Globe Research Project: An Endeavor

GLOBE Research Project:

An Endeavor in the Improving Development of Global Leadership Attributes

The research and discussion conducted hereafter revolve largely on the description of the operational details, functions and research emergent from the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Project (GLOBE). The discussion is contextualized by a concise examination of the impact of globalization on trends in business leadership. This transitions into a discussion on the inherent impact which the increased cultural diversity brought on by globalization has had on business practices and, more specifically, how the convergence of cultures is complicating leadership theory. Here, we encounter some consideration of the relationship between the development of a concept of global leadership and the degree to which this concept may contribute to effective stewardship under cross-cultural terms.

Subsequently, the discussion assesses GLOBE itself, offering a brief history of the project's origins, including identification of Robert J. House as its founder, of 1993 as its founding year and of the intent to help define leadership perspectives in a culturally diverse business landscape as its motive for existence. Hereafter, the research helps to demonstrate some of the GLOBE project's core functionality by offering a concise report on some of the results encountered by its research. This helps to divide respondent Culture Clusters according to the variance of Cultural Dimensions emphasized within each.

Additionally, this underscores some recommendations made in a subsequent section on how GLOBE's initiatives and findings can be used to influence policy orientation at the global trade agency, national government and internal corporate governance levels of leadership.

The research also offers, in the section entitled GLOBE's Contributions, a detailed explanation of the way that the Culture Clusters and Cultural Dimensions used by GLOBE are defined. This offers a more intensive understanding of how measures of leadership effectiveness interact with cultural features to help define both universal and culturally-contingent conceptions of leadership.

Subsequently, the discussion provides elaboration on the role with GLOBE must play in consulting with trade agencies, governments and firms in order to help distribute findings that might improve global leadership function. Thereafter, a section called GLOBE's Future lays out the need for GLOBE to assist firms in the development of effective global leadership development programs. There is identified here a direct connection between the establishment of such programs and the level of performance achieved by such firms in cross-cultural contexts.

This contributes to the resolution of the present research, which finds that GLOBE's research output may be extremely valuable in helping countries and firms draw up strategies not just for the improvement of business practices and leadership orientation but also for the reconciliation of specific business practice shortcomings from a global perspective such as gender inequality or the presence of labor abuses and environmental degradation. Ultimately, the discussion will present the final case that the improvement of culturally relative leadership and the simultaneous identification of universal non-culturally relative leadership values will help to create a set of practices that can improve orientation for leaders in all manner of cross-cultural business contexts.

Introduction:

As the process of globalization erodes trades barriers, heightens multinational corporate activity and creates ever more culturally diverse organizations, it is incumbent upon businesses to adapt. How this adaptation takes place, however, is highly contingent upon dimensions of national culture, meaning that each nation involved in the process of economic globalization will face its own distinct opportunities, challenges, strengths and weaknesses as it makes room for and optimizes the presence of multinational and multicultural businesses. In many instances, the success with which a nation integrates multiculturalism into its corporate identities is tantamount to the economic success that a nation is likely to experience as the scope of globalization continues to widen. There is, thus, a particular value to an endeavor that seeks to provide with metrics and consequently seeks to measure the progress of individual nations in managing the cultural implications of globalization in the context of organizational behavior. For the purposes of the research conducted hereafter, the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Project (GLOBE) will serve as such an endeavor.

The research conducted hereafter will examine the role played by the GLOBE project in measuring cross-cultural leadership as it exists in 62 distinct nations. This will include consideration of the importance of this role to business practices in each context, the value of this role where the furthering of investigation in the area of social sciences are concerned and the implications of this role where such correlated matters as international labor rights, human rights and environmental standards are concerned. Consequently, the study here will give some consideration to the impact that the GLOBE project may have on the future of cross-cultural leadership and of organizational behavior in multinational, multicultural contexts.

Leadership and Organization:

What is Global Leadership?

