nikandrou xtra
TRANSCRIPT
-
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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?
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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
http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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.
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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.
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
8/24
68
Table 1: Indices of Societal Culture
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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.
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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.
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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
http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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.
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
15/24
75
Table 2: Indices of Organizational Culture
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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.
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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.
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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).
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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.
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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
http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/http://jlo.sagepub.com/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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.
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/ -
8/2/2019 Nikandrou xtra
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.