets were randomly selected to par-ticipate in the study. In the United States andJapan, surveys were sent directly to a sampleof high and low performing stores. The U.S.sample was chosen from a balanced sample ofstores with high and low ratings on an annualstore assessment processed by an indepen-dent third party inspector. In Japan, an inde-pendent ‘‘retail counselor’’ identified high

and low performing stores. Stores in Japanwere surveyed in Japanese, and stores in Bra-zil were surveyed in Portuguese. All otherstores were surveyed in English.

The survey items for this study weretaken from The Denison Organizational CultureSurvey. This survey measures twelve indicesof organizational culture using five questionseach for a total of 60 questions. All items useda five-point Likert scale with response cate-gories ranging from strongly disagree tostrongly agree. These twelve indices are usedto measure the four main cultural traitsdefined by the model—involvement, consis-tency, adaptability, and mission. The surveyalso assesses employees’ perceptions of storeperformance on variables including: salesgrowth, profitability, quality of productsand services, employee satisfaction, and over-all organizational performance. All measureswere aggregated to the organizational levelfor this analysis. A complete listing of allitems used in this available from the authors.

RESULTS

The results from both studies are reported inthe same way. First, we report the simpleassociations between the 12 indexes of orga-nizational culture and ratings of overalleffectiveness. Next, we examine whetherthere are significant differences in scoresfrom each of the countries and regions.

Denison Organizat ionalCulture Database

The relationships between the 12 cultureindices and performance for the three regions,North America, Asia, and Europe, Mid-East,Africa (EMEA) are presented in Table 1. Allcorrelations between overall performance andculture indices were significant for NorthAmerica and EMEA. None of the correlationswere significant for the Asian companies.Similar results were also found for four othersubjective indicators of performance: salesgrowth, profitability, quality, and employeesatisfaction.

104 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

We also tested to see if there were differ-ences between the culture scores for the threeregions. Interestingly enough, the threeregions did not differ significantly from eachother on any of the four organizational cul-ture traits measured in this study. The meanscores for each region are presented in Table 2and show that the differences are very small.The Asian companies in the sample hadslightly stronger scores on mission comparedwith companies from North America orEMEA, and slightly lower scores on consis-

TABLE 1 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DIMENSIONS OF CORPORATE CULTURE

AND OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS BY REGION

NORTH AMERICA ASIA EMEA

Empowerment .65* .57 .60*

Team orientation .61* .71 .53*

Capability development .70* .48 .50*

Core values .61* .65 .69*

Agreement .58* .62 .73*

Coordination and integration .69* .62 .74*

Creating change .48* .87 .68*

Customer focus .36* .19 .62*

Organizational learning .50* .82 .52*

Strategic direction and intent .55* .66 .79*

Goals and objectives .60* .54 .62*

Vision .53* .71 .67*

Number of organizations 169 7 34

* p < :05.

TABLE 2 AVERAGE CULTURE

TRAIT SCORES BY REGION

REGION

CULTURE

TRAIT

NORTH

AMERICA ASIA EMEA

Mission 3.32 3.39 3.35Adaptability 3.25 3.28 3.26Involvement 3.43 3.42 3.45Consistency 3.28 3.21 3.26

TABLE 3 CORRELATION BETWEEN PERFORMANCE AND

THE 12 INDICES BY COUNTRY

SOUTH AFRICA CANADA JAMAICA AUSTRALIA UNITED STATES BRAZIL JAPAN

Empowerment .60* .38 .08 .27* .68* .84* .08Team orientation .61* .43 �.06 .32* .60* .86* .11Capability development .70* �.06 .26 .23* .56* .81* .14Core values .54* .34 .34 .39* .63* .83* .47*

Agreement .63* .37 .20 .34* .54* .78* .28Coordination and integration .54* .45 .18 .37* .56* .88* .23Creating change .82* .34 .00 .35* .63* .75* .23Customer focus .45* .06 .25 .24* .45* .62* .24Organizational learning .12 .13 .11 .33* .67* .76* �.10Strategic direction and intent .69* .77* .44 .38* .57* .79* .55*

Goals and objectives .76* .58* .22 .42* .68* .81* .25Vision .45* .43 .26 .36* .61* .79* .29Number of stores 20 13 18 92 38 17 20

* p < :05.

105

tency. Overall, however, these differences arevery small.

