Cultural and Leadership Similarities and Variations in the Southern Part of the European Union

Irene Nikandrou, Eleni Apospori,

Athens

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

and

organizational practices

has

never

been

the similarities and differences in cultural (societal and organizational) and leadership aspects in the southern part of the European Union. The study is based on data from the GLOBE project for five countries (Greece, Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal). Even though there are quite a few studies clustering European countries either along the NorthSouth axis or the North/West — South/East axis, we still need to better understand cultural and leadership similarities and differences among countries that for various reasons, such as sociopolitical, economic, cultural, historical, geographical and so forth, may form a unit for purposes of comparative study. The findings of the present study suggest that there are more similarities than differences among these five countries that may support the thesis for considering them as the southern band of EU countries.

This

paper examines

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 and leadership attributes in the Southern part of the European Union (EU). The study of leadership and culture in the European Union is an interesting one, since both convergent and divergent approaches can be found. Indeed, the European Union provides the framework within which different solutions at the national and/or organizational level can be found. Thus, forces from the market, technology and institutional context promote convergence, while, cultural forces contribute to more divergent tendencies. The selection of a particular unit of analysis in a study is important for the conclusions to be drawn. If a study uses clusters of countries with cultural affinities to examine how nationality and culture affect leadership may end up to different conclusions in comparison with others 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-sample of the GLOBE. We have selected to compare Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Greece and investigate similarities and differences in cultural (societal and organizational) and leadership

Increasing internationalization, and the &dquo;global market&dquo; have forced us to explore more closely the differences and similarities in the way people are managed. Organizations
international boundaries and more managers are transferred internationally, emphasizing the importance of comparative knowledge and raising the question of cultural influences. The cultural diversity of employees found in worldwide multinational organizations presents a substantial challenge with respect to the design of multinational organizations and their leadership.

operate

across

aspects.

THE GLOBE CONCEPTUAL MODEL

The

Understanding leadership requires understanding the cultural context in which it takes place. Therefore, the need to better understand cultural influences on leadership

Organizational research project

Global and Leadership Behavior Effectiveness is a multi-phase, multi-

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

62

method research

on cross-cultural study of the inter-relationships between organizational leadership, societal and organizational culture. Culture affects values, beliefs, meanings and influences leadership processes (Ayman et al, 1995; Hunt et al, 1990). Both culturespecific and culture-universal positions &dquo;emic&dquo; and &dquo;etic&dquo; approaches, accordingly have been employed to examine the impact of culture on leadership processes (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Hofstede, 1980, 1993; Triandis, 1993) .

others to contribute towards the effectiveness and success of the organization of which they are members&dquo; (House et al., 1999) The theoretical model proposed by the GLOBE 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 and 1985), (McClelland, Strategic Contingency Theory of Organizations

(Donaldson, 1993).
The central theoretical proposition of the integrated theory is that the attributes and entities that distinguish a given culture from other cultures are predictive of the practices of organizations of that culture and predictive of leader attributes and behaviors that are most frequently enacted, acceptable and effective in that culture. A diagram of the integrated theory is presented in Figure 1.

In the GLOBE project: Culture is defined as &dquo;shared motives, values, beliefs, identities and interpretations or meanings of significant events that result from common experiences of members of collectives and are transmitted across age

generations&dquo; (House et al., 1999). Leadership is defined as &dquo;the ability of an

individual to influence, motivate and enable

1: GLOBE Theoretical Model Culture 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 the dominant societal cultural values. Leaders are more likely to be affected and behave in ways that are accepted and favored in their culture. So, different beliefs and expectations about how a leader should behave is one potential source of variance across cultures. Moreover, individuals hold implicit leadership as theories, they also hold implicit organization theories. Individuals share common beliefs and assumptions and value selected organizational practices that are viewed as legitimate, acceptable and effective by

Figure

members of the organization. Thus, societal culture has a direct impact on organizational culture and both influence the process by which people come to share implicit theories of leadership and what leaders do. In this paper, we will examine the following questions which are part of the main objectives of GLOBE (House et al, 1997) : 1. What are the major similarities and differences in societal and organizational measures of culture and leadership attributes among countries in the southern part of the EU? 2. Are the similarities in terms of the indices used more prominent than the differences to allow considering these countries as a group?

