in the eye of the beholder

In the Eye of the Beholder:Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBEMansour Javidan, Peter W. Dorfman, Mary Sully de Luque, and Robert J. House*

Executive OverviewGlobal leadership has been identified as a critical success factor for large multinational corporations. Whilethere is much writing on the topic, most seems to be either general advice (i.e., being open minded andrespectful of other cultures) or very specific information about a particular country based on a limited casestudy (do not show the soles of your shoes when seated as a guest in an Arab country). Both kinds ofinformation are certainly useful, but limited from both theoretical and practical viewpoints on how to leadin a foreign country. In this paper, findings from the Global Leadership and Organizational BehaviorEffectiveness (GLOBE) research program are used to provide a sound basis for conceptualizing worldwideleadership differences. We use a hypothetical case of an American executive in charge of four similar teamsin Brazil, France, Egypt, and China to discuss cultural implications for the American executive. Using thehypothetical case involving five different countries allows us to provide in-depth action oriented andcontext specific advice, congruent with GLOBE findings, for effectively interacting with employees fromdifferent cultures. We end the paper with a discussion of the challenges facing global executives and howcorporations can develop useful global leadership capabilities.

Impact ofGlobalization

Almost no American corporation is immunefrom the impact of globalization. The realityfor American corporations is that they must

increasingly cope with diverse cross-cultural em-ployees, customers, suppliers, competitors, andcreditors, a situation well captured by the follow-ing quote.

So I was visiting a businessman in downtown Jakarta theother day and I asked for directions to my next appointment.His exact instructions were: Go to the building with theArmani Emporium upstairs—you know, just above theHard Rock cafe—and then turn right at McDonalds. “I justlooked at him and laughed, “Where am’ I?”

Thomas Friedman, New York Times, July 14, 1997

Notwithstanding Tom Friedman’s astonishmentabout the global world in Jakarta, the fact is thatpeople are not generally aware of the tremendous

impact that national culture has on their visionand interpretation of the world. Because culturecolors nearly every aspect of human behavior, aworking knowledge of culture and its influencescan be useful to executives operating in a multi-cultural business environment. It is a truism bynow that large corporations need executives withglobal mindsets and cross-cultural leadership abil-ities. Foreign sales by multinational corporationshave exceeded $7 trillion and are growing 20percent to 30 percent faster than their sales ofexports.1 But while the importance of such busi-ness grows, 85 percent of Fortune 500 companieshave reported a shortage of global managers withthe necessary skills.2 Some experts have arguedthat most U.S. companies are not positioned toimplement global strategies due to a lack of globalleadership capabilities.3

*Mansour Javidan is professor and director of the Garvin Center for the Cultures and Languages of International Management atThunderbird, The Garvin School of International Management in Arizona. He is on the board of directors of the GLOBE (Global Leadershipand Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) research program. Contact [email protected] W. Dorfman is a full Professor in the Department of Management, New Mexico State University. Contact: [email protected] Sully de Luque is an Assistant Professor of Management and a Research Fellow at Thunderbird, The Garvin School of InternationalManagement. Contact: [email protected] J. House holds the Joseph Frank Bernstein endowed chair of Organizational Studies at the Wharton School of the University ofPennsylvania. Contact: [email protected]

2006 67Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, and House

How can companies best use the available in-formation for executive development and, more-over, what is the validity and value of such infor-mation? U.S. and European executives haveplenty of general advice available to them on howto perform in foreign settings. During the past fewyears much has been written about global leader-ship, including several books.4 Journals are alsogetting into the global action as seen in The Hu-man Resource Management Journal which recentlypublished a special issue on global leadership.5Nevertheless, in a recent review of the literature,Morrison concluded that despite the importanceof global leadership, “relatively little research hasthus far been carried out on global leadershipcharacteristics, competencies, antecedents, anddevelopmental strategies.”6

Advice to global managers needs to be specificenough to help them understand how to act indifferent surroundings. For example, managerswith an overseas assignment are frequently ex-horted to have an open mind and to show respectfor other cultures.7 They may also be told of theimportance of cross-cultural relationship manage-ment and communication. Some will wrestle withthe idea that they need to develop a global per-spective while being responsive to local concerns.8Or they may wonder if they have the “cognitivecomplexity” and psychological maturity to handlelife and work in a foreign setting. And they arelikely to hear or read that they must “walk in theshoes of people from different cultures” in order tobe effective.9 There is nothing wrong with suchadvice, and the scholars and writers who proffer ithave often been pioneers in the field. But it isinsufficient for a manager who is likely to assume,mistakenly, that being open minded in Atlanta,Helsinki, and Beijing will be perceived identi-cally, or that walking in someone else’s shoes willfeel the same in Houston, Jakarta, and Madrid.Because of the lack of scientifically compiled in-formation, businesspeople have not had suffi-ciently detailed and context-specific suggestionsabout how to handle these cross-cultural chal-lenges. This is a particular problem for those inleadership positions.

Although there are universal aspects of leader-ship, information about which will be presented

shortly, people in different countries do in facthave different criteria for assessing their leaders.10

The issue for the American manager is whetherthe attributes that made him or her successful as aleader in the United States will also lead to suc-cess overseas, be of no value or, worst of all, causeharm in the foreign operation. Using the findingsfrom an extensive research effort known as theGlobal Leadership and Organizational BehaviorEffectiveness (GLOBE) project, this article pro-vides a few answers to the questions about theuniversal and culture specific aspects of leader-ship. We will present specific information aboutkey cultural differences among nations and con-nect the “dots” on how these differences influenceleadership. This information should help a typicalglobal executive better understand the leadershipchallenges s/he faces while managing operationsoutside the United States. It will also providesuggestions on how to more effectively cope withsuch challenges.

To make the GLOBE findings come alive, wewill follow a hypothetical American executivewho has been given two years to lead a projectbased in four different countries: Brazil, France,Egypt, and China. This hypothetical project in-volves developing a somewhat similar product forthe four different markets. The project team ineach country is tasked with the marketing of anew technology in the telecommunications indus-try. The executive will work with local employeesin each location. Success will be determined bytwo criteria: the executive’s ability to produceresults and to show effective leadership in differ-ent cultures and settings.

The four countries represent different conti-nents and very diverse cultures. Brazil is the mostpopulous and economically important SouthAmerican country. France is the largest, mostpopulous, and most economically developed LatinEuropean country. Egypt is the largest and mostpopulous Arab country. China is the fast growinggiant economy with unprecedented growth in itseconomic and diplomatic power in the world. Wechose these countries to provide context specificanalysis leading to general recommendations forglobal executives. Our choice of countries wasguided by our efforts to cover a wide range of

68 FebruaryAcademy of Management Perspectives

cultures. Before turning to our hypothetical sce-nario, we will examine common cultural dimen-sions that characterize nations and discuss whythese dimensions are important for the develop-ment of global leaders.

CommonCulturalDimensions

To be open minded and to understand the cul-tures of the different countries, managers needto be able to compare their own cultures with

those of other countries. After a review of theavailable literature, especially the work of Hofst-ede, Trompenaars, and Kluckhohn and Strodt-beck,11 GLOBE conceptualized and developedmeasures of nine cultural dimensions. These areaspects of a country’s culture that distinguish onesociety from another and have important mana-gerial implications. While a few of these dimen-sions are similar to the work of other researchers,the manner in which we conceptualized and op-erationalized them was different.12 We reconcep-tualized a few existing dimensions and developeda few new dimensions. In all cases, the scalesdesigned to capture and measure these culturaldimensions passed very rigorous psychometric tests.A brief description of each cultural dimension isprovided below along with the basic research de-sign of GLOBE. Further details can be found onGLOBE’s website, http://www.thunderbird.edu/wwwfiles/ms/globe/.

It might be noted that the GLOBE Project hasbeen called “the most ambitious study of globalleadership.”13 Our world-wide team of scholarsproposed and validated an integrated theory of therelationship between culture and societal, organi-zational, and leadership effectiveness. The 170researchers worked together for ten years collect-ing and analyzing data on cultural values andpractices and leadership attributes from over17,000 managers in 62 societal cultures. The par-ticipating managers were employed in telecommu-nications, food, and banking industries. As oneoutput from the project, the 62 cultures wereranked with respect to nine dimensions of theircultures. We studied the effects of these dimen-sions on expectations of leaders, as well as onorganizational practices in each society. The 62societal cultures were also grouped into a more

parsimonious set of ten culture clusters (list pro-vided in the next section). GLOBE studies cul-tures in terms of their cultural practices (the waysthings are) and their cultural values (the waythings should be). The nine cultural attributes(hereafter called culture dimensions) are:

Performance Orientation. The degree to which acollective encourages and rewards (and should encour-age and reward) group members for performance im-provement and excellence. In countries like the U.S.and Singapore that score high on this cultural practice,businesses are likely to emphasize training and devel-opment; in countries that score low, such as Russia andGreece, family and background count for more.

Assertiveness. The degree to which individualsare (and should be) assertive, confrontational, andaggressive in their relationships with others. People inhighly assertive countries such as the United Statesand Austria tend to have can-do attitudes and enjoycompetition in business; those in less assertive coun-tries such as Sweden and New Zealand prefer harmonyin relationships and emphasize loyalty and solidarity.

