Nikandrou xtra

8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra

1/24

Cultural and Leadership Similarities and Variationsin the Southern Part of the European Union

Irene Nikandrou,EleniApospori,

Nancy Papalexandris,Athens University of Economics and Business,Athens, Greece

This paper examines the similarities anddifferences in cultural (societal and

organizational) and leadership aspects in thesouthern part of the European Union. The

study is based on data from the GLOBEproject for five countries (Greece, Italy,France, Spain, and Portugal). Even thoughthere are quite a few studies clusteringEuropean countries either along the North-South axis or the North/West South/East

axis, we still need to better understandcultural and leadership similarities anddifferences among countries that for variousreasons, such as sociopolitical, economic,cultural, historical, geographical and so forth,may form a unit for purposes of comparativestudy. The findings of the present studysuggest that there are more similarities than

differences among these five countries that

may support the thesis for considering them asthe southern band of EU countries.

Increasing internationalization, and the

&dquo;global market&dquo; have forced us to exploremore closely the differences and similarities inthe way people are managed. Organizationsoperate across international boundaries and

more

managersare transferred

internationally,emphasizing the importance of comparativeknowledge and raising the question ofcultural influences. The cultural diversity of

employees found in worldwide multinational

organizations presents a substantial challengewith respect to the design of multinationalorganizations and their leadership.

Understanding leadership requiresunderstanding the cultural context in which ittakes place. Therefore, the need to betterunderstand cultural influences on leadership

and organizational practices has never been

greater and is essential for the effective

management of people in different cultures,with different customs.

This paper examines the relationship in

societal and organizational cultures andleadership attributes in the Southern part ofthe European Union (EU). The study ofleadership and culture in the European Unionis an interesting one, since both convergentand divergent approaches can be found.Indeed, the European Union provides theframework within which different solutions at

the national and/or organizational level can befound. Thus, forces from the market,

technology and institutional context promoteconvergence, while, cultural forces contributeto more divergent tendencies. The selection ofa particular unit of analysis in a study is

important for the conclusions to be drawn. If astudy uses clusters of countries with culturalaffinities to examine how nationality andculture affect leadership may end up todifferent conclusions in comparison withothers studies that may have used individual

countries within the same cluster or countries

from different clusters for the same purpose.The study is based on the Southern

European sub-sampleof the GLOBE. We

have selected to compare Portugal, Spain,France, Italy and Greece and investigatesimilarities and differences in cultural

(societal and organizational) and leadershipaspects.

THE GLOBE CONCEPTUAL MODEL

The Global Leadership andOrganizational Behavior Effectivenessresearch project is a multi-phase, multi-

at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/


2/24

62

method research on cross-cultural study of theinter-relationships between organizationalleadership, societal and organizational culture.

Culture affects values, beliefs, meaningsand influences leadership processes (Ayman etal, 1995; Hunt et al, 1990). Both culture-

specific and culture-universal positions -&dquo;emic&dquo; and &dquo;etic&dquo; approaches, accordingly -have been employed to examine the impact ofculture on leadership processes (Bass &Avolio, 1993; Hofstede, 1980, 1993; Triandis,1993) .

In the GLOBE project:Culture is defined as &dquo;shared motives,

values, beliefs, identities and interpretations or

meanings of significant events that result fromcommon experiences of members of

collectivesand are

transmittedacross

agegenerations&dquo; (House et al., 1999).

Leadership is defined as &dquo;the ability of anindividual to influence, motivate and enable

others to contribute towards the effectiveness

and success of the organization of which theyare members&dquo; (House et al., 1999)

The theoretical model proposed by theGLOBE research program is based on an

integration of four theoretical perspectives:Implicit Leadership Theory (Lord and Maher,1991), Value-Belief Theory of Culture(Hofstede, 1980), Implicit Motivation Theory(McClelland, 1985), and StrategicContingency Theory of Organizations(Donaldson, 1993).

The central theoretical proposition of the

integrated theory is that the attributes andentities that distinguish a given culture fromother cultures are predictive of the practices of

organizations of that culture and predictive ofleader attributes and behaviors that are most

frequently enacted, acceptable andeffective in

that culture.A diagram of the integratedtheory is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: GLOBE Theoretical ModelCulture gives each group its uniqueness

and differentiates it from other groups.Individuals share common values, beliefs and

assumptions about what is wrong and right,effective and ineffective, based on thedominant societal cultural values. Leaders are

more likely to be affected and behave in waysthat are accepted and favored in their culture.So, different beliefs and expectations abouthow a leader should behave is one potentialsource of variance across cultures. Moreover,as individuals hold implicit leadershiptheories, they also hold implicit organizationtheories. Individuals share common beliefs

and assumptions and value selectedorganizational practices that are viewed as

legitimate, acceptableand effective

by

members of the organization. Thus, societalculture has a direct impact on organizationalculture and both influence the process bywhich people come to share implicit theoriesof leadership and what leaders do.

In this paper, we will examine the

following questions which are part of the mainobjectives ofGLOBE (House et al, 1997) :

1. What are the major similarities anddifferences in societal and organizationalmeasures of culture and leadership attributesamong countries in the southern part of theEU?

2. Are the similarities in terms of the

indices used more prominent than thedifferences to allow considering thesecountries as a group?



3/24

63

3. In what ways can each country be

compared to the rest of the EU southerncountries?

Next, we will give a brief literaturereview on the studies that have identified

different cultural regions in Europe, based ondifferent indicators. Following, the

methodological concerns of the study areexamined and the results from the data

analysis are presented. Finally, the findings,the implications and the limitations of the

present study will be discussed.

Literature Review

There are a number of studies identifyingcultural regions in Europe. Geography,history, language, religion, economic,political, educational, social and technologicaldevelopment, as well as personal values andbehavioral intentions are some of the

indicators that have been used to groupcountries together and, at the same time, todistinguish them from other groups (Hofstede,1980; Ronen and Shenkar, 1985; Smith,Dugan and Trompenaars, 1996; Trompenaars,1994).

Ronen and Shenkar (1985), based on areview of eight studies, synthesized previousefforts to cluster countries according to theirsimilarities and differences in a number ofwork-related attitudes and

values,such as, the

importance of work, satisfaction with work,autocratic versus democratic attitudes toward

work, personal values (such as pragmatism,achievement, decisiveness, and orderliness)and interpersonal values (such as conformity,recognition, and benevolence).

Five European cultural clusters wereidentified (Anglo, Nordic, Germanic, Latinand Near East). Greece was included in theNear Eastern European cluster, while France,Italy, Portugal and Spain along with Belgiumwere

included in the Latin European cluster.In comparison with other Europeanregions, Latin European countries arecharacterized by later technical development,more uniformity in Catholism, while historyand language also tie them together. Griffeth,et al (1980) place Greece in the Latin Europegroup.

When compared to theAnlgo cluster, itseems that Latin cultures share a lower

capacity for openness, trust and the rationalexpression of feelings, and the tolerance for

uncertainty and ambiguity is lower.Accordingto Faucheux et al., (1982) Latin countries givemore emphasis to institutionalizedcentralization of decision making,bureaucratic protection, and state interventionand less importance to internal organizationalprocesses.

Smith et al (1996, 1997) found that themajor variability in approaches tomanagement within Europe lies between Eastand West with Greece included in the Western

region. Smith (1997) in a study of 16European countries replicated the analysis,using the North versus South Europeandistinction. They showed that North Europeancountries, including theAnglo cluster (Britain,Ireland), the Nordic cluster (Sweden,Denmark, Finland, Norway, Netherlands) andGermany scored high on the &dquo;Equality andUtilitarian Involvement&dquo; dimension, whileSouth European countries, including the LatinEuropean cluster (Italy, Spain, Portugal,France and Belgium) and the Near East cluster(Greece and Turkey) andAustria scored highon the &dquo;Hierarchy and Loyal Involvement&dquo;dimension.