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

63
3. In what ways can each country be compared to the rest of the EU southern countries? Next, we will give a brief literature review on the studies that have identified different cultural regions in Europe, based on different indicators. Following, the concerns of the study are methodological examined and the results from the data analysis are presented. Finally, the findings, the implications and the limitations of the

uncertainty and ambiguity is lower. According to Faucheux et al., (1982) Latin countries give to more institutionalized emphasis of decision centralization making, bureaucratic protection, and state intervention and less importance to internal organizational
processes. Smith et al

(1996, 1997) found that the major variability in approaches to management within Europe lies between East
and West with Greece included in the Western region. Smith (1997) in a study of 16 European countries replicated the analysis, using the North versus South European distinction. They showed that North European countries, including the Anglo cluster (Britain, Ireland), the Nordic cluster (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Netherlands) and Germany scored high on the &dquo;Equality and Utilitarian Involvement&dquo; dimension, while South European countries, including the Latin European cluster (Italy, Spain, Portugal, France and Belgium) and the Near East cluster (Greece and Turkey) and Austria scored high on the &dquo;Hierarchy and Loyal Involvement&dquo; dimension. In three recent studies, Greece is included in the Eastern European cluster along with countries that belonged to former communist countries. Hampden-Tumer and Trompenaars (2000) examined cross-cultural issues, placing Greece in the group of Eastern European countries with Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Russia and Yugoslavia, while Gupta et al (2002) report that the Eastern European cluster using GLOBE data consists of Albania, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Poland, Russia and Slovenia. Finally, Bakacsi et al (2002) presented and discussed the findings of the GLOBE project on societal and organizational cultures and leadership using the same Eastern European cluster, but they concluded that Greece may not fit very well into this cluster. From the above discussion, it becomes clear that there is some inconsistency in the grouping of cultural regions in Europe. Thus, we believe that a closer look at the countries comprising the South axis of the European Union is needed. In France, leadership, both in government and industry, is a combination of educational achievement, bourgeois origins and a source of income from property. Educational

present study will be discussed.

Literature Review
There are a number of studies identifying cultural regions in Europe. Geography,

economic, history, language, religion, political, educational, social and technological development, as well as personal values and
behavioral intentions are some of the indicators that have been used to group countries together and, at the same time, to distinguish them from other groups (Hofstede, 1980; Ronen and Shenkar, 1985; Smith, Dugan and Trompenaars, 1996; Trompenaars,

1994).
Ronen and Shenkar (1985), based on a review of eight studies, synthesized previous efforts to cluster countries according to their similarities and differences in a number of work-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 were identified (Anglo, Nordic, Germanic, Latin and Near East). Greece was included in the Near Eastern European cluster, while France, Italy, Portugal and Spain along with Belgium were included in the Latin European cluster. In comparison with other European regions, Latin European countries are characterized by later technical development, more uniformity in Catholism, while history and language also tie them together. Griffeth, et al (1980) place Greece in the Latin Europe group. When compared to the Anlgo cluster, it seems that Latin cultures share a lower capacity for openness, trust and the rational expression of feelings, and the tolerance for

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

64 achievement is defined as a degree from those of highly selective grandes ecoles administration, technology and the military. Ordinarily, people from the working classes cannot climb up the managerial and governmental hierarchy, due to the difficulties in attaining those schools. Centralization, submission to hierarchy, domination of an elite of cadres are characteristics of the French society, which reveal the remaining of historical continuity (Aubert, Ramanantsoa &

problem solving but highest in willingness to discuss feelings with others and showing cooperative peer relations. Italians value high security, while they report the lowest levels in expertise. In his study, McClelland (1961) ranks Italy lowest among four countries in their need for achievement, highest in their
need for affiliation, while the need for power differentiates between north and south Italy, with north Italy scoring high in power and

south

Reitter, 1984).
number of studies with French managers, it is supported that the French sought security and good working conditions, lack of concern for peers, while they were the lowest 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 French managers were the lowest in their reported actual cooperative peer relations and willingness to discuss feelings with others. In Spain, the replacement of the highly controlled authoritarian government under Franco gave rise to the need for developing flexible and adaptable leaders who could survive in a highly competitive and internationalized environment (Anzizu & A study by Cummings, Nuenos, 1984). Hamett, and Stevens (1971), when both Spain and Greece were under dictatorship regime, found Spanish managers to be fatalistic, somewhat suspicious and conciliatory, while Greek managers were highly suspicious and conciliatory but believing they were the masters of their own fate. Greek managers were 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 the highest preference for awareness for the
In
a