Future Orientation. The extent to which individ-uals engage (and should engage) in future-orientedbehaviors such as delaying gratification, planning, andinvesting in the future. Organizations in countries withhigh future oriented practices like Singapore and Swit-zerland tend to have longer term horizons and moresystematic planning processes, but they tend to beaverse to risk taking and opportunistic decision mak-ing. In contrast, corporations in the least future ori-ented countries like Russia and Argentina tend to beless systematic and more opportunistic in their actions.

Humane Orientation. The degree to which a col-lective encourages and rewards ( and should encourageand reward) individuals for being fair, altruistic, gen-erous, caring, and kind to others. Countries like Egyptand Malaysia rank very high on this cultural practiceand countries like France and Germany rank low.

Institutional Collectivism. The degree to whichorganizational and societal institutional practices en-courage and reward (and should encourage and re-ward) collective distribution of resources and collec-tive action. Organizations in collectivistic countrieslike Singapore and Sweden tend to emphasize groupperformance and rewards, whereas those in the moreindividualistic countries like Greece and Brazil tend toemphasize individual achievement and rewards.


In-Group Collectivism. The degree to which in-dividuals express (and should express) pride, loyalty,and cohesiveness in their organizations or families.Societies like Egypt and Russia take pride in theirfamilies and also take pride in the organizations thatemploy them.

Gender Egalitarianism. The degree to which a col-lective minimizes (and should minimize) gender in-equality. Not surprisingly, European countries gener-ally had the highest scores on gender egalitarianismpractices. Egypt and South Korea were among the mostmale dominated societies in GLOBE. Organizationsoperating in gender egalitarian societies tend to en-courage tolerance for diversity of ideas and individuals.

Power Distance. The degree to which members ofa collective expect (and should expect) power to bedistributed equally. A high power distance score re-flects unequal power distribution in a society. Coun-tries that scored high on this cultural practice are morestratified economically, socially, and politically; thosein positions of authority expect, and receive, obedi-ence. Firms in high power distance countries like Thai-land, Brazil, and France tend to have hierarchicaldecision making processes with limited one-way par-ticipation and communication.

Uncertainty Avoidance. The extent to which asociety, organization, or group relies (and should rely)on social norms, rules, and procedures to alleviateunpredictability of future events. The greater the de-sire to avoid uncertainty, the more people seek order-liness, consistency, structure, formal procedures andlaws to cover situations in their daily lives. Organiza-tions in high uncertainty avoidance countries like Sin-gapore and Switzerland tend to establish elaborateprocesses and procedures and prefer formal detailedstrategies. In contrast, firms in low uncertainty avoid-ance countries like Russia and Greece tend to prefersimple processes and broadly stated strategies. They arealso opportunistic and enjoy risk taking.

Regional ClusteringofGLOBENations

GLOBE was able to empirically verify ten cul-ture clusters from the 62-culture sample.These culture clusters were identified as: Latin

America, Anglo, Latin Europe (e.g., Italy), NordicEurope, Germanic Europe, Confucian Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East, Southern Asia, andEastern Europe. Each culture cluster differs with

respect to the nine culture dimensions (e.g., per-formance orientation). Table 1 shows a summaryof how the clusters compare in terms of theirscores on cultural practices. The clusters that arerelevant to this paper are in bold. For instance,clusters scoring highest in performance orienta-tion were Confucian Asia, Germanic Europe andAnglo (U.S. and U.K. among other English-speaking countries). Clusters scoring lowest inperformance orientation were Latin America andEastern Europe. The Appendix shows the actualcountry scores for the six clusters in this paper.

ManagingandLeading inDifferent Countries

Given the differences found in cultures aroundthe globe, what does an effective Americanmanager need to do differently in different

countries? Everything, nothing, or only certainthings? From a leadership perspective we can askwhether the same attributes that lead to successfulleadership in the U.S. lead to success in othercountries. Or are they irrelevant or, even worse,dysfunctional? In the following sections, we willanswer these questions. We will examine somesimilarities and differences among cultures regard-ing management and leadership practices. Wethen assert that many of the leadership differencesfound among cultures stem from implicit leader-ship beliefs held by members of different nations.

Expatriate managers working in multinationalcompanies hardly need to be reminded of the widevariety of management practices found around theworld. Laurent, and more recently Trompenaarsand Briscoe and Shuler,14 document the astonish-ing diversity of organizational practices world-wide, many of which are acceptable and consid-ered effective in one country but ineffective inanother country. For instance, supervisors are ex-pected to have precise answers to subordinates’questions in Japan, but less so in the UnitedStates. As another example, the effectiveness ofworking alone or in a group is perceived verydifferently around the world; this would certainlyinfluence the quality, aptitude, and fair evaluationof virtual teams found in multinational organiza-tions.15 An inescapable conclusion is that accept-able management practices found in one countryare hardly guaranteed to work in a different coun-


Table1Cultural Clusters ClassifiedonSocietal CulturePractices (As Is) Scores

Cultural Dimension High-Score Clusters Mid-Score Clusters Low-Score Clusters Cluster-Average Range

Performance Orientation Confucian Asia Southern Asia Latin America 3.73–4.58

Germanic Europe Sub-Saharan Africa Eastern Europe

Anglo Latin Europe

Nordic Europe

Middle East

Assertiveness Germanic Europe Sub-Saharan Africa Nordic Europe 3.66–4.55

Eastern Europe Latin America

Anglo

Middle East

Confucian Asia

Latin Europe

Southern Asia

Future Orientation Germanic Europe Confucian Asia Middle East 3.38–4.40

Nordic Europe Anglo Latin America

Southern Asia Eastern Europe

Sub-Saharan Africa

Latin Europe

Humane Orientation Southern Asia Middle East Latin Europe 3.55–4.71

Sub-Saharan Africa Anglo Germanic Europe

Nordic Europe

Latin America

Confucian Asia

Eastern Europe

Institutional Collectivism Nordic Europe Anglo Germanic Europe 3.86–4.88

Confucian Asia Southern Asia Latin Europe

Sub-Saharan Africa Latin America

Middle East

Eastern Europe

In-Group Collectivism Southern Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Anglo 3.75–5.87

Middle East Latin Europe Germanic Europe

Eastern Europe Nordic Europe

Latin America

Confucian Asia

Gender Egalitarianism Eastern Europe Latin America Middle East 2.95–3.84

Nordic Europe Anglo

Latin Europe

Sub-Saharan Africa

Southern Asia

Confucian Asia

Germanic Europe

Power Distance Southern Asia Nordic Europe 4.54–5.39

Latin America

Eastern Europe

Sub-Saharan Africa

Middle East

Latin Europe

Confucian Asia

Anglo

Germanic Europe

Uncertainty Avoidance Nordic Europe Confucian Asia Middle East 3.56–5.19

Germanic Europe Anglo Latin America

Sub-Saharan Africa Eastern Europe

Latin Europe

Southern Asia

NOTE: Means of high-score clusters are significantly higher (p � 0.05) than the rest, means of low-score clusters are significantly lower(p � 0.05) than the rest, and means of mid-score clusters are not significantly different from the rest (p � 0.05).


try. Titus Lokananta, for example, is an Indone-sian Cantonese holding a German passport, man-aging a Mexican multinational corporationproducing Gummy Bears in the Czech Republic.16

What management style will he be most comfort-able with, and will it be successful with Czechworkers and Mexican CEOs? How does he effec-tively manage if a conflict evolves between man-aging his workers and satisfying his supervisors?

Should we, however, conclude that culturaldifferences are so vast that common managementpractices among countries are the exceptionrather than the rule and will ever remain so? Notnecessarily. Companies are forced to share infor-mation, resources, and training in a global econ-omy. The best business schools educate managersfrom all over the world in the latest managementtechniques. Using academic jargon, the issue ofcommon versus unique business and managementpractices is framed using contrasting perspectivesembodied in the terms cultural universals versuscultural specifics. The former are thought to befound from the process of cultural convergencewhereas the latter from maintaining cultural di-vergence. Perhaps not surprisingly, empirical re-search supports both views. For example, in theirevent management leadership research programSmith and Peterson found both commonalitiesand differences across cultures in the manner bywhich managers handled relatively routine eventsin their work.17 All managers preferred to rely ontheir own experience and training if appointing anew subordinate, relative to other influences suchas consultation with others or using formal rulesand procedures. However, there were major dif-ferences in countries in the degree to which man-agers used formal company rules and procedures incontrast to more informal networks, and thesedifferences covary with national cultural values.18

As another example, Hazucha and colleagues19

found a good deal of similarity among Europeancountries regarding the importance of core man-agement competencies for a Euromanager. Yetthere were significant differences among countriesin the perceived attainment of these skills. Javi-dan and Carl have recently shown important sim-ilarities and differences among Canadian, Taiwan-

ese, and Iranian managers in terms of theirleadership styles.20

Should we also expect that leadership pro-cesses, like management practices, are similarlyinfluenced by culture? The answer is yes; substan-tial empirical evidence indicates that leader at-tributes, behavior, status, and influence vary con-siderably as a result of culturally unique forces inthe countries or regions in which the leaders func-tion.21 But, as the colloquial saying goes “the devilis in the details,” and current cross-cultural theoryis inadequate to clarify and expand on the diversecultural universals and cultural specifics eluci-dated in cross-cultural research. Some researcherssubscribe to the philosophy that the primary im-pact of culture depends on the level of analysisused in the research program. That is, some viewthe basic functions of leadership as having univer-sal importance and applicability, but the specificways in which leadership functions are enacted arestrongly affected by cultural variation.22 Otherresearchers, including the contributors to this ar-ticle, question this basic assumption, subscribingmore to the viewpoint that cultural specifics arereal and woe to the leader who ignores them.