Grocery Stores

The relationships between the 12 culturalindices and performance ratings for eachcountry are presented in Table 3. All 12 cultureindices were significantly correlated withoverall performance ratings in Australia(mean r ¼ :33), the United States (meanr ¼ :60), and Brazil (mean r ¼ :79). All indicesexcept organizational learning were signifi-cantly correlated with overall performanceratings in South Africa. In Canada, however,only strategic direction and intent (r ¼ :77)and goals and objectives (r ¼ :58) were sig-nificantly correlated with overall performanceratings. For Japanese stores, only core values(r ¼ :47) and strategic direction and intent(r ¼ :55) were significantly correlated withoverall performance. Finally, no significantcorrelations between culture indices and over-all performance ratings emerged for Jamaica.

We also tested to see whether there weredifferences in the organizational culture rat-ings across countries in this second study.In general, Jamaica, Brazil and Australiareceived the highest scores, while Japan,U.S.A. and South Africa received the lowestscores. As shown in Table 4, these patternswere quite consistent across the four culturetraits, although Brazil did depart from thispattern by having high scores on the externaltraits of mission and adaptability combinedwith relatively low scores on the internal traitsof involvement and consistency. Canada

showed the opposite pattern: the internaltraits of involvement and consistencyreceived the highest scores, while the externaltraits of mission and adaptability receivedlower scores.

DISCUSSION

The two studies reported here help us under-stand one of the fundamental challenges ofleadership in a global environment. The firststudy presents a summary of a large empiri-cal database on organizational culture andeffectiveness. Despite everything that weknow about the importance of cross-culturaldifferences, these results show a very similarpattern across these major regions of theworld. The link between company cultureand effectiveness appears to be both strongand consistent. In addition, the scores for theculture measures are essentially the same forthe samples of organizations in each of thesethree regions.

How can this be? Almost every article ordiscussion on the topic focuses on the impor-tance of cultural differences. Yet, in one of thefew comparative examinations of the issue,we see almost no difference. After scratchingour heads for a while, we offer several expla-nations for this unexpected outcome.

First, the purpose of the model used forthis study was to help understand the impactthat organizational culture has on organiza-tional effectiveness. Thus, the purpose of theconcepts is to build an organizational-levelmodel that elaborates the cultural factors that

TABLE 4 RANK ORDER OF CULTURE TRAITS BY COUNTRY

CULTURE TRAIT RANK

COUNTRY MISSION ADAPTABILITY INVOLVEMENT CONSISTENCY

Jamaica 1st 1st 2nd 2ndBrazil 2nd 3rd 5th 5thAustralia 3rd 2nd 1st 1stCanada 4th 5th 3rd 3rdSouth Africa 5th 4th 4th 4thUnited States 6th 6th 7th 6thJapan 7th 7th 6th 7th

106 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

help distinguish effective and ineffectiveorganizations. It is designed to be generalenough to apply to a wide range of organiza-tions and to predict one narrow, but impor-tant outcome. The intent of the model is quitedifferent from those that are specificallydesigned to describe the differences that existbetween national cultures.

Even though these results provide sup-port for the usefulness of these organiza-tional characteristics and measures forpredicting the effectiveness of firms in dif-ferent national contexts, we would not arguethat the characteristics are expressed in thesame way in each of these contexts. Norwould we argue that the same meaningwould be attached to the same behaviorsin different national contexts. On the con-trary, we would take these results to meanthat a concept like empowerment is impor-tant around the world, but we would notargue that this means the same behaviorswould necessarily constitute empowermentin different national contexts. Thus, themodel probably says much more about thepresence of a desirable set of traits than itdoes about how those traits are expressed.

Examples help to illustrate this dilemmafor all of the concepts in the model. But someof the most vivid examples concern theexpression of involvement and empower-ment in high power distance countries.One career ex-patriot Citibank executive toldthis story about taking a new job in Riyadh tohelp revitalize a Saudi-Pakistani joint ven-ture bank:

Each day, when I went in, everyone whowas working in the area outside my officewould stand up and salute. The first day Iwas honored, but it soon became annoy-ing. One day, I left something in my carand had to go back out to get it, and thencome back in. Each time they stood up andsaluted! Up, down, up, down—how werewe supposed to get anything done? WhenI told them not to stand up and salutewhen I came in, they obeyed, but Ihad hurt their feelings. They saw thisas conveying respect, not subservience,

and were a bit insulted that their attemptto honor me had been rebuffed. It took mesome time to recover. My admonition thatwe were ‘‘all working together as a team’’was confusing to them—I was movingtoo far too fast. Only then did I under-stand the true challenge that I faced.