(1999) mentions individualistic and very in the work environment independent,... employees are always inclined to fight against perceived limitations on their personal freedom, independence and individual rights&dquo;. Greeks are inclined to question authority, have difficulties in cooperating and show mistrust to superiors. On the other hand, family organizational culture seems to be a characteristic of many companies today, as the successful Greek manager is expected to take care of employee needs and show an interest in their family problems (Broome, 1996;
As &dquo;Greeks
are

Italy lower. Papalexandris

Trompenaars, 1994).
THE GLOBE PROJECT
The GLOBE project involves over 60 nations with 170 investigators and 700

organizations.
In the first phase of the project, the GLOBE Team developed nine dimensions of societal culture and nine isomorphic dimensions of organizational culture and six dimensions of leadership patterns that can be used across all cultures. GLOBE employs both quantitative and qualitative methods to provide rich insight into cultural influences on leadership and

organizational
- interviews,

practices.

Questionnaires,

feelings accepting

of others, self-understanding, feedback from others, listening to others and concern for the welfare of subordinates. Spanish, Portuguese and Italian managers showed the least preference for group decision making. In France, Spain and

focus unobtrusive groups, measures and media analyses were used to form the basis for better understanding culture-specific and culture-universal issues of

leadership.

Sample
In this study, we focused on five countries from the GLOBE data base by using two basic criteria, 1) the country is a member of the European Union, and 2) the country is

Portugal faster-climbing

concerned than were about their dependence on a higher authority. The Italian managers saw themselves as being lowest in depending on others in

managers were more the slower climbers

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

65

geographically located in the

South of Europe. the selected countries were: Greece, Thus, Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal. Furthermore, each country considered for this comparative study shares some cultural, sociopolitical, economic, or historical similarities, with at least one of the other four countries. Individual respondents were middle from mid-sized to managers large in three food sectors, organizations financial services and processing, telecommunication services. The data were gathered between 1995 and 1997 by investigators from each country, who are Country-Co-Investigators (CCls) of the GLOBE Project. Each country participated in the sample with data representing at least two of the industrial sectors (food, finance, telecommunications), with the exception of France, which participated with data from the financial services sector. The number of participants per country is: Greece (N=234), Italy (N=257), France (N=182), Spain (N=360), and Portugal

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 which individuals in organizations or societies engage in future-oriented behaviors such as

planning, investing in the future, and delaying gratification. This dimension is derived from
Kluckhohn and Strodtbecks (1961) Past, s Present, Future Orientation dimension. Assertiveness is the degree to which individuals in organizations and societies are assertive, confrontational, and aggressive in social relationships. This dimension is part of the Hofstedes Masculinity dimension (1980). Institutional Collectivism (Collectivism I) reflects the degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action. Low scores in this dimension reflect individualistic emphasis and high scores reflect collectivistic emphasis by means 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 along with assertiveness comprise the Hofstedes (1980) Masculinity dimension. Humane Orientation is the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies encourage and reward individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring, and kind to others. This dimension has its roots in Kluckhohn and Strodtbecks (1961) work on the Humane Nature Is Good vs. Human Nature is Bad dimension, in Putnams (1993) work on the Civic Society and in McClellands (1985) conceptualization of the affiliative 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 or society expect and agree that power should be unequally shared. This dimension reflects Hofstedes (1980) Power Distance construct. Family Collectivism (Collectivism II) is the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty and cohesiveness in their organizations or families. Uncertainty Avoidance is the extent to which members of an organization or society

(N=79).
Measures Culture
measures

operationally defined with reflecting the agreement on values

was

among members of the collectives (should be) and the agreement on observed and reported practices of entities such as families, schools, work organizations, economic and legal systems and political institutions as indicated in 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, power the individualism-collectivism distance, continuum, family/organizational collectivism, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, future orientation, performance orientation and humane orientation 1980; (Hofstede, 1961, 1985; Putnam, 1993). McClelland,
instruments for societal and organizational culture at the value (should be) and practices (as is) levels have been

Parallel

developed.
Performance Orientation is the
extent to

which an organization or society encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence. This dimensions

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

66
strive to avoid uncertainty by reliance on social norms, rituals, and bureaucratic practices to alleviate the unpredictability of future events. This dimension reflects

Hofstedes
construct.