The process of globalization is not just changing the way that nations interact or the way that firm's prospect growth. It is also having a dramatic transformative impact on the way that leadership must be oriented both within nations and within firms. This is a central premise in defining the concept of 'global leadership.' A notion which scarcely existed in the context of business just a few decades ago, it has proven increasingly important as a way of ensuring that business practices align with the cultural needs of the countries that host them. With the list of potential hosts expanding substantially with the ratification of every international free trade agreement, the need to achieve a clear understanding of the concept of global leadership has become ever greater. According to the text by Goldsmith et al. (2003), catalyzing changes are now occurring which are diminishing the relevance of many historical leadership theories, and particularly those which make no account for the implications of cross-cultural interaction. According to Goldsmith et al., "traditional business patterns are changing as globalism spreads. . . Convergence within industries, marked by the mergers of the 1980s and 1990s, has been compounded by convergence between industries. Alliances, partnerships, and strategic outsourcing create new global models, never experienced before, which give access to the full range of skills, resources, and market offerings that success now demands. Executive leadership models of the past provide little guidance for creating models of the future. . . . In a complex global business environment, no specific, single model will fit the broad range of situations that leaders will encounter." (Goldsmith, p. 1)

The explanation provided here above by Goldsmith may offer the single most instructive feature by which to define global leadership. The fact that no singular approach to leadership is sufficient to account for the cultural needs of whole global community has significant implications for how we define and pursue the concept of global leadership. Most important, we note that without acknowledgement of the cultural diversity that so often dictates the expectations of leadership, the appellation of 'global' will not apply. This provides the appropriate segue into a discussion on the way that culture functions to determine leadership effectiveness in a globalizing business environment.

The Interrelation of Culture and Leadership Effectiveness:

In the very simplest terms, House et al. (2002) help to introduce the idea of culture into the present discussion. The article by House et al. does so by making the observation the geographical differences have contributed to a wide variance of concurrently evolving but wholly distinct cultural histories. House et al. also denote that within the context of the present day business world, these distinct cultural histories are undergoing a dramatic coalescence unlike anything previously experienced by humankind. According to the text by House et al., "throughout mankind's history, geography, ethnicity, and political boundaries have helped create distinctions and differences among different peoples. Over time, societies have evolved into groups of people with distinguishable characteristics that set them apart from other human communities. It is only in the latter part of the 20th century that advances in technology and improvements in telecommunication and transportation have enabled societies to quickly and easily learn about and from others." (House et al., p. 3)

This has, of course, also placed a number of challenges before us as we attempt to navigate multicultural endeavors while still conditioned by many of the geographical factors that have distinguished us along cultural features such as ethnicity, gender dynamics, family dynamics and power dynamics. The text by ITAP International (2011) points out that as we attempt to navigate these cultural difference, we come face-to-face with a wide spectrum of behavioral expectations. Within the context of organizational dynamics, these behavioral expectations will especially influence the ways in which leadership structures are formed and sustained. The result is a highly complex set of layered perceptions of leadership that differ as a function of culture. The intersection of cultures precipitated by advances in technology and shifts in the practices of global trade denote that leadership must increasingly make account for the demands of cross-cultural stewardship or risk performance failures. So denotes ITAP International, which indicates that "in order to develop leaders who can effectively lead global operations, it is important to understand what makes leaders effective across cultures. Culture shapes how we think about what is good leadership, and the definitions of an 'effective leader' vary from one culture to another. In fact, effective leadership behavior in one culture could (and will) be completely ineffective in others." (ITAP International, p. 1)

Here, we can see that the interrelation of Culture and Leadership Effectiveness is one of relativity. Such is to say that leadership effectiveness will be substantially shaped by how well leadership is equipped to manage cross-cultural expectations and perceptions of leadership.

Defining Concept: GLOBE Study

What is GLOBE?