In three recent studies, Greece is includedin the Eastern European cluster along withcountries that belonged to former communistcountries. Hampden-Tumer and Trompenaars

(2000)examined cross-cultural

issues, placingGreece in the group of Eastern Europeancountries with Bulgaria, Czech Republic,Hungary, Poland, Russia and Yugoslavia,while Gupta et al (2002) report that theEastern European cluster using GLOBE dataconsists of Albania, Georgia, Greece,Hungary, Kazakhstan, Poland, Russia andSlovenia. Finally, Bakacsi et al (2002)presented and discussed the findings of theGLOBE project on societal and organizationalcultures and leadership using the same Eastern

European cluster, but they concluded thatGreece may not fit very well into this cluster.From the above discussion, it becomes

clear that there is some inconsistency in thegrouping of cultural regions in Europe. Thus,we believe that a closer look at the countries

comprising the South axis of the EuropeanUnion is needed.

In France, leadership, both in governmentand industry, is a combination of educationalachievement, bourgeois origins and a sourceof income from property. Educational



4/24

64

achievement is defined as a degree from those

highly selective grandes ecoles ofadministration, technology and the military.Ordinarily, people from the working classescannot climb up the managerial andgovernmental hierarchy, due to the difficultiesin attaining those schools. Centralization,submission to hierarchy, domination of anelite of cadres are characteristics of the French

society, which reveal the remaining ofhistorical continuity (Aubert, Ramanantsoa &Reitter, 1984).

In a number of studies with French

managers, it is supported that the Frenchsought security and good working conditions,lack of concern for peers, while they were thelowest among 12 countries in their relative

ranking for supportiveness (Bigoness and

Blakely, 1989; Kanungo and Wright, 1983).These findings are also supported by Bass,Burger et al (1979) who report that Frenchmanagers were the lowest in their reportedactual cooperative peer relations and

willingness to discuss feelings with others.In Spain, the replacement of the highly

controlled authoritarian government underFranco gave rise to the need for developingflexible and adaptable leaders who couldsurvive in a highly competitive andinternationalized environment (Anzizu &Nuenos, 1984). A study by Cummings,Hamett, and Stevens (1971), when both Spainand Greece were under dictatorship regime,found Spanish managers to be fatalistic,somewhat suspicious and conciliatory, whileGreek managers were highly suspicious and

conciliatory but believing they were themasters of their own fate. Greek managerswere among the most risk averse managers,while Spanish managers were in the middle.

Bass, Burger et al (1979) report that

Spanish and Portuguese managers show thehighest preference for awareness for thefeelings of others, self-understanding,accepting feedback from others, listening toothers and concern for the welfare of

subordinates. Spanish, Portuguese and Italianmanagers showed the least preference forgroup decision making. In France, Spain andPortugal faster-climbing managers were moreconcerned than were the slower climbers

about their dependence on a higher authority.The Italian managers saw themselves as

being lowest in depending on others in

problem solving but highest in willingness todiscuss feelings with others and showingcooperative peer relations. Italians value highsecurity, while they report the lowest levels inexpertise. In his study, McClelland (1961)ranks Italy lowest among four countries intheir need for achievement, highest in theirneed for affiliation, while the need for powerdifferentiates between north and south Italy,with north Italy scoring high in power andsouth Italy lower.

As Papalexandris (1999) mentions&dquo;Greeks are very individualistic and

independent,... in the work environment

employees are always inclined to fight againstperceived limitations on their personalfreedom, independence and individual rights&dquo;.Greeks are inclined to question authority, have

difficulties in cooperating and show mistrustto superiors. On the other hand, familyorganizational culture seems to be acharacteristic ofmany companies today, as thesuccessful Greek manager is expected to takecare of employee needs and show an interestin their family problems (Broome, 1996;Trompenaars, 1994).

THE GLOBE PROJECT

The GLOBE project involves over 60nations with 170 investigators and 700

organizations.In the first phase of the project, the

GLOBE Team developed nine dimensions ofsocietal culture and nine isomorphicdimensions of organizational culture and sixdimensions of leadership patterns that can beused across all cultures.

GLOBE employs both quantitative and

qualitative methods to provide rich insight intocultural influences on leadership and

organizational practices. Questionnaires,- interviews, focus groups, unobtrusivemeasures and media analyses were used toform the basis for better understandingculture-specific and culture-universal issues of

leadership.

SampleIn this study, we focused on five

countries from the GLOBE data base by usingtwo basic criteria, 1) the country is a memberof the European Union, and 2) the country is



5/24

65

geographically located in the South of Europe.Thus, the selected countries were: Greece,

Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal.Furthermore, each country considered for this

comparative study shares some cultural,sociopolitical, economic, or historicalsimilarities, with at least one of the other four

countries.Individual respondents were middle

managers from mid-sized to largeorganizations in three sectors, food

processing, financial services andtelecommunication services.

The data were gathered between 1995and 1997 by investigators from each country,who are Country-Co-Investigators (CCls) ofthe GLOBE Project. Each country participatedin the sample with data representing at leasttwo of the industrial sectors (food, finance,

telecommunications), with the exception ofFrance, which participated with data from thefinancial services sector.

The number of participants per countryis: Greece (N=234), Italy (N=257), France

(N=182), Spain (N=360), and Portugal(N=79).

Measures

Culture was operationally defined withmeasures reflecting the agreement on values

amongmembers of the

collectives (should be)and the agreement on observed and reportedpractices of entities such as families, schools,work organizations, economic and legalsystems and political institutions as indicatedin the assessment of what is or what are

common behaviors, institutional practices,proscriptions and prescriptions.

The nine dimensions of culture that were

identified, are: uncertainty avoidance, powerdistance, the individualism-collectivism

continuum, family/organizational collectivism,

gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, futureorientation, performance orientation andhumane orientation (Hofstede, 1980;McClelland, 1961, 1985; Putnam, 1993).

Parallel instruments for societal and

organizational culture at the value (should be)and practices (as is) levels have been

developed.Performance Orientation is the extent to

which an organization or society encouragesand rewards group members for performanceimprovement and excellence. This dimensions

derived from McClellands work on need for

achievement and is similar to the Confucian

Dynamism dimension by Hofstede and Bond(1988).

Future Orientation is the degree to whichindividuals in organizations or societiesengage in future-oriented behaviors such as

planning, investing in the future, and delayinggratification. This dimension is derived fromKluckhohn and Strodtbeckss (1961) Past,Present, Future Orientation dimension.

Assertiveness is the degree to whichindividuals in organizations and societies areassertive, confrontational, and aggressive insocial relationships. This dimension is part ofthe Hofstedes Masculinity dimension (1980).

Institutional Collectivism (Collectivism I)reflects the degree to which organizational andsocietal institutional practices encourage andreward collective distribution of resources and

collective action. Low scores in this

dimension reflect individualistic emphasis andhigh scores reflect collectivistic emphasis bymeans of laws, social programs or institutional

practices.Gender Egalitarianism is the extent to

which an organization or a society minimizes

gender role differences. This dimension alongwith assertiveness comprise the Hofstedes(1980) Masculinity dimension.

HumaneOrientation

is thedegree

to

which individuals in organizations or societies

encourage and reward individuals for beingfair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring, andkind to others. This dimension has its roots in

Kluckhohn and Strodtbecks (1961) work onthe Humane Nature Is Good vs. Human

Nature is Bad dimension, in Putnams (1993)work on the Civic Society and inMcClellands (1985) conceptualization of theaffiliative motive and is similar to the

Hofstede and Bond (1988) construct labeled

Kind Heartedness.Power Distance is defined as the degree

to which members of an organization orsociety expect and agree that power should be

unequally shared. This dimension reflectsHofstedes (1980) Power Distance construct.

Family Collectivism (Collectivism II) isthe degree to which individuals express pride,loyalty and cohesiveness in their organizationsor families.