(1980) Uncertainty Avoidance

Leadership was developing a list of

operationalized

by

leader attributes and behaviors. The items were rated on a 7-point Likert type scale showing how strongly they impede or facilitate unusually effective leadership. Items ranged from a low of &dquo; This behavior or attribute substantially impedes a person from being an outstanding leader&dquo; to a high of &dquo;This behavior or attribute substantially facilitates a person being an outstanding leader&dquo;. Factor analyses revealed 21 dimensions of leadership which were reduced to 6 dimensions with second order factor analysis. The leadership dimensions

charismatic/value-based, team oriented, narcissistic, non-participative, humane, and autonomous (Hanges et al., 1999). /
are:

Charismaticl Value-based with the subscales visionary,

leadership, inspirational,

integrity, decisive, and orientation. performance 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 the subscales autocratic and non-participative
self-sacrificial, (both reversed scores).
Humane leadership, with the subscales modest and humane orientation. Autonomous leadership, with the items individualistic, independent, autonomous, and

the six scales of leadership, just described above, were taken as they are in GLOBE project data-base. The eighteen scales for the indices of organizational culture were formed by the authors of the present paper as follows. As mentioned above each country participated in the sample with data representing at least two of the industrial sectors, food, finance and communications, with the exception of France, which participated with data from the financial service sector only. In the GLOBE project data-base there were scales for each of the nine indices of organizational culture for each of the sectors separately. For the purpose of the present paper, we combined the scales of the sectors of each country using the weighed average score of each sector for each country. The weights were calculated according to the sample size for each sector for the respective country. The end result was eighteen indices of organizational culture for each country. We decided to combine the sectors 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 among the five southern European countries All the variables used to measure various indices of societal culture had two aspects, the ontological and the deontological. According to the ontological aspect (&dquo;As Is&dquo;), respondents were asked to estimate to what degree, they believe, these indices were practiced in their society. According to the

unique.
The results reveal the
two

leader

deontological aspect respondents were asked

extent

(&dquo;Should

Be&dquo;),

to estimate to what

attributes and behaviors that are universally accepted and seen as effective, namely: Charismatic/ value-based leadership, and

Team-oriented leadership, while the other four dimensions are more &dquo;cultural contingent&dquo;.

these indices should be practiced in their society. In this part , the &dquo;As Is&dquo; aspect is presented first, while the &dquo;Should Be&dquo; aspect follows.
1. Performance Orientation As Is All five countries score relatively low in the first index of societal values which is performance orientation as it is perceived that is practiced in each of these countries.

Data Analysis The present paper is based

on

secondary

grouped

data collected and analyzed for the GLOBE project. In particular, the eighteen scales for the indices of societal culture and

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

67

The score for all countries participating in 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 that band width is equal to 2*SED. The five southern European countries scored from 4.11 I to 3.20 scores which place them in the B and C band. France (4.11) and Spain (4.01) are the most performance oriented countries and are placed in the B group, while Greece is the least performance oriented (3.20) and is placed in group C. Actually Greece is the least performance oriented country among all countries participating in the GLOBE project. Although Italy (3.58) and Portugal (3.60) score higher than Greece, they belong to the same group of countries which score low in

orientation (Table 1, Figure 4 ), Portugal, Greece and Italy present the biggest differences. For these three, the degree of performance orientation, as it is believed it is practiced is less satisfying than it is for Spain and France, and it is believed that is should be practiced at considerably higher levels. Given the results from the &dquo;As Is scores the above
&dquo;

mentioned finding is not surprising. Since these 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 Orientation As Is The five Southern European countries as a group score low in societal value of future orientation as it is believed it is practiced in these countries. The range for all participating countries is between 5.07 and 2.80 (Table 1, Figure 2); all countries are grouped in four bands, that is A, B, C, and D. The five southern European countries are placed in the two lowest bands. In particular, Italy is placed in the lowest band D with the lowest score among the five countries (3.25). The other four countries are placed in the second lowest band, C. However, there are slight differences among them; Portugal shows the highest level of 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) follow with relatively lower scores but in the same group with Portugal.