DoRequired LeadershipQualitiesDifferAmongNations?

It has been pointed out that managerial leader-ship differences (and similarities) among nationsmay be the result of the citizens’ implicit as-

sumptions regarding requisite leadership quali-ties.23 According to implicit leadership theory(ILT), individuals hold a set of beliefs about thekinds of attributes, personality characteristics,skills, and behaviors that contribute to or impedeoutstanding leadership. These belief systems, var-iously referred to as prototypes, cognitive catego-ries, mental models, schemas, and stereotypes inthe broader social cognitive literature, are as-sumed to affect the extent to which an individualaccepts and responds to others as leaders.24

GLOBE extended ILT to the cultural level ofanalysis by arguing that the structure and contentof these belief systems will be shared among indi-viduals in common cultures. We refer to thisshared cultural level analog of individual implicit


leadership theory (ILT) as culturally endorsed im-plicit leadership theory (CLT). GLOBE empiricallyidentified universally perceived leadership at-tributes that are contributors to or inhibitors ofoutstanding leadership. Project GLOBE’s leader-ship questionnaire items consisted of 112 behav-ioral and attribute descriptors (e.g., “intelligent”)that were hypothesized to either facilitate or im-pede outstanding leadership. Accompanying eachitem was a short phrase designed to help interpretthe item. Items were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale that ranged from a low of 1 (this be-havior or characteristic greatly inhibits a personfrom being an outstanding leader) to a high of 7(this behavior or characteristic contributes greatlyto a person being an outstanding leader). ProjectGLOBE also empirically reduced the huge numberof leadership attributes into a much more under-standable, comprehensive grouping of 21 primaryand then 6 global leadership dimensions. The 6global leadership dimensions differentiate culturalprofiles of desired leadership qualities, hereafterreferred to as a CLT profile. Convincing evidencefrom GLOBE research showed that people withincultural groups agree in their beliefs about leader-ship; these beliefs are represented by a set of CLTleadership profiles developed for each national cul-ture and cluster of cultures. For detailed descrip-tions of the statistical processes used to form the21 primary and 6 global leadership dimensionsand development of CLT profiles see House etal.25 Using the six country scenarios, in the lasthalf of this paper we will show the range of lead-ership responses that should be effective in eachcultural setting. The six dimensions of the CLTleadership profiles are:

1. Charismatic/Value-Based. A broadly definedleadership dimension that reflects the ability toinspire, to motivate, and to expect high perfor-mance outcomes from others on the basis offirmly held core beliefs. Charismatic/value-based leadership is generally reported to con-tribute to outstanding leadership. The highestreported score is in the Anglo cluster (6.05);the lowest score in the Middle East cluster(5.35 out of a 7-point scale).

2. Team-Oriented. A leadership dimension that

emphasizes effective team building and imple-mentation of a common purpose or goal amongteam members. Team-oriented leadership isgenerally reported to contribute to outstandingleadership (Highest score in Latin Americancluster (5.96); lowest score in Middle East clus-ter (5.47)).

3. Participative. A leadership dimension that re-flects the degree to which managers involveothers in making and implementing decisions.Participative leadership is generally reported tocontribute to outstanding leadership, althoughthere are meaningful differences among coun-tries and clusters. (Highest score in GermanicEurope cluster (5.86); lowest score in MiddleEast cluster (4.97)).

4. Humane-Oriented. A leadership dimensionthat reflects supportive and considerate leader-ship but also includes compassion and gener-osity. Humane-oriented leadership is reportedto be almost neutral in some societies and tomoderately contribute to outstanding leader-ship in others. (Highest score in Southern Asiacluster (5.38); lowest score in Nordic Europecluster (4.42)).

5. Autonomous. This newly defined leadershipdimension, which has not previously appearedin the literature, refers to independent andindividualistic leadership. Autonomous leader-ship is reported to range from impeding out-standing leadership to slightly facilitating out-standing leadership. (Highest score in EasternEurope cluster (4.20); lowest score in LatinAmerica cluster (3.51)).

6. Self-Protective. From a Western perspective,this newly defined leadership dimension fo-cuses on ensuring the safety and security of theindividual. It is self-centered and face saving inits approach. Self-protective leadership is gen-erally reported to impede outstanding leader-ship. (Highest score in Southern Asia cluster(3.83); lowest in Nordic Europe (2.72)).

Table 2 presents CLT scores for all 10 clusters.Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to de-termine if the cultures and clusters differed withrespect to their CLT leadership profiles. Resultsindicate that cultures (i.e., 62 societal cultures)


and clusters (i.e., 10 groups consisting of the 62societal cultures) differed with respect to all sixCLT leadership dimensions (p � .01).

Table 3 presents summary comparisons amongculture clusters to indicate which clusters are mostlikely to endorse or refute the importance of the 6CLT leadership dimensions. Tables 2 and 3 maybe used in combination to provide an overall viewof how the different cultural clusters compare onthe six culturally implicit leadership dimensions.26

Cross-cultural Leadership IsNotOnlyAboutDifferences

The global and cross-cultural leadership literatureis almost exclusively focused on cultural differ-ences and their implications for managers. Thereis a basic assumption that leaders operating indifferent countries will be facing drastically differ-ent challenges and requirements. GLOBE surveysshow that while different countries do have diver-

Table2CLT Scores for Societal Clusters

Societal Cluster

CLT DimensionsCharismatic/Value-Based

TeamOriented Participative

HumaneOriented Autonomous Self-Protective

Eastern Europe 5.74 5.88 5.08 4.76 4.20 3.67Latin America 5.99 5.96 5.42 4.85 3.51 3.62Latin Europe 5.78 5.73 5.37 4.45 3.66 3.19Confucian Asia 5.63 5.61 4.99 5.04 4.04 3.72Nordic Europe 5.93 5.77 5.75 4.42 3.94 2.72Anglo 6.05 5.74 5.73 5.08 3.82 3.08Sub-Sahara Africa 5.79 5.70 5.31 5.16 3.63 3.55Southern Asia 5.97 5.86 5.06 5.38 3.99 3.83Germanic Europe 5.93 5.62 5.86 4.71 4.16 3.03Middle East 5.35 5.47 4.97 4.80 3.68 3.79NOTE: CLT leadership scores are absolute scores aggregated to the cluster level.

Table3Summaryof Comparisons for CLT LeadershipDimensions

Societal Cluster

CLT Leadership DimensionsCharismatic/Value-Based Team-Oriented Participative

HumaneOriented Autonomous Self-Protective

Eastern Europe M M L M H/H HLatin America H H M M L M/HLatin Europe M/H M M L L MConfucian Asia M M/H L M/H M HNordic Europe H M H L M LAnglo H M H H M LSub-Sahara Africa M M M H L MSouthern Asia H M/H L H M H/HGermanic Europe H M/L H M H/H LMiddle East L L L M M H/HNOTE: For letters separated by a “/”, the first letter indicates rank with respect to the absolute score, second letter with respect to a

response bias corrected score.H � high rank; M � medium rank; L � low rank.H or L (bold) indicates Highest or Lowest cluster score for a specific CLT dimension.


gent views on many aspects of leadership effec-tiveness, they also have convergent views on someother aspects. From the larger group of leaderbehaviors, we found 22 attributes that were uni-versally deemed to be desirable. Being honest,decisive, motivational, and dynamic are examplesof attributes that are believed to facilitate out-standing leadership in all GLOBE countries. Fur-thermore, we found eight leadership attributesthat are universally undesirable. Leaders who areloners, irritable, egocentric, and ruthless aredeemed ineffective in all GLOBE countries. Table4 below shows a few examples of universally de-sirable, universally undesirable, and culturallycontingent leadership attributes.

Identifying universally desirable and undesir-able leadership attributes is a critical step in effec-tive cross-cultural leadership. It shows managersthat while there are differences among countries,there are also similarities. Such similarities givesome degree of comfort and ease to leaders andcan be used by them as a foundation to build on.Of course, there may still be differences in howleaders enact such attributes. For example, behav-iors that embody dynamic leadership in Chinamay be different from those that denote the sameattribute in the U.S. Current research currently

under way by GLOBE team members is focused onthis issue.

UnderstandingCulturally Contingent Leadership

In this section, we will focus on those attributes ofleadership that were found to be culturally con-tingent. These are attributes that may work effec-tively in one culture but cause harm in others. Toprovide an action oriented analysis, we exploredifferences in effective leadership attributesamong the four countries in our hypothetical sce-nario and discuss specific implications of thesedifferences for our hypothetical American man-ager. Admittedly, we are being ethnocentric usingthe American manager as the focal person whofinds himself/herself managing in a foreign cul-ture. Obviously, expatriate managers are foundfrom virtually all industrialized nations; however,there are over 200,000 U.S. expatriates world-wide.27 Nevertheless, expatriates from non-Amer-ican and non-Western countries should be able toidentify with cultural differences between theirculture and that of the comparison countries.GLOBE cultural data for the five comparisoncountries can be found in Table 1 and the Ap-pendix. Please note the United States, Brazil, andFrance are part of the Anglo, Latin American, andLatin European, clusters, respectively. Egypt, andChina part of the Middle East, and ConfucianAsia clusters respectively.