Before entering into a more extensive analysis of the role and future of GLOBE, it is necessary to provide some basic background details on the project's founding and primary initiatives. According to the text provided by Knowledge @ Wharton (1999), GLOBE was founded by its first director, Robert J. House. House, a social scientist conducting research primarily at the Wharton School in the University of Pennsylvania, was engaged in a decade long study on how different world cultures define and formulate organizational leadership. In doing so, House became increasingly convinced that the 'definitions and perceptions of leadership' were fundamentally different from one culture and country to the next. It is thus that House identified the need -- especially in the face of the mounting influence of globalization on international business practices -- to find a singular lens through which to understand these differing conceptions of leadership. In response to this need, Knowledge @ Wharton would report that "In 1993 House launched The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Program (GLOBE) to test leadership hypotheses in various cultures. Over the past six years GLOBE has evolved into a multi-phase, multi-method research project in which some 170 investigators from over 60 cultures representing all major regions of the world collaborate to examine the interrelationships among societal culture, organizational culture and practices and organizational leadership." (Knowledge @ Wharton, p. 1)

The investigators called upon for involvement in the project were generally culled from the ranks of social scientists representing each of the countries involved. Using four distinct Phases, GLOBE would set out across its first 15 years in operation to develop metrics for universal leadership attributes that could be used to identify common ground between the organizational cultures of the various participant nations. In addition, these phases would be used to identify some of the common stumbling blocks before nations and their corporations as they attempt to adapt to the notion of more universal leadership standards. According to Knowledge @ Wharton, Phase II of the study, complete in 1998, found that "there are attributes that are universally seen as impediments to outstanding leadership. The most important finding, however, is that there are culturally-contingent attributes that can help or hinder leadership." (Knowledge @ Wharton, p. 1)

This denotes that at its basis, the GLOBE project was established to help decipher between those attributes which may be valued as universal and those which are culturally contingent. Moreover, the GLOBE project attempts to bring nuance to this discussion by deconstructing those values which may be culturally contingent so as to determine which dimensions of these values might be universal and which might be culturally contingent. The offshoot is that GLOBE works to provide a set of metrics that can be directly applied by individuals facing leadership challenges that are compounded by the presence of cross-cultural impediments. Knowledge @ Wharton provides a useful example from the qualitative results of GLOBE's Phase II of how the deconstruction of culturally relative leadership traits can produce a sense of that which may be universally relevant within. Here, Knowledge @ Wharton reports that for instance, "several attributes reflecting charismatic/transformational leadership are universally endorsed as contributing to outstanding leadership. These attributes include: foresight, a willingness to encourage colleagues and staff, communicativeness, trustworthiness, a dynamic presence, a positive attitude, and being seen as a confidence builder. Certain charismatic attributes are perceived to be culturally contingent. These include enthusiasm, risk-taking, ambition, humility, sincerity, sensitivity, and compassion." (Knowledge @ Wharton, p. 2)

From the outset, GLOBE would receive endorsement and support from several different public agencies originating in the United States. According to a progress report by GLOBE founder Robert J. House (1999), GLOBE was launched with a $625,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Education and a grant from for an additional $100,000 from the National Science Foundation. These would be granted in response to a grant proposal that pooled together 753 questionnaire items to demonstrate the intended scope of the project. (House, p. 2) House would go on to report that the leadership structure at GLOBE was centered around several key units. House notes that "the activities of the project as a whole are coordinated by the GLOBE Coordinating Team (GCT). The Principal Investigator and the Co-Principal Investigators are members of the GCT" along with a list of social scientists representing an array of universities from the U.S., Sweden, German, India, Canada, Colombia and South Africa. (House, p. 3)

The Present Condition of World Trends:

For concise demonstration of the way that GLOBE's evaluation tools produce indexes relating to distinct Culture Clusters (defined in the section hereafter entitled "GLOBE's Contributions"), we consider some of the World Trend's in leadership values as reported in the text by House et al. (2004). Here, in a published report following up on the survey measurement of the Cultural Dimensions of leadership (also defined hereafter in the section entitled "GLOBE's Contributions), House et al. demonstrate the specific connections between cultures and leadership values.