UncertaintyAvoidance is the extent to

which members of an organization or societyat University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from


6/24

66

strive to avoid uncertainty by reliance onsocial norms, rituals, and bureaucratic

practices to alleviate the unpredictability offuture events. This dimension reflects

Hofstedes (1980) Uncertainty Avoidanceconstruct.

Leadership was operationalized bydeveloping a list of leader attributes andbehaviors. The items were rated on a 7-pointLikert type scale showing how strongly theyimpede or facilitate unusually effectiveleadership. Items ranged from a low of &dquo; Thisbehavior or attribute substantially impedes aperson from being an outstanding leader&dquo; to ahigh of &dquo;This behavior or attributesubstantially facilitates a person being anoutstanding leader&dquo;. Factor analyses revealed21 dimensions of leadership which werereduced to 6 dimensions with second order

factor analysis. The leadership dimensionsare: charismatic/value-based, team oriented,narcissistic, non-participative, humane, andautonomous (Hanges et al., 1999). /

Charismaticl Value-based leadership,with the subscales visionary, inspirational,self-sacrificial, integrity, decisive, and

performance orientation.Team-oriented leadership, with the

subscales team orientation, team integrator,diplomacy, malevolent (reversed score) and

administrative competence.Narcissistic leadership, with the

subscales self-centered, status-conscious,conflict inducer, face saver, and procedural.

Partici ative leadership, with thesubscales autocratic and non-participative(both reversed scores).

Humane leadership, with the subscalesmodest and humane orientation.

Autonomous leadership, with the items

individualistic, independent, autonomous, and

unique.The results reveal the two leaderattributes and behaviors that are universallyaccepted and seen as effective, namely:Charismatic/ value-based leadership, andTeam-oriented leadership, while the other fourdimensions are more &dquo;cultural contingent&dquo;.

DataAnalysisThe present paper is based on secondary

grouped data collected and analyzed for theGLOBE project. In particular, the eighteen

scales for the indices of societal culture and

the six scales of leadership, just describedabove, were taken as they are in GLOBE

project data-base. The eighteen scales for theindices of organizational culture were formed

by the authors of the present paper as follows.As mentioned above each country participatedin the sample with data representing at leasttwo of the industrial sectors, food, finance andcommunications, with the exception ofFrance, which participated with data from thefinancial service sector only. In the GLOBE

project data-base there were scales for each ofthe nine indices of organizational culture foreach of the sectors separately. For the purposeof the present paper, we combined the scales

of the sectors of each country using theweighed average score of each sector for each

country. The weights were calculated

accordingto the

samplesize for each sector

for the respective country. The end result was

eighteen indices of organizational culture foreach country. We decided to combine thesectors of each country for the reason of

parsimony and clarity in comparisons.Besides, in societal culture GLOBE has

eighteen indices for each country - nine for

practices and nine for values; it seems

appropriate to use the same number of indices- nine for practices and nine for values in

organizational culture for each country.

Results

1. Indices of Societal Culture amongthe five southern European countries

All the variables used to measure various

indices of societal culture had two aspects, the

ontological and the deontological.Accordingto the ontological aspect (&dquo;As Is&dquo;),respondents were asked to estimate to whatdegree, they believe, these indices werepracticed in their society. According to the

deontological aspect (&dquo;Should Be&dquo;),respondents were asked to estimate to whatextent these indices should be practiced intheir society. In this part , the &dquo;As Is&dquo; aspectis presented first, while the &dquo;Should Be&dquo;aspect follows.

1. Performance OrientationAs IsAll five countries score relatively low in

the first index of societal values which is

performance orientation as it is perceived thatis practiced in each of these countries.



7/24

67

The score for all countries participatingin the GLOBE study ranges from 4.94 to 3.20(Table 1, Figure 2) and the countries are

grouped in three levels, A, B and C.Parenthetically, it should be mentioned thatband width is equal to 2*SED. The fivesouthern European countries scored from 4.11I

to 3.20 scores which place them in the B andC band. France (4.11) and Spain (4.01) arethe most performance oriented countries andare placed in the B group, while Greece is theleast performance oriented (3.20) and isplaced in group C.Actually Greece is the leastperformance oriented country among allcountries participating in the GLOBE project.

Although Italy (3.58) and Portugal (3.60)score higher than Greece, they belong to thesame group of countries which score low in

performance orientation as respondentsbelieved that it is practiced.

As Should be

In all five countries, performanceorientation of society should be higher than itis believed it is practiced. Portugal (6.40) and

Italy (6.07) have the two highest scores in the&dquo;should be&dquo; aspect of performance orientation(Table 1, Figure 3 ). These scores place themamong the GLOBE countries with the highestlevel of &dquo;should be&dquo; performance orientation.

Greece (5.81), Spain (5.80)and

France (5.65)come next and they all belong to the secondband - B - group of countries. However,

looking at the difference between the &dquo;shouldbe&dquo; and the &dquo;as is&dquo; aspects of performance

orientation (Table 1, Figure 4 ), Portugal,Greece and Italy present the biggestdifferences. For these three, the degree ofperformance orientation, as it is believed it ispracticed is less satisfying than it is for Spainand France, and it is believed that is should be

practiced at considerably higher levels. Given

the results from the &dquo;As Is&dquo;

scores the abovementioned finding is not surprising. Sincethese three countries have the lowest scores in

the &dquo;as is&dquo; aspect, it seems logical to have the

biggest difference between the &dquo;should be&dquo;and the &dquo;as is&dquo; aspects.

2. Future OrientationAs IsThe five Southern European countries as

a group score low in societal value of future

orientation as it is believed it is practiced inthese countries. The range for all participatingcountries is between 5.07 and 2.80 (Table 1,Figure 2); all countries are grouped in fourbands, that is A, B, C, and D. The fivesouthern European countries are placed in thetwo lowest bands. In particular, Italy is placedin the lowest band D with the lowest score

among the five countries (3.25). The otherfour countries are placed in the second lowestband, C. However, there are slight differences

among them; Portugal shows the highest levelof future orientation (3.71) as societal value

that is perceived it is practiced and then, Spain(3.51), France (3.48) and Greece (3.40) followwith relatively lower scores but in the same

group with Portugal.



8/24

68

Table 1: Indices of Societal Culture



9/24

69

Figure 2: Indices of Societal CultureAs Is

As Should Be

Italy (5.91) and Spain (5.63) believemore than the other three countries that the

societal value of future orientation should be

at higher level than it is in their societies(Table 1, Figure 3 ). Their scores in the&dquo;should be&dquo; aspect of that value place them inthe group of GLOBE countries with the

highest scores. Portugal, Greece and Francecome next with scores 5.43, 5.19 and 4.96

respectively, which place them in the secondlevel of GLOBE countries with regard tofuture orientation as it should be

practiced.Overall, Italy which has the lowest scorein the &dquo;as is&dquo; aspect, has the highest score in

the &dquo;should be&dquo; aspect. Naturally, this means

that Italy is the least satisfied among the fivecountries with its future orientation (Table 1,Figure 4 ). The second least satisfied countrywith its future orientation as society is Spain.Spain has the second biggest gap betweenfuture orientation as it is practiced and as itshould be practiced. France has the lowestscore in the should be aspect of futureorientation; this, in combination with the

relatively high score in the &dquo;as is&dquo; aspect,results in the smallest difference between

should be and as isamong

the five countries.

This means, that France is the most satisfied

country with regard to its future orientation.