Each section below begins with a summary ofhow each culture cluster fares with respect to theCLT profile. We then show how the countries ofinterest in this paper compare on specific leader-ship attributes that are culturally contingent.Next, we examine in detail what these differencesmean and what they imply for the hypotheticalAmerican executive.

Brazil

Brazil is part of GLOBE’s Latin American cluster.Viewing Tables 2 and 3, it is apparent that theCLT leadership dimensions contributing the mostto outstanding leadership in this country clusterinclude Charismatic/Value-Based and Team Ori-ented leadership, followed by the Participativeand Humane Oriented CLT dimensions. Auton-omous and Self-Protective leadership are viewed

Table4Cultural Viewsof Leadership Effectiveness

The following is a partial list of leadership attributes with the correspondingprimary leadership dimension in parentheses.

Universal Facilitators of Leadership Effectiveness● Being trustworthy, just, and honest (integrity)● Having foresight and planning ahead (charismatic–visionary)● Being positive, dynamic, encouraging, motivating, and building confidence

(charismatic–inspirational)● Being communicative, informed, a coordinator, and team integrator (team

builder)Universal Impediments to Leadership Effectiveness● Being a loner and asocial (self-protective)● Being non-cooperative and irritable (malevolent)● Being dictatorial (autocratic)Culturally Contingent Endorsement of Leader Attributes● Being individualistic (autonomous)● Being status conscious (status conscious)● Being a risk taker (charismatic III: self-sacrificial)


as slightly negative. Table 3 shows that the LatinAmerica cluster receives the highest rank for theTeam Oriented dimension, among the highestranks for Charismatic/Value-Based leadership,and ranks lowest with respect to the AutonomousCLT leadership dimension. It occupies the middleranks for the remaining CLT dimensions.

Figure 1 below contrasts the U.S. and Brazil onthe culturally contingent leadership items. Per-haps due to their high in-group collectivism, Bra-zilian managers intensely dislike the leaders whoare individualistic, autonomous, and independent.A Brazilian sales manager working in the petro-chemical industry recently reflected this suggest-ing, “We do not prefer leaders who take self-governing decisions and act alone withoutengaging the group. That’s part of who we are.”While American managers also frown upon theseattributes, they do not regard them as negativelyas do the Brazilians. An American manager needsto be more cognizant to make sure that his/heractions and decisions are not interpreted as indi-vidualistic. He/she needs to ensure that the groupor unit feels involved in decision making and thatothers’ views and reactions are taken into consid-eration.

On the other hand, Brazilian managers expecttheir leaders to be class- and status-conscious.They want leaders to be aware of status boundariesand to respect them. A manager in a large com-

pany in Brazil noted that blue and white-collarworkers from the same company rarely socializetogether within and outside of work. They expectleaders to treat people according to their socialand organizational levels. Perhaps due to theirhigh power distance culture, Brazilians believethat people in positions of authority deserve to betreated with respect and deference. They prefer aformal relationship between the leader and fol-lowers. The same petrochemical sales managertold how Brazilian subordinates tend to stay out-side of the perceived boundaries of their leadersand respect their own decision-making limita-tions. He added, “It’s clear who has the mostpower in the work environment in Brazil, but inAmerica this is not always the case.” Americanstend to frown on status and class consciousness.Respect, to an American manager, does not nec-essarily mean deference but mutual respect andopen dialogue. Americans tend to see formality asan obstacle to open debate. But what seems anopen debate to an American manager may beviewed as aggressive and unacceptable behavioron the part of the subordinates by a Brazilianmanager. So, while Brazilians do not like individ-ualistic leaders, a typical American managershould be cautious using an open style of decisionmaking. While it may be a good idea in an Amer-ican organization to directly contact anyone withthe right information regardless of their level,such behavior may be seen as a sign of disrespectto those in formal positions in a Brazilian organi-zation.

Another important difference is that Americanmanagers prefer a less cautious approach and agreater degree of risk taking. In contrast, Brazilianmanagers prefer a somewhat more cautious andrisk averse approach. This is consistent with thefinding that U.S. culture is more tolerant of un-certainty than is Brazilian culture. Also, perhapsdue to stronger assertiveness and performance ori-entation in American culture, U.S. managersseem to favor a speedier decision making processand a higher level of action orientation. Brazilianson the other hand, may be more sensitive to groupharmony and risk avoidance. A Brazilian accountmanager leading a four-company consortiumworking on a $200 million U.S. contract with the

Figure1USAvs.Brazil


Federal Department of Roads in Brazil realized thiswhen a conflict occurred among the consortiumplayers. He noted,

Since our contract was a long-term relationship, we couldnot focus only on the particular moment. I had to find away to motivate and to build a trusting environment. Theonly way to do so was to promote several meetings with allthe consortium members trying to find a way to put all themembers back together. By doing this, I assumed this wasthe best action to produce results, no matter how difficultit was or how much time it required.

Still another difference relates to the strong in-group collectivism dimension of the Brazilian cul-ture. They expect their leaders to avoid conflictwithin the group to protect its harmony, but at thesame time they like their leaders to induce conflictwith those outside the group. A particularly suc-cessful executive working in Brazil told how Bra-zilians take pride in membership in small groups,especially families. In business, he said that peoplewho are members of the same group expect specialtreatment (such as price discounts, exclusivity ofcontracts, etc.). In fact, without these group affil-iations, attracting and conducting business can bedifficult. American managers seem to dislike boththese attributes, perhaps due to their stronger per-formance orientation culture. Avoiding internalconflict, simply to maintain group harmony, evenat the expense of results, is not a positive attributeto Americans. The typical American view of har-mony is reflected in the following quote from thepopular book Execution by Bossidy and Charan:28

Indeed, harmony—sought out by many leaders who wishto offend no one—can be the enemy of truth. It cansquelch critical thinking and drive decision making under-ground. When harmony prevails, here’s how things oftenget settled: after the key players leave the session, theyquietly veto decisions they didn’t like but didn’t debate onthe spot. A good motto to observe is: “Truth over har-mony.”

Last, but not least, an important and counterintuitive finding is that American respondentshave a much stronger desire for compassion intheir leaders. They want their leaders to be em-pathetic and merciful. The Brazilian respondents,on the other hand, are quite neutral about thisattribute. While this seems to go against the con-ventional stereotypes of Americans and Brazilians,

it seems to be rooted in the fact that Brazil isreported to be a less humane culture than is theU.S. Confirming this finding, one manager statedthat this reflects the expectation that peopleshould solve their own problems, relying on helpfrom their family or groups.

When inBrazil . . .

Here are a few specific ideas on what our hypo-thetical American manager needs to do when hestarts working with his Brazilian team:

Very early on, he needs to spend time meetingwith the key executives in the organization, eventhose who may not be directly relevant to hisproject. This is an important step because of highpower distance and in-group collectivism in thatculture. Being a foreigner and a newcomer, it iscrucial to show respect to those in positions ofpower and to start the process of building personalties and moving into their in-groups. Further, thisstep helps make sure that the other stakeholdersdo not view the manager’s team as being insular,something that is likely to happen in high in-group cultures.

While it is important to work with the individ-ual members of the team, it is also critical to spendas much time as possible with the team as a whole,both in formal work related occasions and in in-formal settings. The families of the team membersshould also be invited to get together on manyoccasions. They are an important part of the re-lationships among team members. The high in-group culture facilitates the group working closelytogether, and the Brazilians’ dislike for indepen-dent and individualistic leaders means that theleader is expected to treat the team and their closefamilies as an extended family, spending muchtime together.

In developing a business strategy for the team’sproduct, it is important to keep in mind Brazil’slow scores on performance orientation and futureorientation and its high score on power distance.The process of strategy development needs to al-low for input from the employees, but the managerneeds to be patient and to make an effort toencourage and facilitate the employees’ participa-tion. The Brazilian employees will not be as forth-coming with their ideas and input as typical


American employees are. At the same time, themanager will need to make the final decision andcommunicate it. Brazilian employees are not usedto strong participation in decision making, butthey also do not like leaders who simply dictatethings to them. The strategy should not be seen astoo risky or ambitious and should not have a longtime horizon. Instead, it should consist of explicitshort term milestones. It should also focus ondelivering short term results to enhance employeeunderstanding and support.

Due to the country’s low score on institutionalcollectivism, employees will not be moved muchby grand corporate strategies and visions. Instead,they would be more motivated by their individualand team interests, so the reward system should bebased on both individual and team performance,although the team component should have thegreater emphasis. The manager should also not besurprised if there are not many clear rules or pro-cesses and if the ones in existence are not followedvery seriously. These are attributes of a society likeBrazil with low levels of rules orientation. Instead,the manager needs to make it very clear early onwhich rules and procedures are expected to befollowed and why.

France

France is part of the Latin Europe GLOBE countrycluster. The most desirable CLT dimensions inthis cluster are Charismatic/Value-Based andTeam Oriented leadership. Participative leader-ship is viewed positively but is not as important asthe first two dimensions. Humane Oriented lead-ership is viewed as slightly positive, whereas Au-tonomous leadership is viewed as slightly negativeand Self-Protective is viewed negatively. Table 3shows that the Latin Europe cluster is Medium/High for Charismatic/Value-Based leadership. It isin the middle rank for the remaining CLT lead-ership dimensions except the Humane Orientedand Autonomous dimensions where it ranksamong the lowest scoring clusters.