Expressing regard for cultural diversityitself can also vary across cultures. A Dutch-man who ran Hewlett-Packard Tech Supportcall centers in Amsterdam that operated in 38languages contributed this story about visit-ing corporate headquarters:

When I first went to work in California, Iwould describe the way that we worked inAmsterdam, by saying things like, ‘‘wellthe Italians did it this way, and the Ger-mans did it that way, and the French did ittheir own way—what a mess,’’ and thenwe would laugh and sort things out. Butbefore long, one of the American man-agers pulled me aside and said, ‘‘Stopsaying that—it is offensive to all ofus.’’ I was really confused until I realizedthat Europeans naturally explain every-thing in terms of nationality, whereasAmericans rarely speak directly aboutnational differences at work.

Considering the results from these twostudies does help to identify future targetsfor research. A focus on industries such asretail or hospitality that have comparableoperating units in many locations and com-parable measures of their performancewould offer several advantages. It wouldoffer a point of reference for understandingdifferences between countries, plus a way tomove beyond the subjective measures ofeffectiveness used in the studies reportedin this chapter. Choosing several multina-tional corporations with different nationalorigins, but a common presence in differentnational contexts, would also provide animportant point of comparison.

For global leaders, these studies pro-vide an interesting point of reference forthe choices they make about building their

107

organizations and their cultures. The find-ings suggest that a common perspective onorganizational culture may indeed be possi-ble in multinational corporations. Further-more, these characteristics can be measuredand tracked and appear to have a somewhatpredictable impact on effectiveness. None-theless, the discussion of these results alsoemphasizes that the way in which these traitsare expressed varies greatly across national

cultures. This additional complexity paintsa clear, yet challenging picture of the chal-lenges facing a global leader—attempting tocreate a common set of organizational traitsthat are expressed in different ways in dif-ferent national contexts.

108 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

For further readings on organizational cul-ture see Y. Allaire and M. Firsirotu, ‘‘Theoriesof Organizational Culture,’’ Organization Stu-dies, 1984, 5, 193–226; T. E. Deal and A. A.Kennedy, Corporate Cultures: The Rites andRituals of Corporate Life (Reading, MA: Addi-son-Wesley Publishing Co., 1982); D. R. Deni-son, Corporate Culture and OrganizationalEffectiveness (New York: Wiley, 1990); J. P.Kotter and J. L. Haskett, Corporate Culture andPerformance (New York: Free Press, 1992); E.Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership(San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1985); E.Schein, ‘‘Organizational Culture,’’ AmericanPsychologist, 1990, 45, 109–119.

For additional detail on the DenisonOrganizational Culture measure see: D. R.Denison, H. J. Cho and J. Young, ‘‘Diagnos-ing Organizational Culture: Validating aModel and Method,’’ working paper, Inter-national Institute for Management Develop-ment, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2000; D. R.Denison and A. K. Mishra, ‘‘Toward a The-ory of Organizational Culture and Effective-ness,’’ Organization Science, 1995, 6 (2), 204–223; and D. R. Denison and W. S. Neale,Denison Organizational Culture Survey (AnnArbor, MI: Aviat, 1996). Additional informa-tion is also available online at www.denison-culture.com.

Daniel R. Denison is a professor of management and organization at theInternational Institute for Management Development (IMD) in LausanneSwitzerland and the founder of Denison Consulting in Ann Arbor,Michigan. He is a former professor of organizational behavior andhuman resources management at the University of Michigan in AnnArbor. He is the author of Corporate Culture and OrganizationalEffectiveness (1990) and a number of articles on the link between cultureand business effectiveness. (dension@imd.ch)

Stephanie Haaland is the research director at Denison Consulting in AnnArbor Michigan. She earned her Ph.D. in industrial/organizationalPsychology from Central Michigan University. She manages the researchprogram at Denison Consulting and consults with companies that areinterested in empirically demonstrating the link between organizationalculture and leadership and their bottom-line business measures.

Paulo Goelzer is president of the IGA Institute, an educationalfoundation providing training in 40 countries in five languages, andoversees their international operations. He holds master’s degrees inmarketing and economics and is a Ph.D. candidate at BenedictineUniversity. He previously served as an assistant professor of businessstrategy and marketing at Pontifical University in Brazil, as marketingdirector for a grocery wholesale company, and as a consultant.

109