orientation believed that it is practiced.

performance

as

respondents

As Should be
In all five countries, performance orientation of society should be higher than it is 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 them among the GLOBE countries with the highest level 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 second band - B - group of countries. However, looking at the difference between the &dquo;should be&dquo; and the &dquo;as is&dquo; aspects of performance

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

68
Table 1: Indices of Societal Culture

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

69

Figure 2:

Indices of Societal Culture As Is

As Should Be
and Spain (5.63) believe more 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 in the group of GLOBE countries with the highest scores. Portugal, Greece and France come next with scores 5.43, 5.19 and 4.96 which place them in the second respectively, level of GLOBE countries with regard to future orientation as it should be practiced. Overall, Italy which has the lowest score in the &dquo;as is&dquo; aspect, has the highest score in

Italy (5.91)

the &dquo;should be&dquo; aspect. Naturally, this means that Italy is the least satisfied among the five countries with its future orientation (Table 1, Figure 4 ). The second least satisfied country with its future orientation as society is Spain. Spain has the second biggest gap between future orientation as it is practiced and as it should be practiced. France has the lowest score in the should be aspect of future orientation; 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 is among the five countries. This means, that France is the most satisfied country with regard to its future orientation.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

70

Figure 3: Indices of Societal

Culture As Should Be

3. Assertiveness As Is
Assertiveness is another societal value the GLOBE countries are measured on. The score on perceived practice of assertiveness for all GLOBE countries ranges from 4.97 to 2.79 (Table 1, Figure 2). Higher scores indicate less assertiveness. All countries are grouped in three bands according to their score, A, B, and C. The five Southern European countries under consideration show a high degree of differentiation among them. Portugal shows the least level of assertiveness and is placed at the group A, with score 4.24. Italy, France and Spain show the second higher level of assertiveness and are placed in the 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 level of assertiveness as it is perceived that is practiced, not only among the rest of the Southern European countries, but among all GLOBE countries with a score of 2.79.

As Should Be
France

(4.85) and Greece (4.10) have

in the &dquo;should be&dquo; aspect of than Italy (3.76), Portugal (3.74) assertiveness and Spain (3.32) (Table 1, Figure 3 ). Furthermore, France and Greece have higher scores in comparison with their &dquo;as is&dquo; aspect of assertiveness. Parenthetically, it should be mentioned that higher score in assertiveness indicates less assertiveness. At the same time Italy, Spain and Portugal have lower scores in the &dquo;should be&dquo; aspect of assertiveness than the &dquo;as is&dquo; aspect - 4.24, 3.83 and 3.58respectively. All these indicate that France and Greece would like to be less assertive than they think they are, while Spain and Portugal would like to be more assertive. For Italy, the difference between &dquo;should be&dquo; and &dquo;as is&dquo; is close to zero (table 1, Figure 4 ), which means that Italy, among the five southern European countries, is the most satisfied society with level of assertiveness as it is perceived it is

higher

scores

practiced.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

71

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

Is

4. Institutional Collectivism As Is The GLOBE study range for the societal value of Institutional Collectivism as it is perceived it is practiced is 5.22 to 3.25 (Table 1, Figure 2) and all countries are grouped in three bands, A, B, and C. Higher scores indicate more adherence to this value. The five Southern European countries score relatively low on the perceived practice of institutional collectivism. France, Portugal, and Spain are
in band B, while Italy and Greece on C. In particular, France and Portugal score 3.93 and 3.92 respectively and Spain has an Italy has the second average score 3.85. lower 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), more than the other three countries, believe that they should be more collectivist with regard to various institutions than they believe they are. France stands at the other side of the spectrum with the lowest score among the five countries (4.86) (Table 1, Figure 3 ). However, all five countries stand at the upper levels of the range among all GLOBE countries (5.65 -3.80) with regard to this value. Furthermore, looking at the 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

placed

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

72

biggest

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

egalitarianism,
satisfied.