Figure 2 below shows the contrast betweenFrench and American leadership on culturallycontingent leadership attributes. The French cul-ture is similar to the U.S on one cultural dimen-sion, in that they both practice moderate levels of

uncertainty avoidance. Although both culturesutilize predictable laws and procedures in businessand society, characteristic of uncertainty avoid-ance cultures, France is much better known for itsstrong labor unions and bureaucratic formality.There are, however, significant differences be-tween the French and American respondents onother cultural dimensions and leadership at-tributes. Both groups seem to like sincere andenthusiastic leaders who impart positive energy totheir group, although American managers havemuch stronger preferences for these attributes.This may be a reflection of the finding that Frenchculture is not as performance oriented as U.S.culture.

Besides their dislike for avoidance of conflictwithin the group (as discussed earlier) Americanmanagers have a clear dislike for cunning anddeceitful leaders. The French, on the other hand,are neutral about both attributes. While Ameri-cans see these attributes as dysfunctional, theFrench see them as a part of the job that goes withthe position of leadership. Compared to the U.S.,in-group collectivism is more noted in Frenchsocieties in the form of “favoritism” given to peo-ple from similar education, family, social, andeven regional backgrounds. This is shown in thegeneral tension that is perceived to exist betweenlabor and management, as well and employees andclients.29

Figure2USAvs. France


American managers seem to have a strong pref-erence for compassionate and sensitive leaderswho show empathy towards others. In contrast,French managers seem to have a distinctly nega-tive view towards both these attributes. The CEOof an international audit firm expressed this in aquality audit of a French hotel stating, “The staffhad an inability to apologize and empathize. Ithink that could be construed as typically Euro-pean, and especially French.”30 These same be-haviors would be expected from their leaders.Such a large contrast can perhaps be explained bythe fact that the French culture is much lesshumane oriented and much more power oriented.To French managers, people in positions of lead-ership should not be expected to be sensitive orempathetic, or to worry about another’s statusbecause such attributes would weaken a leader’sresolve and impede decision making. Leadersshould make decisions without being distracted byother considerations. Indeed, a very successful cor-porate executive in France noted that a leadershould be able to handle change that affects theenvironment, but at the same time not change hisor her characteristics, traits, and skills that put theleader in that position. In other words, theyshould allow no distractions.

In contrast to Americans, French respondentshave a negative view of leaders who are self-sacrificial and self-effacing. They do not like lead-ers who are modest about their role and forgo theirown self-interest. The French executive added, “Aleader must be clear about his role and vision. If aleader puts himself in a compromising situation,then doubt will arise in the followers’ minds aboutthe leader and that would affect their views of theroles the followers play in the broader picture.” Tothem, the leader has an important role to play andimportant decisions to make, and s/he should notminimize that. They also do not like leaders whoare habitual and tend to routinize everything be-cause that diminishes the importance of their role.They do still prefer their leaders to work with andrely on others to get things done and do not likeindependent leaders. A French CEO known forhis corporate turnaround finesse explained thatleaders should not have too much independencefrom their followers because otherwise this would

denote lack of character from the followers. Headds that a leader should guide without having toomuch power over the followers’ thought processes,to ensure diverse thinking critical to conserveseveral solutions to the leader.

To sum up, a typical American executive tak-ing on a leadership role in a French organizationwill face a more bureaucratic and formal workenvironment with higher levels of aggressivenessand lower levels of personal compassion and sen-sitivity than s/he is used to.

When in France. . .

The American manager in our scenario will face avery different experience with his or her Frenchteam. These managers will experience much moreformal and impersonal relationships among theteam members. The concept of visionary andcharismatic leadership that is popular amongAmerican managers may not be as desirable to theFrench. They do not expect their leaders to playheroic acts and, due to their high power distance,have a more bureaucratic view of leaders. So, theAmerican manager, in contrast to his experiencein Brazil, needs to tone down the personal side ofrelationships and be much more business oriented.The manager also has to be more careful andselective in contacting other executives and stake-holders. Their preference for maintaining highpower distance may curb their enthusiasm aboutmeeting with someone if they feel it is a waste oftime and of no clear value to them. It is perhapsbest for our American manager to make an offer tothem and leave it to them to decide. Their lowhumane orientation culture may mean that theyare not particularly interested in being supportiveof others, even in the same organization, espe-cially if they are from separate in-groups.

Due to lower levels of future orientation andperformance orientation, grand corporate strate-gies and visions may be of limited value to aFrench team. Any strong competitive languagemay be seen as typical American bravado. Themanager needs to develop a process for makingstrategic decisions about the project and get theteam members involved, but he needs to keep inmind that French employees may be best moti-vated by transactional forms of leadership where


they see clear individual benefit in implementingthe team’s plans. The strategy and action plansneed to be simple and well planned. So, the con-tent and process of strategy development for theFrench team may have many similarities with theBrazilian team, even though they are different onmany other dimensions.

Egypt

Egypt is part of the Middle East cluster. There area number of striking differences in comparison toother clusters. While both Charismatic/Value-Based and Team Oriented leadership are viewedas positive, they have the lowest scores and ranksrelative to those for all other clusters. Participa-tive leadership is viewed positively, but againscores low compared with other clusters’ absolutescore and ranks. Humane Oriented leadership isperceived positively, but only about equally toother cluster scores. The Self-Protective CLT di-mension is viewed as an almost neutral factor;however, it has the second-highest score and rankof all clusters.

Figure 3 below shows a contrast of leadershipstyles in the U.S. and Egypt. The Egyptian cultureis distinct by its emphasis on in-group and insti-tutional collectivism, power distance, humane ori-entation, and male domination. In terms of lead-ership, American managers dislike autocraticleaders who want to make all the decisions them-

selves and micromanage their employees. They donot want their leaders to suppress others’ ideas,even if they disagree with them. Egyptian manag-ers have a more temperate view of such execu-tives, perhaps due to their strong power distanceculture.

A very important difference is the image ofleaders in the Egyptian vs. the American mind.Egyptian managers seem to have an elitist, tran-scendent view of their leaders. They view them asa distinct group and a breed apart. They wanttheir leaders to be unique, superior, status- andclass-conscious, individualistic, and better thanthe others in their group. They show strong rev-erence and deference toward their leaders. Amer-icans, on the other hand, have a more benign andsimplistic view toward their leaders. They do notsee them as a breed apart or superhuman. Theyregard them as successful people but not extraor-dinary ones.

The country of Egypt has been ruled by dicta-tors dating as far back as the time of the Pharaohs.Leaders were expected to lead by portraying aself-assured image. To maintain power, Egyptianleaders need to continuously be involved in mak-ing decisions. In the Arabic culture that is verymuch influenced by Islam, men do not wish toappear weak.

Despite such high level of respect for leaders,Egyptian employees, perhaps due to their verystrong in-group collectivism, prefer their leadersto respect group harmony, avoid group conflict,and take caution in decision making. It is rare tosee leaders, especially political leaders, come outpublicly and criticize a popular belief. They tendto avoid a conflict when it is not necessary, andthey often use this collectivism to build theirinfluence and popularity.

The importance of kinship as the family is themost significant unit of Egyptian society. An in-dividual’s social identity is closely linked to his orher status in the network of kin relations. Kinshipis essential to the culture. Describing the tendencytoward generosity and caring in their society, anEgyptian manager told of how early Islamic au-thorities imposed a tax on personal property pro-portionate to one’s wealth and distributed therevenues to the needy. This type of government

Figure3USAvs. Egypt


behavior left a certain culture of doing business inEgypt that has a strong emphasis on harmony withthe environment, the industry, and the competi-tion.

When inEgypt . . .

Our hypothetical American manager will findthat his experience in Egypt will have both simi-larities and differences with his time in France andBrazil. First, what the manager may regard as anormal informal leadership style in the U.S. maybe seen as weak and unworthy of a leader. Thismanager (typically a male) is expected to act andbe seen as distinct from the others on the teamand present an image of omnipotence. In theminds of his Egyptian team members, he needs tobe seen as deserving of his leadership role andstatus. Addressing his role as a leader, a projectmanager from Egypt noted that being a leaderbrought with it great responsibility. He was incharge of disciplining anyone that did not followthe team rules. He noted, “In order to keep theteam spirit up and focused on our goals, we can’tafford to have individuals deviating from what wehave set out to do.” This is almost the opposite ofhis experience in France.

The American manager will also find that dueto very strong in-group collectivism, variousgroups inside and outside the organization tend toshow in-group/out-group phenomena in decisionmaking; i.e., strong participation by in-groupmembers, little participation by out-group mem-bers; strong communication with in-group mem-bers, and little communication with out-groupmembers. The extent to which Egyptians takepride in belonging to certain groups is immenselyimportant. Families have endured through diffi-cult times, requiring many of the members to staytogether and work together. Family businessestend to be passed from father to son without toomany exceptions. Maintenance of the in-group isparamount in any decision. Leaders build theirlegitimacy not necessarily by accomplishing highperformance but rather by forging loyalty to thegroup and group values. Furthermore, as a result ofreliance on personal relationships, decision mak-ing criteria and processes regarding any aspect ofthe organization tend to be informal and unclear.

