OML 8020 Module 2 GLOBE Seminar Paper: Societal Culture and Culturally Endorsed Leadership Example

What a Good Leader Looks Like in Monterrey, Frankfurt and New Brunswick: Lessons From GLOBE

Student Name

Doctor of Business Administration, Thomas Edison State University

OML-8020: Seminar in Leadership and Culture: Organizational and National Perspectives

Mentor Name

Month Day, Year

What a Good Leader Looks Like in Monterrey, Frankfurt and New Brunswick: Lessons From GLOBE

Introduction

Hofstede's model describes how national cultures differ, but it says less about leadership. The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness program, known as GLOBE, set out to connect culture and leadership directly. For a leader of managers in three countries, the question is practical: will the behaviors that make me effective in New Jersey work in Monterrey or in Frankfurt?

The GLOBE Study

House et al. (2004) reported on surveys of about 17,000 middle managers in more than 900 organizations across 62 societies in three industries: food processing, finance and telecommunications. GLOBE measured nine cultural dimensions: performance orientation, assertiveness, future orientation, humane orientation, institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, gender egalitarianism, power distance and uncertainty avoidance. Each was measured in two ways: as practices, how things are done in the society, and as values, how things should be done. The gap between the two often surprised researchers; in many societies, people wanted less power distance than they experienced.

GLOBE also asked managers how much various attributes contribute to or inhibit outstanding leadership. These ratings formed six global leadership dimensions, which the authors called culturally endorsed implicit leadership theories: charismatic or value-based, team-oriented, participative and humane-oriented, plus two often seen as hindrances, autonomous and self-protective. Two of the six, charismatic or value-based and team-oriented leadership, were seen as contributing to outstanding leadership in nearly every society. Participative and humane-oriented leadership were endorsed more in some cultures than others. Self-protective leadership, including status consciousness and face saving, was generally seen as inhibiting leadership but less so in some societies.

Practices Versus Values

The distinction between practices and values matters for leaders. A society may practice high power distance while valuing less of it, which suggests that employees may welcome a leader who narrows the gap, if done in a way that respects local norms. Confusing the two, for example assuming that because hierarchy is practiced it is preferred, can lead a leader astray.

Lessons for Leaders Crossing Cultures

Javidan et al. (2006) translated GLOBE findings into lessons for managers. Following a hypothetical U.S. executive posted to different countries, they showed how the same leader behavior can be read differently. They advised leaders to learn the societal culture and leadership expectations of each setting, to understand that universal attributes like integrity and vision are expressed differently across cultures and to adapt behaviors that are culturally contingent, such as how participative to be or how openly to show status. In high power distance settings, for instance, a leader who seeks input from subordinates may need to do so in ways that do not appear weak.

Twenty Years of GLOBE

Dorfman et al. (2012) reviewed two decades of GLOBE research. A later phase studied about 1,000 CEOs and their top management teams in 24 countries. CEOs whose behavior matched the leadership expectations of their society were rated as more effective by their top managers, and their teams showed more commitment and effort. CEOs whose behavior fell short of expectations were seen as less effective. The authors concluded that leaders should understand and meet local leadership expectations, while also noting that some behaviors, like being visionary and having integrity, are valued nearly everywhere.

Applying GLOBE to My Team

For my Mexican team, team orientation and attention to relationships appear especially important, and a leader who visits the plant, shares meals and remembers family events may build commitment that formal processes alone cannot. Participative leadership will work better if I make clear that I am asking for input as the decision maker rather than abdicating. For my German colleagues, participation and clear, reasoned planning are likely to build trust, and decisions made quickly without consultation may undermine it. For my New Jersey team, my current style is probably closest to expectations, but I should not assume it is universal.

Universal and Contingent Behaviors

Some of my behaviors will work everywhere: explaining a clear vision for the new plant, keeping commitments and treating people with integrity. Others must adapt: how often I consult before deciding, how formally I present plans and how I recognize achievement. Javidan and colleagues' distinction gives me a way to decide which is which.

Practices and Values at the Mexican Plant

The practices and values distinction gave me a way to read something puzzling at the new plant. Supervisors defer openly to the plant manager, which matches the high power distance GLOBE found in practice across Latin America. Yet in one-on-one conversations several told me they wished they had more say in scheduling and quality decisions, which matches GLOBE's finding that people in the region value less power distance than they experience. A leader who simply mirrors local practice would reinforce the gap; one who ignores it would seem disrespectful. The middle path we are trying is a structured weekly problem-solving meeting led by the plant manager, in which each supervisor must bring one proposal. The meeting keeps the manager's authority visible while creating a protected space for participation.

Critiques of GLOBE

GLOBE has been criticized for sampling middle managers in three industries, which may not represent societies as a whole, and for the way its questionnaires were phrased. Some scholars have questioned whether practices and values were measured validly, noting puzzling negative correlations between them. Like Hofstede's, GLOBE's scores describe societies, not individuals.

Limits

GLOBE grouped countries into clusters, and patterns for a cluster may not fit a particular plant. My observations are limited to a few months.

Conclusion

GLOBE found broad endorsement of charismatic and team-oriented styles while other leadership behaviors depend on culture. Javidan and colleagues gave leaders a method for adapting, and Dorfman and colleagues showed that CEOs who meet local expectations are more effective. For a three-country team, keeping vision and integrity constant while adjusting participation, formality and relationship building to each site is the most defensible approach.

References

Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A., & House, R. (2012). GLOBE: A twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 504-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.004

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. SAGE Publications.

Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., de Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.19873410