while France is the least not

5.Gender
The

Egalitarianism
of gender

As Is

score

perceived

it is

practiced

it is in the societies of all

egalitarianism as

of the countries participating in the GLOBE study ranges from 4.33 to 2.50 (Table 1, Figure 2 ). All the countries are grouped in three bands, A, B and C. Low scores indicate male oriented society, medium scores indicate gender egalitarianism while high scores indicate female oriented society. Theoretically the score among all countries could range from 7 - the most female oriented society - to 1 - the most male oriented society. The range of 4.33 to 2.50 indicates that overall societies tend to be perceived as egalitarian or male oriented. The five southern European countries scored from 3.01 to 3.66, scores that place them in the B and C band. The most male oriented society is Spain; the score of 3.01 places it to the lowest band, C. The other four Southern European countries tend to be male 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 closer to a more egalitarian level.
-

6. Humane Orientation As Is All of the five Southern European countries score relatively low on the index of humane orientation. The overall GLOBE range for humane orientation of society, as it is believed it is practiced, is between 5.23 and 3.18 (Table 1, Figure 2). All countries are placed in four bands - A, B, C, and D. The five southern European countries under consideration are placed on the two lower bands - C and D. Portugal is perceived to be the 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 the lower level of humane orientation, that is D. However, there are some considerable differences. Italy although in the same band with France, Greece and Spain shows a considerable difference (3.63). France and Greece follow with scores 3.40 and 3.34. The country that is perceived to be the least humane oriented is Spain with score 3.32 which is also the second lowest of all GLOBE countries.

As Should Be
The value of humane orientation scores relatively higher among three of the five countries. In particular, Spain (5.69), France (5.67) and Italy (5.68) score among the top twenty 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 and the value indicates that all five countries would like to be more humane oriented than they are (Table 1, Figure 4 ). The biggest gap between value and practice is observed in Spain; this means that Spain is the least satisfied country with regard to the practice of
humane orientation. Portugal stands at the other end of the spectrum, showing the least dissatisfaction with the practice of humane orientation in society.

As Should Be Four of the five southern European countries are at the upper levels of the range among all GLOBE countries with regard to the value of gender egalitarianism (5.17-3.18) (Table 1), while one stands at relatively lower level. In particular, Portugal (5.13), Greece (4.89), Italy (4.88), and Spain (4.82) score

higher than France (4.40). Furthermore, looking at the difference between value and practice of gender egalitarianism (Table 1, Figure 4 ), all five countries believe that the practice of gender egalitarianism should be at higher levels than it is. Spain, Italy and Portugal are the least satisfied among the five countries with the level of practiced gender

7. Power Distance As Is Power distance is an index of power stratification studied among all of the GLOBE countries. It is a cultural index found in

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

73

society as well in organizations. The overall GLOBE range for power distance of society, as it is believed it is practiced, is between 5.80 and 3.59 (Table 1, Figure 2). All countries are placed in three bands - A, B, and C. The five southern under European- countries consideration are placed in the highest band A, which indicates that they are among the countries with the highest degree of power stratification. Spain (5.52) is the most stratified of the five societies with regard to that index, followed by Portugal (5.44) and Italy (5.43). Greece comes next with a slight in the same difference (5.40). Last, but highest band A, comes France. France has the lowest score in power distance as it is perceived is practiced not only among the five countries under consideration, but among all of the countries of band A.
As Should Be
five countries with regard to the value of power distance, Spain (2.26), Portugal (2.38), and Greece (2.39) show the most respect to this value (Table 1, Figure 3 ); that is, they, more than Italy and France, believe they should have less power stratification. Also, the same pattern is observed at the difference between value of power stratification and practice in each of the five countries (Table 1, Figure 4 ). All five countries are not satisfied with the level of practice of power stratification and they would like to have less. However, the least satisfied counties, that is the countries with the biggest gap, are Spain, Portugal and Greece. The least not satisfied countries with their power stratification are Italy and France.