Given such cultural underpinnings, the Amer-ican manager needs to do even more than he didin Brazil to build and maintain group harmony.Many informal and formal meetings are needed,but there are three important differences com-pared with the experience in Brazil. First, to Egyp-tians, the team leader is more than just an exec-utive; he is a paternal figure who will be ratherautocratic but benign. He cares about them andtheir families. The relationship between the bossand employees is much more emotional and per-sonal in Egypt. The Egyptian project managerdescribed how he helped one of his employeeswho had experienced some personal difficulties.Explaining that the employee’s behaviour was un-acceptable, the manager added, “At the sametime, I tried to understand if there were any per-sonal issues that forced him to behave the way hedid. I felt an obligation to try to help him.” Sec-ondly, due to very high humane orientation inEgypt, if the family of an employee has a problem,colleagues and the boss will quickly get involvedto help. Taking care of friends in need is a majorelement of the culture and there is very littledemarcation between colleagues and friends.Third, it is easier and more acceptable for the bossin Brazil to get to know the family members andspend time with them during social occasions. It isnot, however, a good idea for him to try to do thesame with Egyptian families. The contact shouldonly be with and through the employee. Egyptianfamilies tend to be more private and inaccessibleto outsiders, possibly due to the intense in-groupculture. People tend to stay close to their rootsand develop a very strong sense of belonging. Inshort, even though the American manager willspend time building personal ties and maintainingin-group relationships both in Egypt and Brazil,the nature of his behaviour will need to be some-what different.

Like Brazil, the manager needs to pay his re-spects and call on the key executives in the Egyp-tian organization and start the process of buildingpersonal relationships. Unlike the French execu-tives, the Egyptian executives will in all likelihoodenjoy this approach and respond positively.

In developing a business strategy for the team,several cultural attributes need to be taken into


consideration. The team will enjoy providing in-put but they expect decisions to be made by theleader. Family related activities are always cele-brated and employees are often excused from workto be able to properly plan such occasions. How-ever, leaders also tend to use the friendly environ-ment to maintain their control and build loyaltywithin their workforce. Egyptian employees ex-pect their leaders to develop and communicateheroic and grand strategies. Due to their highinstitutional collectivism and performance orien-tation, it is helpful to design and communicateambitious strategies and put them into the broadercontext of the corporation. Employees will reso-nate to ideas that would help the corporation andthe unit achieve prominence in their competitivearenas. They also like strong rhetoric and getexcited by the desire to be part of the winningteam. In terms of the reward system, individualperformance-based financial rewards, while help-ful, are not the best motivators. The system shouldbe seen to be humane to all; it should have astrong group based component, and it should con-sist of a variety of benefits that are not typicallyoffered in the U.S. Such benefits should be fo-cused on the families of employees. For example,tuition assistance to employees’ children, paidfamily vacation, free or subsidized toys or homeappliances could be very well received. As withother Middle East countries, although it is impor-tant for the individual to be successful, it is thefamily or group success that is more dominant.

China

China is part of the Confucian Asia cluster. Thetwo CLT dimensions contributing to outstandingleadership are Charismatic/Value-Based andTeam Oriented leadership, even though thesescores are not particularly high. Humane Orientedleadership is viewed favorably, but it is not asimportant as the first two CLT dimensions. Al-though Participative leadership is also viewed pos-itively, it is about equal to the lowest-scoringclusters. Autonomous leadership is viewed neu-trally, and Self-Protective leadership is seen as aslight impediment to effective leadership. Table 4shows that compared to other GLOBE countries,the Confucian Asia cluster is ranked relatively

low with respect to Participative and relativelyhigh with respect to Self-Protective leadershipdimensions.

As shown in the Appendix, the US and Chi-nese cultures are similar in terms of their perfor-mance orientation, humane orientation, andpower distance. The Chinese culture seems to beless future oriented, less assertive, more collectiv-ist, both small group and socially, and more rulesoriented.

Figure 4 below shows the comparison of cultur-ally contingent leadership attributes betweenAmerican and Chinese managers. Both Americanand Chinese managers like excellence orientedleaders who strive for performance improvementin themselves and their subordinates. This is prob-ably driven by the fact that both cultures share astrong performance orientation, as shown in theAppendix. They also both like leaders who arehonest. However, the figure shows that the USscores on both these attributes are higher that theChinese scores.

Chinese managers seem to like leaders who arefraternal and friendly with their subordinates andwho have an indirect approach to communica-tion, using metaphors and parables to communi-cate their point. American managers have a neu-tral view of fraternal leadership and a negativeview of indirect leadership. The difference can

Figure4USAvs. China


probably be explained by the fact that the U.S.culture is much more assertive and less in-grouporiented than that in China (see appendix). In aless assertive culture like China, people tend touse nuances and a context rich language to com-municate. They prefer indirect communication toavoid the possibility of hurting someone. Further-more, in a highly group oriented culture likeChina, group harmony is critical and the leader’srole is to strengthen group ties. As a result, leadersare expected to be supportive of their subordinatesand act as good friends for them. They are ex-pected to build emotional ties with their groupsand their relationships with their subordinates gofar beyond what is the norm in a country like theU.S. The leader is seen as a paternal figure whoshould take care of his subordinates and theirfamilies.

American managers are not excited about lead-ers who are status conscious and are negativetowards leaders who are elitist. In contrast, Chi-nese managers like the former type of leadershipand are neutral towards the latter. This is reflec-tive of the importance of hierarchy in the Chineseculture. Confucianism’s ‘Three Bonds’—emperorrules the minister, father rules the son, and hus-band rules the wife—serve as the foundation ofthe Chinese society:

Chinese business structure can be directly linked to thehistory of patriarchy: the owner or manager plays the father’srole, and the subordinates or employees play the son.31

Within such a hierarchical structure, the leadertends to be authoritative and expects respect andobedience and tends to make autonomous deci-sions. That is why Chinese managers do not ad-mire leaders who are self-effacing, because suchleaders do not emanate confidence. A group ofAmerican managers was recently in China to dis-cuss a possible joint venture with a Chinese com-pany. American managers expected to spend a fewdays working with their Chinese counterparts tobrainstorm ideas and develop action plans. After afew frustrating days, they were told that theyneeded to find a Chinese agent to help themimplement the deal. In conversations with theChinese agent, they learned that the Chinesecounterpart’s expectation from the meetings was

very different. They learned that the Chinesecompany wanted to use the meetings to help buildpersonal ties among the Chinese and Americanmanagers and was upset that the Americans wereasking aggressive questions and were focusedsolely on business rather than personal matters.They also learned that the top Chinese executivehad no interest in sharing decision making withany one. Instead, he wanted to use private lunchesand dinners with the head of the American dele-gation to make serious decisions and reach agree-ments.

Chinese managers are very negative towardsworldly leaders who have a global outlook. Incontrast, Americans admire such leaders. Thiscould be explained by the fact that the two cul-tures are very different in terms of in group col-lectivism. The Chinese culture is very high on thisdimension, which means it is less interested inanything outside of their in-group. Perhaps theyview the world as out-group compared to Chinaand view it as less important.

When inChina. . .

The Chinese culture is distinct by its high perfor-mance orientation, high institutional orientation,and high in-group collectivism. Building personalties and relationships is reflected in the Chineseconcept of “guan xi” whose loose English transla-tion is networking. It is a manifestation of the factthat one’s value and importance is embedded inhis/her ties and relationships. As a result:

In China, the primary qualities expected in a leader orexecutive is someone who is good at establishing andnurturing personal relationships, who practices benevo-lence towards his or her subordinates, who is dignified andaloof but sympathetic, and puts the interests of his or heremployees above his or her own.32

Much of Chinese life and culture is based onConfucian ideas which emphasize the importanceof relationships and community. Even the word“self” has a negative connotation.33 Our hypothet-ical American manager needs to be careful abouthow his behavior and manners are perceived bythe Chinese. Being polite, considerate, and moralare desirable attributes. At the same time, theAmerican manager can get the Chinese employ-ees excited by engaging their high performance


culture. Developing an exciting vision is very ef-fective. The relative high score on future orienta-tion can also help the new manager get the em-ployees motivated. But perhaps the most criticalkey success factor is how the manager goes aboutbuilding personal ties and relationships with awide network of individuals and groups. His “guanxi” will be the ultimate test of his success. Inbuilding guan xi with his employees, he needs toshow high respect to the employees’ families, keepthem in mind when designing work schedules andreward systems, and make sure that employees seehim and the organization as a strong supporter oftheir own guan xi. Perhaps a big challenge to theAmerican executive is how to make sure his nat-ural American assertiveness does not turn his Chi-nese employees and counterparts off and does notimpede his efforts at building strong relationships.

EmbarkingonaCross-culturalLeadership Journey

The existing literature on cross-cultural manage-ment is more useful at the conceptual levelthan at the behavioral level. Much of the ad-

vice offered to executives tends to be context-freeand general such as “understand and respect theother culture.” But the problems facing a typicalglobal executive are context-specific; for example,how to understand and respect the Brazilian cul-ture. In behavioral terms, understanding the Bra-zilian culture may be quite different from under-standing and respecting the Egyptian culturebecause they are very different cultures.