10/24

70

Figure 3: Indices of Societal CultureAs Should Be

3.AssertivenessAs IsAssertiveness is another societal value

the GLOBE countries are measured on. The

score on perceived practice of assertivenessfor all GLOBE countries ranges from 4.97 to

2.79 (Table 1, Figure 2). Higher scoresindicate less assertiveness. All countries are

grouped in three bands according to theirscore, A, B, and C. The five Southern

European countries under consideration showa high degree of differentiation among them.Portugal shows the least level of assertivenessand is placed at the groupA, with score 4.24.Italy, France and Spain show the second

higher level of assertiveness and are placed inthe second lower level of assertiveness, that is,in band B with a score of 3.83, 3.65 and 3.58,

respectively. Greece shows the highest levelof assertiveness as it is perceived that is

practiced, not only among the rest of theSouthern European countries, but among allGLOBE countries with a score of 2.79.

As Should Be

France (4.85) and Greece (4.10) have

higherscores in the &dquo;should

be&dquo; aspect ofassertiveness than Italy (3.76), Portugal (3.74)and Spain (3.32) (Table 1, Figure 3 ).Furthermore, France and Greece have higherscores in comparison with their &dquo;as is&dquo; aspectof assertiveness. Parenthetically, it should bementioned that higher score in assertivenessindicates less assertiveness.At the same time

Italy, Spain and Portugal have lower scores inthe &dquo;should be&dquo; aspect of assertiveness than

the &dquo;as is&dquo; aspect - 4.24, 3.83 and 3.58-

respectively. All these indicate that France

and Greece would like to be less assertive thanthey think they are, while Spain and Portugalwould like to be more assertive. For Italy, thedifference between &dquo;should be&dquo; and &dquo;as is&dquo; is

close to zero (table 1, Figure 4 ), which meansthat Italy, among the five southern Europeancountries, is the most satisfied society withlevel of assertiveness as it is perceived it ispracticed.



11/24

71

Figure 4: Difference of Societal Culture: &dquo;Should Be&dquo; - &dquo;As Is

4. Institutional CollectivismAs IsThe GLOBE study range for the societal

value of Institutional Collectivism as it is

perceived it is practiced is 5.22 to 3.25 (Table1, Figure 2) and all countries are grouped inthree bands, A, B, and C. Higher scoresindicate more adherence to this value. The fiveSouthern European countries score relativelylow on the perceived practice of institutionalcollectivism. France, Portugal, and Spain are

placed in band B, while Italy and Greece onC. In particular, France and Portugal score3.93 and 3.92 respectively and Spain has anaverage score 3.85. Italy has the secondlower score among the five countries - 3.68 -

while Greece has the lowest score of all

GLOBE countries - 3.25.

As Should Be

Greece (5.40) and Portugal (5.30), morethan the other three countries, believe that theyshould be more collectivist with regard tovarious institutions than they believe they are.France stands at the other side of the spectrumwith the lowest score among the five countries

(4.86) (Table 1, Figure 3 ). However, all fivecountries stand at the upper levels of the range

among all GLOBE countries (5.65 -3.80) withregard to this value. Furthermore, looking atthe difference between the value of

collectivism and the perceived practice -&dquo;should be&dquo; minus &dquo;as is&dquo;- (Table 1, Figure 4),we can see that all five countries are not

satisfied with the level of collectivism as it is

believed it is practiced. Greece, which has the



12/24

72

biggest gap between the &dquo;should be&dquo; and the&dquo;as is&dquo; is the least satisfied followed by Italyand Portugal. France on the other hand,although it is not satisfied with the level ofcollectivism as it is believed it is practiced, isthe least dissatisfied country among the five.

5.Gender EgalitarianismAs IsThe score of gender egalitarianism as it is

perceived it is practiced in the societies of allof the countries participating in the GLOBE

study ranges from 4.33 to 2.50 (Table 1,Figure 2 ). All the countries are grouped inthree bands,A, B and C. Low scores indicatemale oriented society, medium scores indicate

gender egalitarianism while high scoresindicate female oriented society. Theoreticallythe score among all countries could rangefrom 7 - the most female oriented

society -to

1 - the most male oriented society. The rangeof 4.33 to 2.50 indicates that overall societies

tend to be perceived as egalitarian or maleoriented. The five southern Europeancountries scored from 3.01 to 3.66, scores that

place them in the B and C band. The mostmale oriented society is Spain; the score of3.01 places it to the lowest band, C. The otherfour Southern European countries tend to bemale oriented but to a lesser degree. They all

belong to band B, but with slight differences.

In particular, Italy has the lower score of four- 3.24 - followed by Greece - with score 3.48.France (3.64) and Portugal (3.66) have the

higher scores of the rest of the southern

European countries, which place them closerto a more egalitarian level.

As Should Be

Four of the five southern Europeancountries are at the upper levels of the range

among all GLOBE countries with regard tothe value of

gender egalitarianism (5.17-3.18)(Table 1), while one stands at relatively lowerlevel. In particular, Portugal (5.13), Greece(4.89), Italy (4.88), and Spain (4.82) scorehigher than France (4.40). Furthermore,looking at the difference between value andpractice of gender egalitarianism (Table 1,Figure 4 ), all five countries believe that thepractice of gender egalitarianism should be at

higher levels than it is. Spain, Italy andPortugal are the least satisfied among the fivecountries with the level of practiced gender

egalitarianism, while France is the least notsatisfied.

6. Humane OrientationAs Is

All of the five Southern Europeancountries score relatively low on the index ofhumane orientation. The overall GLOBE

range for humane orientation of society, as itis believed it is practiced, is between 5.23 and3.18 (Table 1, Figure 2). All countries areplaced in four bands -A, B, C, and D. Thefive southern European countries underconsideration are placed on the two lowerbands - C and D. Portugal is perceived to bethe most humane oriented society in

comparison to the other four countries and,with an average 3.91, it is placed on band C.The rest of the countries are placed in thelower level of humane

orientation,that is D.

However, there are some considerable

differences. Italy although in the same bandwith France, Greece and Spain shows aconsiderable difference (3.63). France andGreece follow with scores 3.40 and 3.34. The

country that is perceived to be the leasthumane oriented is Spain with score 3.32which is also the second lowest of all GLOBE

countries.

As Should Be

The value of humane orientation scores

relatively higher among three of the fivecountries. In particular, Spain (5.69), France(5.67) and Italy (5.68) score among the toptwenty countries in the value of humane

orientation, while Portugal (5.31) and Greece(5.23) are at the lower 50% of the countries

(Table 1, Figure 3 ). However, the difference_between practice of humane orientation andthe value indicates that all five countries

would like to be more humane oriented than

theyare

(Table 1, Figure4

).The

biggest gapbetween value and practice is observed in

Spain; this means that Spain is the leastsatisfied country with regard to the practice ofhumane orientation. Portugal stands at theother end of the spectrum, showing the leastdissatisfaction with the practice of humaneorientation in society.

7. Power DistanceAs Is

Power distance is an index of powerstratification studied among all of the GLOBE

countries. It is a cultural index found inat University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from


13/24

73

society as well in organizations. The overallGLOBE range for power distance of society,as it is believed it is practiced, is between 5.80and 3.59 (Table 1, Figure 2).All countries areplaced in three bands -A, B, and C. The fivesouthern European- countries underconsideration are placed in the highest band -

A, which indicates that they are among thecountries with the highest degree of powerstratification. Spain (5.52) is the moststratified of the five societies with regard tothat index, followed by Portugal (5.44) andItaly (5.43). Greece comes next with a slightdifference (5.40). Last, but in the same

highest bandA, comes France. France has thelowest score in power distance as it is

perceived is practiced not only among the fivecountries under consideration, but among allof the countries of bandA.

As Should Be

Comparing the five countries with regardto the value of power distance, Spain (2.26),Portugal (2.38), and Greece (2.39) show themost respect to this value (Table 1, Figure 3 );that is, they, more than Italy and France,believe they should have less powerstratification. Also, the same pattern isobserved at the difference between value of

power stratification and practice in each of the

fivecountries

(Table 1, Figure4

).All five

countries are not satisfied with the level of

practice of power stratification and they wouldlike to have less. However, the least satisfied

counties, that is the countries with the biggestgap, are Spain, Portugal and Greece. The leastnot satisfied countries with their powerstratification are Italy and France.