highest scores -5.51 and 5.45, respectively and they are placed in the group of GLOBE countries with the highest level of family collectivism - at least, as it is perceived it is practiced. The other three countries are placed to the second of the three levels, but they seem
differences. As a matter Greece (5.27) and Italy (4.94), although they belong to the same group with France, - that is group B -, their scores in family collectivism, as it is perceived it is practiced in these countries, are closer to the score of Portugal and Spain, than the score of France (4.37). In general, as it is the case with power distance and as it is expected, the five southern countries under European consideration as a group score high in family collectivism.
to have considerable

of fact,

As Should Be

Comparing the

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, looking
the difference between the should be aspect family collectivism and the perceived practice, it becomes clear that France, although it has the lowest &dquo;should be score of all, it also has the biggest gap (Table 1, Figure 4 ). Evidently, it also has the lowest perceived practice of this cultural aspect, and, therefore, is the most not satisfied with it. Italy comes second in the gap between the value of familism and the perceived practice. Greece stands at the other end of the spectrum, with a very small gap; it means that Greece is almost satisfied with the level of family collectivism it believes it practices, which as Table 1 shows, is at a relatively high level.
at

In the value

of

of

Family Collectivism As Is The score of family collectivism as it is perceived it is practiced in the societies of all countries participating in the GLOBE study ranges from 6.36 to 3.18 (Table 1, Figure 2). The highest score of the range is also the highest score of all societal cultural indices as they are perceived they are practiced among
8.
all GLOBE societies. All countries are grouped in three different bands, A, B, and C. As expected, the five southern European countries show relatively high levels of family collectivism as it is practiced, but at the same time, they seem to have considerable differences. Portugal and Spain have the two

Uncertainty Avoidance As Is Uncertainty avoidance is the last of the nine second-order indices that factor analysis of a large number of variables resulted in. The
9.
scores in this index of societal culture, as it is believed it is practiced among the GLOBE countries, range between 5.37 and 2.85 (Table 1, Figure 2). The five southern European countries 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 the highest score of uncertainty avoidance (4.43), but it also has a considerable difference from

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

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, with regard to the practice of uncertainty

2. INDICES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AMONG THE FIVE

SOUTHERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

1. Performance Orientation As Is The range of performance orientation among the GLOBE countries is between 3.70 and 5.25 (Table 2). Comparing the five southern European countries, we observe that Greece (3.85) and Portugal (4.05) score lower than the other three; then comes Italy (4.49) and France and Spain are at the same level with mean score 4.59. Greece and Portugal are among the eight countries with the lowest score in this index of organizational culture. Italy is almost in the middle, 27thfrom the top, while France and Spain stand in the lower part of top 50% of the countries. It is worth mentioning that the pattern distribution of the scores of the five countries in performance orientation organizational culture is exactly the same with the pattern of societal culture

avoidance. Greece is among the second level of all GLOBE countries, but is has the lowest score of the five southern European countries

(3.39).
As Should Be
the five southern European Greece (5.09) is the one that countries, respects most the value of uncertainty avoidance (Table I, Figure 3 ); however, it is the country that thinks that in practice tolerates uncertainty most than the rest of the countries under consideration. Naturally, Greece shows the biggest gap between value and practice of uncertainty avoidance, which means that, among the five southern European countries, it is the most not satisfied with the perceived practice of this cultural aspect (Table 1, Figure 4 ). Then, comes Spain; it has the second highest score in this value, and also the second biggest gap between the value and the perceived practice. France, in this case, presents an interesting variation; it has the lowest score in the value of uncertainty avoidance; 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 is higher than the respective value. Therefore, France has a negative difference, which means that it believes that, in practice, they should tolerate uncertainty more than they do. However, the gap between the value and the practice is very small, the smallest among the five countries. Overall, the comparisons did not reveal a pattern of differences among the five southern European countries in the nine indices of societal culture as they should be. Also, no patterned differences were observed between the values of these indices and their perceived

Among

(Figure 5 ).
As Should be
five countries believe that orientation in organizations performance should be at higher level than it is perceived it is practiced. Portugal shows the highest level of interest for this value (6.36) among the five countries (Table 2, Figure 6 ); this score places it in the second place among all GLOBE countries (2.24-6.61). Greece (5.54) is at the other end of the spectrum with a score that places it last among the five and 8ffi from bottom among all GLOBE countries. However, looking at the difference between the practice of performance orientation and the respective value (Figure 7), we observe that Greece has the second highest difference after Portugal. This means that these two countries are the least satisfied with the level of performance orientation as it is perceived it is practiced in organizational culture. Italy has the second highest score in the value of performance orientation (6.11) and the third place in difference between value and All

practice.