In this paper, we have presented the culturalprofiles of four countries based on a rigorous andscientific research project. We have also providedvery specific ideas on the managerial implicationsof the different cultural profiles along with actionoriented advice on how an American manager can“put himself in the other culture’s shoes” and beadaptable. Besides the culture specific ideas pre-sented earlier, we propose a two-step process for anyexecutive who is embarking on a new assignment ina new country. Regardless of the host country, thesetwo steps help build a positive pathway towardscultural understanding and adaptability.

First, the executive needs to share information

about his own as well as the host country’s culture.Most of the advice that executives receive is abouthow they can adapt and adjust to other cultures.We propose a somewhat different approach.When people from different cultures come intocontact, they usually have unstated and some-times false or exaggerated stereotypes about theother side. While it is important that the execu-tive learn about the host culture, it is not suffi-cient. Executives need to tell the host employeesabout their own cultures. For example, if theseexecutives are in Egypt, then they should showthe employees how the American and Egyptiancultures and leadership attributes compare. Theyshould show both similarities and differences. Inthis paper, we showed that there is a set of lead-ership attributes that are universally desirable anduniversally undesirable. Similarities represent afertile ground to build mutual understanding. Theinformed executive can then use the session todiscuss their implications. What does integritymean to a French manager? Or to a Brazilianmanager? The executive can also compare thefindings about his or her own culture with theirperceptions of American culture to dispel anymisunderstandings. This exercise in mapping andsurfacing cultural attributes can go a long way tobuild mutual understanding and trust between theplayers. For example, our findings show thatAmerican culture is reported to be more moderateon many cultural dimensions than it is stereotypi-cally believed to be. One of the unique features ofGLOBE is that we have taken several steps toensure that the reports by country managers arenot confounded by such things as methodologicalproblems and represent the true broader culture oftheir societies.

Second, the global manager needs to thinkabout how to bridge the gap between the twocultures. Much of the advice executives receiveseems to suggest, explicitly or implicitly, that theexecutive needs to become more like them. We donot necessarily subscribe to this viewpoint. Whileit is important to understand the other culture, itdoes not necessarily mean that one should auto-matically apply their approach. For example, lead-ers are seen as benign autocrats in Egypt. If anAmerican manager does not like this approach,


then he should educate the employees on hisapproach to leadership; why it is not dictatorial,and why he prefers it. Managers need to make surethe employees understand that their approach isnot a sign of weakness, but a more effective stylefor the manager and for the team’s and organiza-tion’s success. It’s a judgment call to say it’s a“more effective” style than what the team is usedto, but it is one that they should employ with theteam. The global manager needs to tell the em-ployees what managerial functions they are will-ing to change and what team functions they wouldlike the employees to change so that the team canwork from, and succeed on, common ground in-corporating both cultures. The manager thenneeds to seek their help on both approaches; i.e.,each culture making changes to accommodate andstrengthen the other. Both approaches can takeplace at the same time and with respect to bothcultures, as long as the manager gets the employ-ees involved in the process. In other words, in-stead of a solitary learning journey for the execu-tive, managers can create a collective learningjourney that can be enriching, educational, andproductive for both sides.

AttributesofGlobal Leaders

The essence of global leadership is the ability toinfluence people who are not like the leader andcome from different cultural backgrounds. To

succeed, global leaders need to have a global mind-set, tolerate high levels of ambiguity, and show cul-tural adaptability and flexibility. This paper providessome examples of these attributes. In contrast to adomestic manager, the hypothetical manager dis-cussed in this paper needs a global mindset becauses/he needs to understand a variety of cultural andleadership paradigms, and legal, political and eco-nomic systems, as well as different competitiveframeworks.34 We used GLOBE findings to providea scientifically based comparison of cultural andleadership paradigms in the five countries. Weshowed that countries can be different on somecultural dimensions and similar on others. Brazil andEgypt are both high on in-group collectivism, butdifferent on performance orientation. France andthe U.S. are both moderate on uncertainty avoid-ance but differ on power distance. China and the

U.S are both high on performance orientation butvery different on in-group collectivism. Furthermore,there are similarities and differences in the countries’leadership profiles. While a leadership attribute likeirritability is universally undesirable, another at-tribute like compassion is culturally contingent, i.e.,it is much more desirable in the U.S. than in France.

Tolerance of ambiguity is another importantattribute of a global leader. Every new countrythat s/he has to work in represents a new paradigmand new ways of doing things. This is typically anuncomfortable position for many people to be inbecause it requires learning new ideas quickly andletting go of what has already been learned. Ofcourse, in the four scenarios, we showed that thereare things in common across cultures and there areportable aspects of cultural learning. But we alsoshowed that there are differences as well. Figuringout which one is which and what to do representspotentially stressful ambiguity to an expatriatemanager.

Cultural adaptability refers to a manager’s abil-ity to understand other cultures and behave in away that helps achieve goals and build strong andpositive relations with local citizens. In the coun-try scenarios, we showed that while in France themanager should not emphasize grand and ambi-tious corporate strategies, he can do this in China.Cultural adaptability refers to the mental and psy-chological ability to move from one situation andcountry to another. It means the ability to do agood job of developing personal relationshipswhile in Egypt and then doing it very differentlyin France. The dexterity to adjust one’s behavior is acritical requirement. Not everyone can do this; tomany people it may bring into question one’s ownidentity. In some ways it is reminiscent of acting butthe difference is that the global manager, unlike theactor, lives and works among real people and notother actors, so his task is more complicated.

DevelopingGlobal Leaders

As mentioned earlier in this paper, a large ma-jority of Fortune 500 corporations report ashortage of global leaders. Devising programs

that would develop a global mindset in leaders hasbeen called “the biggest challenge that looms inthe new millennium for human resource manag-


ers.”35 There are a variety of ways that companiescan enhance their pool of global leaders. To startwith, they can make a large volume of informationon cross-cultural and global issues and country spe-cific reports available to their managers. We havealready referred to several books on this topic. Inaddition to the special issue of the Human ResourceManagement Journal mentioned earlier, there are spe-cial issues of other journals.36 There are also a varietyof software packages such as a multimedia packagecalled “Bridging Cultures,” a self-training programfor those who will be living and working in othercultures. In addition, several services like Cultur-eGrams (www.culturegram.com) provide useful in-formation about many countries. There are also afew Internet sites providing useful information tomanagers37 such as www.contactcga.com belongingto the Center for Global assignments, the CIAWorld Fact Book at www.odci.gov/cia/publications/facxtbook/, and Global Dynamics Inc.’s www.globaldynamics.com/expatria.htm.

Formal education and training can also be

helpful in developing global leaders. A recentsurvey showed that a large majority of firmswere planning to increase funding for programsthat would help globalize their leaders.38 Butdespite its prevalence among multinational cor-porations, there is general consensus among ex-perts that it is not a highly effective source ofdeveloping global leaders.39 It is generally bestused as a component of a comprehensive andintegrated development program. Work experi-ence and international assignment is by far themost effective source for developing global lead-ership capabilities.40 Some experts view longterm international assignments as the “singlemost powerful experience in shaping the per-spective and capabilities of effective globalleaders.”41 Increasingly, companies like GE,Citigroup, Shell, Siemens, and Nokia are usinginternational assignments of high potential em-ployees as the means to develop their managers’global leadership mindset and competencies.

AppendixCountry ScoresonCultural Practices

PerformanceOrientation

Anglo Cultures Latin Europe Middle East Cultures Confucian Asia Latin America

USA 4.49 France 4.11 Egypt 4.27 China 4.45 Brazil 4.04Canada 4.49 Israel 4.08 Kuwait 3.95 Hong Kong 4.80 Bolivia 3.61England 4.08 Italy 3.58 Morocco 3.99 Japan 4.22 Argentina 3.65Ireland 4.36 Portugal 3.60 Qatar 3.45 Singapore 4.90 Colombia 3.94New Zealand 4.72 Spain 4.01 Turkey 3.83 South Korea 4.55 Costa Rica 4.12South Africa (W) 4.11 Swiss (French) 4.25 Taiwan 4.56 Ecuador 4.20Australia 4.36 El Salvador 3.72

Guatemala 3.81Mexico 4.10Venezuela 3.32

FutureOrientation



Guatemala 3.24


Appendix (continued)

Mexico 3.87Venezuela 3.35

AssertivenessOrientation




SocietalCollectivism




In-GroupCollectivism




HumaneOrientation


USA 4.17 France 3.40 Egypt 4.73 China 4.36 Brazil 3.66Canada 4.49 Israel 4.10 Kuwait 4.52 Hong Kong 3.90 Bolivia 4.05England 3.72 Italy 3.63 Morocco 4.19 Japan 4.30 Argentina 3.99Ireland 4.96 Portugal 3.91 Qatar 4.42 Singapore 3.49 Colombia 3.72New Zealand 4.32 Spain 3.32 Turkey 3.94 South Korea 3.81 Costa Rica 4.39


Appendix (continued)

South Africa (W) 3.49 Swiss (French) 3.93 Taiwan 4.11 Ecuador 4.65Australia 4.28 El Salvador 3.71


Power Distance Anglo Cultures Latin Europe Middle East Cultures Confucian Asia Latin AmericaUSA 4.88 France 5.28 Egypt 4.92 China 5.04 Brazil 5.33Canada 4.82 Israel 4.73 Kuwait 5.12 Hong Kong 4.96 Bolivia 4.51England 5.15 Italy 5.43 Morocco 5.80 Japan 5.11 Argentina 5.64Ireland 5.15 Portugal 5.44 Qatar 4.73 Singapore 4.99 Colombia 5.56New Zealand 4.89 Spain 5.52 Turkey 5.57 South Korea 5.61 Costa Rica 4.74South Africa (W) 5.16 Swiss (French) 4.86 Taiwan 5.18 Ecuador 5.60Australia 4.74 El Salvador 5.68


GenderEgalitarianism




UncertaintyAvoidance





Endnotes1 House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorf-

man, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., et al. 1999.Cultural influences on leadership and organizations:Project globe. In W. F. Mobley, M. J. Gessner & V.Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 1, pp.171–233). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

2 Gregersen, H.B., Morrison, A.J. & J.S. Black. 1998. De-veloping leaders for the global frontier. Sloan Manage-ment Review, Fall: 21–32.