8. Family CollectivismAs IsThe score of family collectivism as it is

perceived it is practiced in the societies of all

countries participating in the GLOBE studyranges from 6.36 to 3.18 (Table 1, Figure 2).The highest score of the range is also thehighest score of all societal cultural indices asthey are perceived they are practiced amongall GLOBE societies. All countries are

grouped in three different bands,A, B, and C.As expected, the five southern Europeancountries show relatively high levels of familycollectivism as it is practiced, but at the sametime, they seem to have considerabledifferences. Portugal and Spain have the two

highest scores -5.51 and 5.45, respectively -and they are placed in the group of GLOBEcountries with the highest level of familycollectivism - at least, as it is perceived it ispracticed. The other three countries are placedto the second of the three levels, but they seemto have considerable differences.As a matter

of fact, Greece (5.27) and Italy (4.94),although they belong to the same group withFrance, - that is group B -, their scores in

family collectivism, as it is perceived it ispracticed in these countries, are closer to thescore of Portugal and Spain, than the score ofFrance (4.37). In general, as it is the case with

power distance and as it is expected, the fivesouthern European countries underconsideration as a group score high in familycollectivism.

As Should BeIn the value of family collectivism,

Portugal (5.94), Spain (5.79), and Italy (5.72)score higher than Greece (5.46) and France(5.42) (Table 1, Figure 3 ). However, lookingat the difference between the should be aspectof family collectivism and the perceivedpractice, it becomes clear that France,although it has the lowest &dquo;should be score ofall, it also has the biggest gap (Table 1, Figure4 ). Evidently, it also has the lowest perceived

practiceof

thiscultural

aspect, and, therefore,is the most not satisfied with it. Italy comessecond in the gap between the value of

familism and the perceived practice. Greecestands at the other end of the spectrum, with a

very small gap; it means that Greece is almost

satisfied with the level of family collectivismit believes it practices, which as Table 1shows, is at a relatively high level.

9. UncertaintyAvoidanceAs Is

Uncertainty avoidance is the last of the

nine second-order indices that factor analysisof a large number of variables resulted in. Thescores in this index of societal culture, as it isbelieved it is practiced among the GLOBEcountries, range between 5.37 and 2.85 (Table1, Figure 2). The five southern Europeancountries show considerable differences as

they are placed to three different bands B, C,and D. The differences, worth to be

mentioned, are: France not only has thehighest score of uncertainty avoidance (4.43),but it also has a considerable difference from



14/24

74

the rest of the countries, belonging to group B.Spain (3.97), Portugal (3.91) and Italy (3.79)come next and they seem to form a more

homogeneous subgroup within the group, withregard to the practice of uncertaintyavoidance. Greece is among the second level

of all GLOBE countries, but is has the lowestscore of the five southern European countries(3.39).

As Should Be

Among the five southern Europeancountries, Greece (5.09) is the one that

respects most the value of uncertaintyavoidance (Table I, Figure 3 ); however, it isthe country that thinks that in practicetolerates uncertainty most than the rest of thecountries under consideration. Naturally,

Greece shows the biggest gap between valueand practice of uncertainty avoidance, whichmeans that, among the five southern Europeancountries, it is the most not satisfied with the

perceived practice of this cultural aspect(Table 1, Figure 4 ). Then, comes Spain; it hasthe second highest score in this value, and alsothe second biggest gap between the value andthe perceived practice. France, in this case,presents an interesting variation; it has thelowest score in the value of uncertaintyavoidance; it means that France less than all

the other four countries believes should avoid

uncertainty.At the same time, the score in the

perceived practice of uncertainty avoidance ishigher than the respective value. Therefore,France has a negative difference, which meansthat it believes that, in practice, they shouldtolerate uncertainty more than they do.However, the gap between the value and the

practice is very small, the smallest among thefive countries.

Overall, the comparisons did not reveal a

pattern of differences among the five southernEuropean countries in the nine indices ofsocietal culture as they should be. Also, no

patterned differences were observed betweenthe values of these indices and their perceivedpractice.

2. INDICES OF ORGANIZATIONAL

CULTUREAMONG THE FIVE

SOUTHERN EUROPEAN

COUNTRIES

1. Performance OrientationAs Is

Therange

of

performanceorientation

among the GLOBE countries is between 3.70

and 5.25 (Table 2). Comparing the fivesouthern European countries, we observe thatGreece (3.85) and Portugal (4.05) score lowerthan the other three; then comes Italy (4.49)and France and Spain are at the same levelwith mean score 4.59. Greece and Portugal are

among the eight countries with the lowestscore in this index of organizational culture.

Italy is almost in the middle, 27thfrom the top,while France and Spain stand in the lower partof top 50% of the countries. It is worthmentioning that the pattern distribution of thescores of the five countries in performanceorientation organizational culture is exactlythe same with the pattern of societal culture

(Figure 5 ).

As Should be

All five countries believe that

performance orientation in organizationsshould be at higher level than it is perceived it

is practiced. Portugal shows the highest levelof interest for this value (6.36) among the fivecountries (Table 2, Figure 6 ); this scoreplaces it in the second place among allGLOBE countries (2.24-6.61). Greece (5.54)is at the other end of the spectrum with a scorethat places it last among the five and 8ffi frombottom among all GLOBE countries.

However, looking at the difference betweenthe practice of performance orientation and therespective value (Figure 7), we observe thatGreece has the second highest difference after

Portugal. This means that these two countriesare the least satisfied with the level of

performance orientation as it is perceived it ispracticed in organizational culture. Italy hasthe second highest score in the value of

performance orientation (6.11) and the thirdplace in difference between value and

practice.



15/24

75

Table 2: Indices of Organizational Culture



16/24

76

Figure 5: Indices of Organizational CultureAs Is

2. Future OrientationAs Is

Among the five southern Europeancountries, the least future oriented country inthe practice of organizational culture is Greece

(3.93) (Table 2, Figure 5 ). In the range of the

GLOBE countries, 3.70 - 5.57, Greece has thesecond lowest score. Then, comes Italy (4.30),which is 12th from bottom among the GLOBEcountries. Spain (4.57) and Portugal (4.77)stand in the middle, while France is the mostfuture oriented country in the perceivedpractice of organizational culture. France is atthe top (5.07) among the five and also amongthe top 11 GLOBE countries.

Comparing societal and organizationalculture, we observe that the distribution ofscores in future orientation differs

considerably (Figure 2 ).

As Should Be

With regard to the value of futureorientation in organizational culture, Greecehas the highest score (5.86) (Table 2, Figure6), as well as the biggest difference between

perceived practice and value (Figure 7) amongthe five southern European countries. Thisscore places Greece among the top 15 GLOBEcountries. Italy comes second among the fivewith regard to the value (5.85), as well as withregard to the difference between value andpractice of future orientation in organizations(Figure 7). France stands at the other end ofthe spectrum with score 5.34.Also, France hasthe smallest difference between value and

practice among the five countries; since thedifference tends to be close to zero

value,it

suggests that France is satisfied with the levelof practice of future orientation in

organizations.



17/24

77

Figure 6: Indices of Organizational CultureAs Should Be

3.AssertivenessAs Is

The least assertive country in the

perceived practice of organizational culture isFrance (4.57) (Table 2, Figure 5).Furthermore, France is the third least assertive

country among the GLOBE countries (4.77 -2.20). Greece stands at the other end of the

spectrum; it has the lowest score among thefive countries (3.74), which means that it isthe most assertive. This score places the

country among the 16 GLOBE countries with

the lowest scores. Italy (3.81), Spain (3.82)and Portugal (3.93) are in the middle of thespectrum.As a final comment, the practice ofassertiveness in organizational culture isdifferent from the practice of assertiveness inthe respective society (Figure 2).