For instance, House et al. report that Anglo cultures such as the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom place a high level of emphasis on Performance Orientation, In-Group Collectivism and, to a slightly lesser extent, Gender Egalitarianism. Anglo cultures are shown to place a comparatively lesser emphasis on the leadership values found in Power Distance or Uncertainty Avoidance. (House et al., p. 32)

Confucian Asian cultures, which would include China, Japan and South Korea, among others, would by contrast place higher emphasis on Future Orientation and Human Orientation while placing lower emphases on Gender Egalitarianism or Institutional Collectivism. This denotes that the GLOBE evaluation tool allows for observations in trends according to individual clusters. However, the tool is also designed to allow for some measure of inter-cultural comparison. Using the GLOBE instrument, it is possible to observe certain commonalities across otherwise distinct clusters. Accordingly, we find that such values as Future Orientation and Human Orientation, identified as high in Confucian cultures, are also identified as being roughly the equivalent measure in the Latin Europe and Latin American clusters. From this, we can identify a certain potential for compatibility in terms of business coalescence. (House et al., p. 33-37)

Similarly, German Europe and Latin Europe share the Anglo cluster's emphasis on Performance Orientation and likewise all three clusters place a low emphasis on Power Distance. This low emphasis on Power Distance is also shared by Nordic Europe, Latin American and Confucian Asian cultures. This denotes that the World Trend is largely toward a diminished emphasis on power distance and more egalitarian distributions of authority and engagement. (House et al., p. 33-37) The finding also highlights the power of the GLOBE instrument to help uncover such parallels. This is of use in determining the compatibility of intercultural business endeavors and helps to predict the level of adjustment likely required by engaging parties to cultural distinctions.

GLOBE as a Policy Framework:

The notion of using GLOBE as a policy framework has particular value to the international trade groups and world governing agencies that are attempting to bring a leveling effect to the developing and developed spheres through the process of globalization. This denotes that there may be a distinct usefulness to such agencies in employing the findings of GLOBE as a way to develop legislation on matters of increasing importance such as gender equality, protection of worker's rights or responsibility for environmental degradation. Where dimensions of corporate behavior represent challenges to the progress of the collective global community, and where imperatives exist already for the intervention of the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and even the United Nations, GLOBE's identification of leadership values as they differ from one nation to another can help to point to specific nations and specific areas within said nations where change can be sought.

As the text by House et al. (2002) reports, "besides practical needs, there are important reasons to examine the impact of culture on leadership. There is a need for leadership and organizational theories that transcend cultures to understand what works and what does not work in different cultural settings (Triandis, 1993). Furthermore, a focus on cross-cultural issues can help researchers uncover new relationships by forcing investigators to include a much broader range of variables often not considered in contemporary leadership theories, such as the importance of religion, language, ethnic background, history, or political systems." (House et al., p. 3) From this perspective, there is a direct connection between many of the dimensions of culturally-relative leadership and the presence or absence of certain human rights protections. This denotes that policy development in contexts where an absence of such protections exists may be benefited by the revelations offered by GLOBE's leadership evaluation framework. Said framework is considered in the section hereafter.

Developing Successful Global Leaders:

Contributions of GLOBE

Among its major contributions to the sociological discussion on the developing concept of global leadership is GLOBE's delineation of a framework for evaluation of commonalities and differences across cultures. This would be done primarily through the identification of Cultural Dimensions and Culture Clusters.

According to Hoppe (2007), the latter refers to the clusters of countries that through cultural similarities tend to exhibit similar workplace value systems and conceptions of leadership. Hoppe presents a pie chart with ten even divisions, each comprised of a set of countries falling within a particular cluster. Hoppe indicates that these divisions are placed strategically in proximity and distance from one another to demonstrate cultural similarity or dissimilarity. The chart denotes that the ten Culture Clusters identified by the GLOBE project are, in clockwise sequence beginning at the top of the dial, Anglo, Germanic, Latin European, African, Eastern European, Middle Eastern, Confucian, Southeast Asian, Latin American and Nordic. (Hoppe, p. 2)