3 Hollenbeck, G. P., & McCall, M. W. 2003. Competence,not competencies: Making global executive develop-ment work. In W. Mobley & P. Dorfman (Eds.), Ad-vances in global leadership (Vol. 3). Oxford: JAI Press.

4 Black, J.S., Morrison, A. J., & Gergersen, H. B. 1999.Global explorers: The next generation of leaders. New York:Routledge; Rheinsmith, S. H. 1996. A manager’s guide toglobalization. Chicago: Irwin; Osland, J. S. 1995. Theadventure of working abroad: Hero tales from the globalfrontier. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.; Black, J.S.,Gergersen, H. B., Mendenhall, M. E., Stroh L.K. 1999.Globalizing people through international assignments. Read-ing, MA: Addisson-Wesley; Mobley, W. H., & Dorfman,P. W. 2003. Advances in global leadership. In W. H.Mobley & P. W. Dorfman (Eds.), Advances in globalleadership (Vol. 3). Oxford: JAI Press.

5 Gergerson, H.B., Morrison, A.J., & Mendenhall, M.E.2000. Guest editors. Human Resource Management Jour-nal, 39, 2&3. 113–299.

6 Morrison, A.J. 2000. Developing a global leadershipmodel. Human Resource Management Journal, 39, 2&3,117–131.

7 Kiedel, R.W. 1995. Seeing organizational patterns: A newtheory and language of organizational design. San Francisco:Berrett-Koehler.

8 Pucik, V., & Saba, T. 1997. Selecting and developing theglobal versus the expatriate manager: A review of thestate of the art. Human Resource Planning, 40–54.

9 Wills, S. 2001. Developing global leaders. In P. Kirkbride &K. Ward (Eds.), Globalization: The internal dynamic.Chicester: Wiley, 259–284.

10 Bass, B.M. 1997. Does the Transactional-Transforma-tional Leadership Paradigm Transcend Organizationaland National Boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2),130–139.

11 Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: Internationaldifferences in work-related values. New Bury Park, CA:Sage; Hofstede, G. 2001 Culture’s Consequences: Com-paring values, behaviors, institutions, and organizationsacross nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage;Trompenaars, F., & Hamden-Turner C. 1998. Riding thewaves of culture. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw- Hill; Kluck-hohn, F. R. & Strodtbeck, F. L. 1961. Variations in valueorientations. New York: Harper & Row.

12 House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W.,& Gupta, V., & GLOBE Associates. 2004. Leadership,culture and organizations: The globe study of 62 societies.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

13 Morrison, A.J. 2000. Developing a global leadership

model. Human Resource Management Journal, 39, 2&3,117–131.

14 Laurent, A. 1983. The cultural diversity of western con-ceptions of management. International Studies of Manage-ment and Organization, 13(2), 75–96; Trompenaars, F.1993. Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cul-tural diversity in business. London: Breatley; Briscoe,D. R., & Shuler, R. S. 2004. International human resourcemanagement. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

15 Davis, D. D., & Bryant, J. L. 2003. Influence at a distance:Leadership in global virtual teams. In W. H. Mobley &P. W. Dorfman (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol.3, pp. 303–340). Oxford: JAI Press.

16 Millman, J. Trade wins: The world’s new tiger on theexport scene isn’t Asian; it’s Mexico. Wall Street Journal,p. A1. May 9, 2000.

17 Smith, P. B., & Peterson, M. F. 1988. Leadership, organi-zations and culture: An event management model. London:Sage.

18 Smith, P. B. 2003. Leaders’ sources of guidance and thechallenge of working across cultures. In W. Mobley & P.Dorfman (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 3, pp.167–182). Oxford: JAI Press; Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., &Trompenaars, F. 1996. National culture and the values oforganizational employees: A dimensional analysis across43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(2),231–264.

19 Hazucha, J. F., Hezlett, S. A., Bontems-Wackens, S., &Ronnqvist. 1999. In search of the Euro-manager: Man-agement competencies in France, Germany, Italy, andthe United States. In W.H. Mobley, M.J. Gessner & V.Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 1, pp.267–290). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

20 Javidan, M. and D. Carl. 2004. East meets West. Journalof Management Studies, 41:4, June, 665–691; Javidan, M.and Carl, D. 2005. Leadership across cultures: A study ofCanadian and Taiwanese executives, Management Inter-national Review, 45(1), 23–44.

21 House, R. J., Wright, N. S., & Aditya, R. N. 1997.Cross-cultural research on organizational leadership: Acritical analysis and a proposed theory. In P. C. Earley &M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives in international industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 535–625). San Francisco:The New Lexington Press.

22 Chemers, M. M. 1997. An integrative theory of leadership.London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Smith, P. B., &Peterson, M. F. 1988. Leadership, organizations andculture: An event management model. London: Sage.

23 Shaw, J. B. (1990). A cognitive categorization model forthe study of intercultural management. Academy of Man-agement Review, 15(4), 626–645.

24 Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. 1991. Leadership and informa-tion processing: Linking perceptions and performance (Vol.1). Cambridge, MA: Unwin Hyman.

25 House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dor-fman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., et al. 1999.Cultural influences on leadership and organizations:Project GLOBE. In W. F. Mobley, M. J. Gessner & V.Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 1, pp.171–233). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.


26 In addition to the aggregated raw (i.e., absolute) scores forCLTs provided in Table 2, we also computed a responsebias corrected measure as an integral part of the analysisstrategy. We referred to this measure as the relativemeasure because of a unique property attributed to thisprocedure. These relative CLT scores indicate the rela-tive importance of each CLT leadership dimensionwithin a person, culture, or culture cluster. This proce-dure not only removed the cultural response biases, butit also had the advantage of illustrating the differencesamong the cultures and the clusters. Along with rankingthe clusters with absolute CLT scores, we used thisrelative measure to compare the relative importance ofeach CLT dimension among cultures. Ranking of clus-ters using both types of scores are presented in Table 3.We should point out that the correlation between theabsolute and relative measures is close to perfect—above.90 for all of the CLT leadership dimensions. Computa-tional procedures for this measure are detailed in Houseet. al, 2004.

27 Cullen, J. B. 2002. Multinational management: A strategicapproach. (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-WesternThomson Learning.

28 Bossidy, L., & Charan, R. 2002. Execution: The disciplineof getting things done. New York: Crown Business Books.p.103.

29 Hallowell, R., Bowen, D., & Knoop, C. 2002. Four Sea-sons goes to Paris, Academy of Management Executive,16(4), 7–24.

30 Hallowell, Ibid.31 Dayal-Gulati, A. 2004. Kellogg on China: Strategies for

success, Northwestern University Press.32 De Mente, Boye Lafayette. 2000. The Chinese have a word

for it: The complete guide to Chinese thought and culture.Chicago, IL. Passport Books.

33 Rosen, R. Global Literacies. Simon and Schuster, 2000.34 Black, J.S., & Gergersen, H.B. 2000. High impact

training: Forging leaders for the global frontier. HumanResource Management Journal, 39 (2&3), 173–184.

35 Oddou, G., Mendenhall, M.E., & Ritchi, J. B. Leveragingtravel as a tool for global leadership development. Hu-man Resource Management Journal, 39, 2&3, 159–172.

36 Dastmalchian, A., & Kabasakal, H. 2001. Guest editors,special issue on the Middle East, Applied Psychology: AnInternational Review. Vol. 50(4); Javidan, M., & House,R. Spring 2002 Guest editors, special Issue on GLOBE,Journal of World Business, Vol. 37, No. 1; Peterson, M. F.,& Hunt, J. G. 1997. Overview: International and cross-cultural leadership research (Part II). Leadership Quar-terly, 8(4), 339–342.

37 For more information, see Mendenhall, M.E., & Stahl,G. K. Expatriate training and development: Where dowe go from here? Human Resource Management Journal,39, 2&3, 251–265.

38 Black, J.S., Morrison, A. J., & Gergersen, H. B. 1999.Global explorers: The next generation of leaders. New York:Routledge.

39 Dodge, B. 1993. Empowerment and the evolution oflearning, Education and Training. 35(5), 3–10; Sherman,S. 1995. How tomorrow’s best leaders are learning theirstuff. Fortune, 90–106.

40 Conner, J. Developing the global leaders of tomorrow.Human Resource Management Journal, 39, 2&3, 147–157.

41 Black, J.S., Gergersen, H. B., Mendenhall, M. E., StrohL.K. 1999. Globalizing people through international assign-ments. Reading, MA: Addisson-Wesley.


Documents

in the eye of the beholder