As Should Be

Greece (4.66) more than any of the otherfour countries would like to be less assertivein organizational culture (Table 2, Figure 6 ).This score places Greece 5~ in the respective

scale of all GLOBE countries (4.92-1.66).Also, for Greece the difference between the&dquo;should be&dquo; value and the &dquo;as is&dquo; is the biggestamong the five countries (Table 2, Figure 7).This means that Greece more than any other

country would like to be less assertive in

organizational culture. Portugal (4.28) and

France (4.23) stand in the middle of thegroup, followed by Italy (3.69) and Spain(3.58). Looking at the differences betweenvalues and practices, we observe that Portugal,although it is the second least assertive

country among the five (Figure 5 ), would liketo be less assertive than it is. On the other

hand, France and Spain would like to be moreassertive than they are. Finally, France has a

negative score between value and practice; butsince it tends to be close to zero, it means that

France is satisfied with the level of

assertiveness in organizational culture.



18/24

78

Figure 7: Difference of Organizational Culture &dquo;Should Be&dquo; - &dquo;As Is&dquo;

4. Institutional CollectivismAs Is

An almost similar pattern is observedwith regard to the perceived practice ofinstitutional collectivism in organizations.France has the highest score (4.96) not onlyamong the five southern European countries,but also among all GLOBE countries (4.96 -2.95) (Table 2, Figure 5 ). Greece (3.70) is lastin institutional collectivism among the five,

and fourth from the bottom of all GLOBEcountries. Portugal (3.85), Italy (3.91), andSpain (4.09) stand between Greece andFrance. However, their score places themcloser to Greece than France.As a matter of

fact, Portugal is 6~ from bottom among theGLOBE countries, Italy 8r from bottom and

Spain 17t&dquo;. It should be mentioned that thepattern distribution of the scores of the fivecountries in institutional collectivism in

organizational culture is almost the same withthe pattern of societal culture (Figure 2 ).

As Should Be

All five countries score relatively high(5.37-5.06) in the value of institutionalcollectivism in organizations with regard toother GLOBE countries (5.69-1.83) (Table 2,Figure 6 ). Italy has the highest score amongthe five (5.37); this score places Italy in theseven top countries among all GLOBE

countries. Greece has the lowest score of the

five (5.06). Portugal (5.28), France (5.26) and

Spain (5.23)stand in the middle.

Lookingat

the differences between values and practices,we observe that, with the exception of France,the countries under consideration presentconsiderable gaps between values and

practices (Table 2, Figure 7 ). In particular,Italy, Portugal, Greece and Spain, in

descending order, seem to think thatinstitutional collectivism should be at higherlevels in their organizations than it is in

practice.

5. Gender EgalitarianismAs IsItaly (2.26) is the most male oriented

country in organizational practice among thefive southern European countries; furthermoreit is the 3rd most male oriented among allGLOBE countries (1.84-4.53) (Table 2, Figure5). Portugal is the least male oriented.

Actually, its score (3.40) places it among theGLOBE countries with an egalitarianorganizational practice with regard to gender;it is the 14~ most egalitarian country inorganizational practice. Spain (2.72), Greece(2.84) and France (3.14) are in the middle

among the five southern European countries,but in the spectrum of the GLOBE countries,

they are rather male oriented. Finally, itshould be mentioned that the patterndistribution of the scores of the five countries

in gender egalitarianism in organizationalculture is almost the same with the pattern ofsocietal culture (Figure 2).



19/24

79

As Should Be

As it was the case in previous paragraph,all five countries score relatively high (5.43-4.58) in the value of gender egalitarianismcompared to other GLOBE countries (5.42-2.95) (Table 2, Figure 6 ). Portugal has thehighest score among the five southern

European countries as well as among allGLOBE countries. France has the lowest score

of the five (4.52). Spain (4.92), Italy (4.76)and Greece (4.63) stand in the middle of the

range. Italy is the country with the biggest gapbetween value and practice of genderegalitarianism (Table 2, Figure 7 ); this meansthat Italy at organizational level is the leastsatisfied country with the level that genderegalitarianism is practiced and that

organizations should be more egalitarian.France presents the smallest gap of the otherfour countries. Spain, Portugal, and Greece in

descending order would like to see moregender egalitarianism in their organizationsthan it is practiced.

6. Humane OrientationAs IsFrance (4.77) is the most humane

oriented country, among the five, and also, the11 th most humane oriented in organizationalpractice among all GLOBE countries (4.98 -3.74) (Table 2, Figure 5 ). Italy (4.11 ), Greece

(4.15), Portugal (4.22) and Spain (4.23)are

considerably less humane oriented.Actually,they hold the 8~, 9~, 10~, and 11th place,respectively, of the least humane orientedcountries in the GLOBE spectrum. The patternof distribution of the scores in humane

orientation in organizational culture isdifferent from the respective pattern in societalculture.

As Should Be

Spain (5.30) more than any of the other

four countries would like to be humaneoriented in organizational culture (Table 2,Figure 6 ). This score places Spain in the 5tplace in the respective scale of all GLOBEcountries (5.54-3.74). Also, for Spain thedifference between the &dquo;should be&dquo; value and

the &dquo;as is&dquo; is the biggest among the fivecountries. This means that Spain more thanany other country would like to be morehumane in organizational culture than it is inpractice. Portugal (5.15) and Italy (5.10) andFrance (4.99) stand in the middle of the group,

followed by Greece (4.78). Looking at thedifferences between values and practices, weobserve that with the exception of France,Italy, Portugal, and Greece, in descendingorder would like to be more humane oriented

in organizational culture than they are inpractice (Table 2, Figure 7 ). For France,

although the difference is positive, as it is inthe other four countries, it is close to zero; thismeans that France is satisfied with regard tothe practice of humane orientation in

organizations.

7. Power DistanceAs Is

Italy (3.54) is the least stratified country,among the five, in organizational culture.France is second with relatively smalldifference (3.58) (Table 2, Figure 5). Thesetwo countries hold the 10~ and 14~ placeamong the least power oriented countries inthe overall spectrum of GLOBE countries

(3.01 - 4.79) (Table 2, Figure 5 ). Portugal(3.91), Spain (3.92), and Greece (4.13) formthe second subgroup among the five countries.With regard to all GLOBE countries, theirscores place them at the 27~, 26~, and 19~place of the most stratified countries (3.01 -4.79).As was the case of humane orientation,the pattern of practice of power stratificationin organizational culture is different from the

respective pattern in societal culture amongthe five countries.

As Should Be

For all five countries power stratification

in organizations is not desirable, at least to the

degree they think it is practiced inorganizations. In particular, for all fivecountries, the difference between the valueand the practice of this index is negative(Table 2, Figure 7). This means that they allwould like to have less stratification than theythink they have. The biggest gap is found inSpain. Spain more that the other four countrieswould like to have less stratification than it

perceives it has. For Italy and France, thedifference is close to zero; this means that theyare satisfied with the degree of practicedstratification in their organizations.

8. Family CollectivismAs IsThe practice of family collectivism in

organizational culture varies considerablyamong the five countries. France has the



20/24

80

highest score of the five (5.16), which also

places it among the six top countries in thepractice of this index of organizational culture(Table 2, Figure 5). Spain comes second withscore 4.97, a score that places theorganizational culture of this country to the16h place of the most family oriented GLOBEcountries (5.52 - 3.86). Italy (4.61), Portugal(4.44), and Greece (4.20) tend to be at theother side of the spectrum. It is worth to bementioned that the pattern of distribution ofthe five countries with regard to familycollectivism in organizational culture is almostthe opposite. That is, France has the highestscore in organizational culture and the lowestin societal culture; Greece has the lowest scorein organizational culture and the highest insocietal culture.