Here, GLOBE contributes to the discourse on global leadership the understanding the cultural similarities allow us to make certain observation which apply with universality to particular sets of nations. This helps to illustrate with even greater clarity the direct correlation between common cultural properties and common organizational and leadership practices. These Culture Clusters interact directly with the nine Cultural Dimensions that GLOBE identifies as instrumental to understanding differentials in leadership conception. According to Hoppe, these dimensions "make it possible to capture the similarities and/or differences in norms, values, beliefs -- and practices -- among societies." (Hoppe, p. 1)

Hoppe identifies Power Distance as the first Cultural Dimension, reporting that this refers largely to the expectations of both leaders and organizational members regarding power dynamics. Uncertainty Avoidance, Hoppe indicates, refers to "the extent to which a society, organization, or group relies on social norms, rule sna procedures to alleviate unpredictability of future events." (Hoppe, p. 1) The Hoppe article denotes that Humane Orientation is the Cultural Dimension dealing with treatment of personnel, company ethics and personal reward systems. Hoppe also indicates that Collectivism is divided into two distinct cultural dimensions, one referring to the extent to which a company encourages and rewards effective group or team dynamics and the other referring to the extent to which members are made to feel they are part of a familial group deserving of their loyalty. (Hoppe, p. 1)

Hoppe goes on to identify Assertiveness as a cultural dimension relating to the value or discouragement of individual confrontation and aggressiveness within the scope of a company. Gender Egalitarianism demonstrates the importance of reducing inequalities that persist between genders, a condition that is often highly culturally loaded. The final two Cultural Dimensions that Hoppe identifies are those of Future Orientation and Performance Orientation, which refer respectively to the degree to which planning, development and investment are prized and the degree to which individuals are identified, praised and advanced for the demonstration of excellence. These Cultural Dimensions help to produce a framework through which most of the determinant characteristics distinguishing cultural groups can be given an index. As this interacts with the Clusters identified above, it becomes possible to observe indexes with respect to each individual Cultural Dimension that are demonstrative of specific cultural commonalities. As the text by Hoppe notes, rating every Culture Cluster on a 7 point scale with respect to each individual Cultural Dimension, it is possible to place clusters into leadership style categories. Hoppe indicates that "the placement of each societal cluster within a style signals the relative importance of that style compared to the other styles for that cluster. For example, the performance-oriented leader style is the highest in rank for the Anglo cluster, indicating that this style is more important to the Anglo cluster than any of the other styles. In addition, when compared to the other country clusters, the performance-oriented style is also valued the most by the Anglo cluster." (Hoppe, p. 4)

Such findings as these denote the valuable contribution which the GLOBE project is making to the still evolving field of global leadership research. By offering a simple but nuanced framework for drawing connections between Culture Clusters and Cultural Dimensions, GLOBE is helping to create a temple with value to all businesses attempting to adjust to a globalizing and therefore multicultural business landscape.

Role of GLOBE

GLOBE's role in the formulation of effective global leadership practices is as a consultant for the development of policy, whether at the international agency level, the national government level or, most likely, the corporate level. GLOBE's role should significantly revolve around its capacity to provide tools of evaluation to companies seeking to create or evaluate global leader development programs. According to the text by Goldsmith (2009), GLOBE's findings in particular may play a role in helping firm's identify cross-cultural needs that have previously gone overlooked. Indeed, it is common for many firms to engage in cross-cultural practices with little recognition of their existence and the specialized needs created by their existence. The result is lost opportunity for productivity, efficiency and morale. Goldsmith reports that "today's global leaders build partnerships. As the organization standardizes and integrates its operations worldwide, leaders are required to align themselves with supply chains which may appear seamless in a strategic plan but which, in reality, involve real people with diverse cultural backgrounds and communication styles. The new organizational prototype demands new individual skills to meet this complexity; it presents planning and communication challenges requiring new tools in response." (Goldsmith, p. 1)