As Should BeIn the scale of the value of family

collectivism in organizations in GLOBEcountries (6.51-3.09), the five southern

European countries stand rather in the middle

(Table 2, Figure 6 ). Spain (5.99) has thehighest score in this value and Greece thelowest (5.70); France (5.88), Italy (5.88) and

Portugal (5 .81 ) stand in the middle among thefive. However, looking at the differencebetween value and perceived practice, weobserve that Greece has the biggest gap (Table2, Figure 7). This means that Greece is theleast satisfied country with the degree ofpractice of family collectivism inorganizations and would like to see more of it,more than any of the rest four countries.

Portugal and Italy have the second and thirdbiggest gaps followed by Spain, while Francehas the smallest gap.

9. UncertaintyAvoidanceAs IsAs it was the case with most of the

indices of organizational practice, France

(4.60) (Table 2, Figure 5 ) in the case ofuncertainty avoidance stands higher than therest of the countries under consideration.

However, Spain, which comes second, is veryclose to France (4.59). This means that thesetwo countries, more than the other three, try toavoid uncertainty in organizational culture.Greece comes third (4.14), followed by Italy(3.87). Portugal is the last in the spectrum ofthe five, but is also the third last among all

GLOBE countries (5.35 - 3.40). Comparing

organizational culture (Figure 5 ) with societalculture (Figure 2), we observe that in bothcases, France has the highest scores. However,the countries with the lowest scores are

different in organizational and societalcultures. Greece has the lowest score in

societal culture and Portugal in organizationalculture. Overall, there is not observed astandard pattern of differences among the fivecountries. However, France stands out in fourof the nine indices with a considerable

difference, and in two more indices with a notso considerable difference from the rest of the

countries.

As Should Be

Spain (4.99) has the highest score withregard to the value of uncertainty avoidance

followed by Greece (4.73) (Table 2, Figure 6).Portugal has the lowest score (3.74); Italy(4.65) and France (4.09) are in between.

However, comparing the practice of certaintyavoidance with the respective value in

organizations, we observe some veryinteresting variations. Spain which has thehighest score in this value (Table 2, Figure 6)has the smallest gap (Figure 7) -almost zero-between value and practice. Therefore, inSpain organizations are almost content withthe level of uncertainty avoidance theypractice. In France, the gap is negative;organizations think they should practice lessuncertainty avoidance than they actually do.Italy on the other hand has the biggest positivedifference followed by Greece and Spain.These three countries, in descending order,would like to see more uncertainty avoidance

practiced in their organizations than it is

actually practiced.

3. INDICES OF LEADERSHIP

The present paper uses the six secondorder indices of leadership coming out of the

GLOBE-project analysis of data of all

participating countries. For the purposes ofthis paper, we present the scores of theseindices for the five southern Europeancountries, as well as the range for all GLOBEcountries. The six indices are: autonomous,

charismatic, humane, self-protective,participative and team oriented.



21/24

81

Table 3: Country Rankings of Leadership

Greece (3.98) is the country with the

highest score in autonomous leaders, followed

by Italy (3.62) and Spain (3.54). Portugal(3.19) has the lowest score and France (3.32)

the second lowest (Table 3). Greece (6.01)also comes first with regard to charismatic

leadership followed by Italy (5.98). France

(4.93) is last. Spain (5.90) and Portugal (5.75)stand in the middle of the spectrum. Followingthe previous pattern, Greece (5.16) gets thehighest score in humane leadership among the

five and France the lowest (3.82). Spain(4.66), Portugal (4.60) and Italy (4.38) standin the middle.

Figure 8: Country Rankings of Leadership

The indices of self-protectiveness andteam orientation follow almost identical

patterns (Table 3, Figure 8). The index ofparticipation differentiates, to some extent,from the previous indices. France (5.90) hasthe highest score followed by Greece (5.81);Spain (5.11) and Italy (5.47) have the secondlowest. Summing up, the observed pattern isthat Greece in five out of the six indices has

the highest scores; France on the other hand infive out of the six indices has the lowest

scores.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The answer to the first questionaddressed in this paper seems to be that ther

are more similarities than differences among



22/24

82

countries in the southern part of the EuropeanUnion that may support clustering them.

A. Societal Culture

With regard to societal culture, as a groupor as subgroups, the five southern Europeancountries show relative similarities in most of

the nine indices of societal culture as it is

perceived it is practiced in these countries.The characteristic of all countries is the highdegree of power distance. It seems thatmiddle managers from the south part of theE.U. agree that the perceived emphasis ofsocietal practices is based on high powerstratification and pride, loyalty andcohesiveness in families and organizations(family collectivism). They also agree that

society wants more equal distribution of

power, since they all value power distancevery low (highest negative score in the gapbetween &dquo;should be&dquo; and &dquo;as is&dquo; (Table 1)).

Assertiveness, uncertainty avoidance,gender egalitarianism and humane orientationare the indices with the most considerable

differences. With regard to assertiveness,Portugal and Greece differentiate considerablyfrom the other three countries. Portugal shows

very low level of assertiveness, while Greeceis placed at the other end of the spectrum withthe highest level of assertiveness. Overall, theresults of the GLOBE study indicate a lowlevel of uncertainty avoidance, even thoughthe countries within the group show

considerable differences. Greece is the

country with the highest bearing ofuncertainty, in practice, while they valueuncertainty avoidance. This is due to the factthat Greeks have lived under a highlyturbulent environment over the last century

(Papalexandris, 1999). France, on the otherhand, shows high uncertainty avoidance but

valuesmore

uncertainty bearing. In general,societal values confirm expectations of the

avoiding uncertainty tradition. In genderegalitarianism, Spain departs considerablyfrom the rest of the countries showing thelowest level of this index of societal culture.

Finally, with regard to humane orientation,Portugal seems to be more humane orientedthan the rest of the countries in the study.Greece is the most individualistic among the

five countries, in terms of societal practices,but on the other hand, Greeks value

collectivism more than any other country of

the group. The results of the present studyconfirm the findings of previous research.Overall, none of the five southern Europeancountries shows a stable pattern of differencesfrom the other four.

In terms of the deontological aspect ofsocietal culture (should be), the five southern

European countries seem to place a more orless similar emphasis on societal values. Thus,reward for performance improvement andexcellence, family collectivism andencouragement of fair, generous, friendly and

caring behaviors, future-oriented behaviorsand collective distribution of resources and

collective action are the most important valuesin all southern countries, even though eachcountry prioritizes them differently.Performance orientation is the first priority of

societal values for all countries, except forFrance, which places more emphasis on thehumane aspects of society.

B. Organizational CultureWhen comparing societal and

organizational culture practices, we notice thatthere are remarkable differences both within

and among countries practices, but there is nodiscemable pattern. Organizational practicesseem to be based on a family culture. It is alsoimportant to note that organizations also value

pride, loyalty and cohesiveness, since it isranked as first and second priority of

organizational values in all southern Europeancountries.

Overall, the organizational culture

comparisons of the nine indices of therespective values among the five countries didnot indicate any standard pattern of differencebetween countries. However, looking at thedifference between values and practices of thenine indices of organizational culture, we

observe that France, in six out of the ninecases, has the smallest difference among the

five countries. This indicates that for the

respective six indices France is the mostsatisfied, among the five southern Europeancountries, with the level of their practice in

organizations. We must be cautious when

interpreting the results from France, since it

participates in the sample with respondentsfrom only one organization from one sector.Previous research findings support thatFrench managers are risk aversive and show

lack of concern for peers (Bigoness andat University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from


23/24

83

Blakely, 1989; Kanungo and Wright, 1983).Here, the results confirm that in organizationalpractices French managers tend to avoid

uncertainty, comparing to the other fourcountries, but they value uncertainty bearing,while they have they highest score in thehumane orientation as it is practices in the

organizations.Gender egalitarianism and performance

orientation seem to be the two most importantissues, for all southern countries, since there isremarkable difference between organizationalpractice and value.

C. LeadershipSouthern European countries present

considerable differences in terms of leadershipattributes. Even though humane culture, bothsocietal and organizational, is valued by all

five countries, it seems that humane leadershipis not a very strong leadership attribute,especially in France, which reported thelowest score from all countries participating inthe GLOBE project. Self-protection is anotherweak leadership attribute, since all fivesouthern European countries score low.

In a recent study by Brodbeck et al(2000) it is supported that clusters ofEuropean countries which share similarcultural values, also share similar leadership

concepts.The

resultsof the

present study,support the hypothesis that there is nosignificant pattern of differences amongsouthern European countries and thus,clustering them may be useful for cross-cultural issues. However, we believe that we

need to examine the relationship betweenculture, societal and organizational, and

leadership profiles in each country, to betterunderstand differences and similarities amongcountries.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

European Union has promoted the

integration among European countries.Toward this objective common policies and

procedures have been determined, affecting allmember states. Understanding similarities anddifferences within E.U. is important tofacilitate cooperation among countries andharmonization in systems and procedures.The five countries under study in this paper,

comprise the south axis of E.U. Despite thegeographical dispersion of these countriesalong the Mediterranean basin, commonorigins of civilization, and religion, as well asa similar stage of economic development areall factors that contribute to view these

countries as culturally convergent. In view of

the enlargement of E.U. toward easterncountries, full understanding of existingmember states, will help better integration ofnewcomers. The GLOBE project offers a

unique opportunity to examine and understandbetter cross-cultural and leadership issues.

In a number of studies, Greece has beenincluded in the Near-East, or Eastern

European cluster (Ronen and Shenkar, 1985;Smith, 1997; Gupta et al, 2002). However,based on the findings of the present study wesupport the Griffeth et al (1980) thesis thatGreece has close proximity to the Latin group.We have compared the five countries alongsocietal and organizational culture dimensionsand leadership attributes and we can infer thatthere is no discemable pattern of differences.There seem to be more similarities in the

societal than the organizational level of

analysis. Thus, future research needs tocombine quantitative with qualitative datafrom organizations in these countries, in orderto arrive at a fuller picture of patterns of

organizational culture.Finally, this paper has been based on

secondary data from the GLOBE database,limiting conclusions to general comparisons.In the future, examination of the raw data will

eventually reveal in more detail, the relations

among the various dimensions of societal and

organizational culture, and help understandelements of effective leadership in thesecountries. This can prove very useful,

especially in case of mergers, acquisitions,joint ventures and economic cooperation in

general. It can also have practical implicationsfor cross cultural management training andintercultural communication.

REFERENCES

Anzizu, J.M. and P. Nuenos (1984), Leadership undersociopolitical change: Business enterprise inSpain. Paper presented at the 75th AnniversaryColloquium on Leadership, Harvard BusinessSchool, Boston.



24/24

84

Aubert, N., B. Ramanantsoa, and R Reitter (1984),Nationalization, managerial power and societalchange:A field study in France 1982-1983. Paperpresented at the 75thAnniversary Colloquium onLeadership, Harvard Business School, Boston.

Ayman, R., M.M. Chemers, and F.E. Fiedler (1995),"The contingency model of leadershipeffectiveness:Its levels of analysis". Leadership

Quarterly 6(2):147-167.Bakacsi, G., S. Takacs,A. Karacsonyi, and V. Imrek(2002), "Eastern European Cluster: tradition andtransition". Paper presented at the website ofGLOBE publication(http://mgmt3.ucalgary.ca/web/globpriv.nsf/index)

Bass, B.M., and B.J.Avolio (1993), "Transformationalleadership:A response to critiques". In Chemers,M.M., and R. Ayman, Leadership theory andresearch: Perspectives and directions, 49-80.

Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Bass, B.M., P.C. Burger, R. Doktor, and G.V. Barrett

(1979),Assessment of managers:An internationalcomparison. Free Press, New York.

Bigoness, W.J. and G.L. Blakely (1989),A croos-national study of managerial values. Paperpresented at the Academy of Management,Washington, D.C.

Brodbeck, F.C, and M. Frese et al (2000), "Culturalvariation of leadership prototypes across 22

European countries". Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 73: 1-29.

Broome, B. (1996), Exploring the Greek mosaic:Aguide to intercultural communication in Greece.Intercultural Press, London.

Cummings, L.L., D.L. Harnett, and O.J. Stevens (1971),"Risk, fate conciliation and trust:An internationalstudy of attitudinal differences among executives".

Academy of Management Journal, 14: 285-304.

Faucheux, C., G. Amado, and A. Laurent (1982),"Organizational development and change".AnnualReview of Psychology, 33: 343-370.

Griffeth, R.W., P.W. Hom,A. Denisi, and W. Kirchner

(1980). "A multivariate, multinational comparisonof managerial attitudes". Paper presented on the

Academy of Management, Detroit.

Gupta, V., P. Hanges, F. Brodbeck, and P. Dorfman(2002). "Clustering of societal cultures".Manuscript, lead article in Journal of WorldBusiness, special issue 37(1): 11-15.

Hampden-Turner, C., and F. Trompenaars (2000),Building cross-cultural competence: How to createwealth from conflicting values. Yale University

Press, New Haven, and London.Hofstede, G., (1980), Cultures consequences:International differences in work related values.

Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. (1993)."Cultural constraints in management theories".

Academy of Management Review, 7(1): 81-94.

House, R.J., P.J. Hanges, and S.A. Ruiz-Quantanilla(1997), "GLOBE: The Global Leadership andOrganizational Behavior Effectiveness researchprogram". Polish Psychological Bulletin, 28: 215-254.

House, R.J., N.S. Wright, and R.N. Aditya (1997),"Cross-cultural research on organizationalleadership:A critical analysis and a proposed

theory".In P.C.

Earlyand M. Erez

(Eds.),New

perspectives in international organizationalpsychology. New Lexington, San Francisco.

House, R.J., P.J. Hanges, S.A. Ruiz-Quantanilla, S.A.Dorfman, P.W. Javidan, M. Dickson, M.W. Gupta,and 159 co-authors (1999).

"

Cultural influences

on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE".In W. Mobley, J. Gessner, and V.Arnold (Eds.),

Advances in global leadership, JAI Press,Stamford, CN, 171-233.

Hunt,J.G., K.B. Boal, and R.L. Sorensen(1990), "Topmanagement leadership: Inside the black box". The

Leadership Quarterly, 1:41-65.Kanungo, R.N. and R. Wright (1983), "A cross-cultural

comparative study of managerial job attitudes".Journal of International Business Studies, 14: 115-129.

Koopman, P.L., D.N. Den Hartog, E. Konrad, et al(2002), "National culture and leadership profiles in

Europe: Some results from the GLOBE study".Paper submitted for the European Journal of Workand Organizational Psychology, Special Issue onOrganizational Culture, Running Title "Cultureand leadership in Europe".

Papalexandris, N. (1999), Greece: From ancient mythsto modern realities. Chapter submitted for thesecond GLOBE anthology.

Papalexandris, N., and D. Bourantas (1993),"Differences in leadership behavior and influence

between public and private organizations inGreece". International Journal of HumanResource Management, 4(4):

Ronen, S., and O. Shenkar (1985). "Clustering countrieson attitudinal dimensions: A review and

synthesis". Academy of Management Review,10(3): 435-454.

Smith, P.B. (1997), "Leadership in Europe: Euro-management or the footprint of history?".European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, 6: 375-386.

Smith, P.B., S. Dugan, and F. Trompenaars (1996),"National culture and the values of organizationalemployees". Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 27(2) 231-263.Triandis, H.C., (1993). "The contingency model in cross-cultural perspective". In Chemers, M.M., and R.

Ayman, Leadership theory and research:Perspectives and directions, 167-188.AcademicPress, San Diego, CA.

Trompenaars, F. (1994), Riding the waves of culture:Understanding culture and diversity in business.Nicholas Brealey, London.

Nikandrou xtra

Documents

Transcript of Nikandrou xtra