practice.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

75
Table 2: Indices of

Organizational

Culture

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

76

Figure 5:

Indices of Organizational Culture As Is

2. Future Orientation As Is Among the five southern European countries, the least future oriented country in the 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 the second lowest score. Then, comes Italy (4.30), which is 12th from bottom among the GLOBE countries. Spain (4.57) and Portugal (4.77) stand in the middle, while France is the most future oriented country in the perceived practice of organizational culture. France is at the top (5.07) among the five and also among the top 11 GLOBE countries. Comparing societal and organizational culture, we observe that the distribution of in differs scores future orientation

considerably (Figure 2 ).

As Should Be With regard to the value of future orientation in organizational culture, Greece has the highest score (5.86) (Table 2, Figure 6), as well as the biggest difference between perceived practice and value (Figure 7) among the five southern European countries. This score places Greece among the top 15 GLOBE countries. Italy comes second among the five with regard to the value (5.85), as well as with regard to the difference between value and practice of future orientation in organizations (Figure 7). France stands at the other end of the spectrum with score 5.34. Also, France has the smallest difference between value and practice among the five countries; since the difference tends to be close to zero value, it suggests that France is satisfied with the level of practice of future orientation in

organizations.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

77
Figure 6:
Indices of

Organizational Culture As

Should Be

3. Assertiveness As Is The least assertive country in the perceived practice of organizational culture is France (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 the five countries (3.74), which means that it is the 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 the spectrum. As a final comment, the practice of assertiveness in organizational culture is different from the practice of assertiveness in the respective society (Figure 2).

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 biggest among 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 the group, followed by Italy (3.69) and Spain (3.58). Looking at the differences between values and practices, we observe that Portugal, although it is the second least assertive country among the five (Figure 5 ), would like to be less assertive than it is. On the other hand, France and Spain would like to be more assertive than they are. Finally, France has a negative score between value and practice; but since it tends to be close to zero, it means that France is satisfied with the level of assertiveness in organizational culture.

As Should Be
Greece (4.66) more than any of the other four countries would like to be less assertive in organizational culture (Table 2, Figure 6 ). This score places Greece 5~ in the respective

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

78

Figure 7: Difference of Organizational

Culture &dquo;Should Be&dquo; - &dquo;As Is&dquo;

4. Institutional Collectivism As Is An almost similar pattern is observed with regard to the perceived practice of institutional collectivism in organizations. France has the highest score (4.96) not only among the five southern European countries, but also among all GLOBE countries (4.96 2.95) (Table 2, Figure 5 ). Greece (3.70) is last in institutional collectivism among the five, and fourth from the bottom of all GLOBE countries. Portugal (3.85), Italy (3.91), and Spain (4.09) stand between Greece and France. However, their score places them closer to Greece than France. As a matter of fact, Portugal is 6~ from bottom among the GLOBE countries, Italy 8r from bottom and Spain 17t&dquo;. It should be mentioned that the pattern distribution of the scores of the five countries in institutional collectivism in organizational culture is almost the same with the pattern of societal culture (Figure 2 ).

the differences between values and practices, we observe that, with the exception of France, the countries under consideration present considerable gaps between values and practices (Table 2, Figure 7 ). In particular, Italy, Portugal, Greece and Spain, in descending order, seem to think that institutional collectivism should be at higher levels in their organizations than it is in

practice.

As Should Be
All five countries score relatively high (5.37-5.06) in the value of institutional collectivism in organizations with regard to other GLOBE countries (5.69-1.83) (Table 2, Figure 6 ). Italy has the highest score among the five (5.37); this score places Italy in the seven 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. Looking at

Egalitarianism As Is Italy (2.26) is the most male oriented country in organizational practice among the five southern European countries; furthermore it is the 3rd most male oriented among all GLOBE countries (1.84-4.53) (Table 2, Figure 5). Portugal is the least male oriented. Actually, its score (3.40) places it among the GLOBE countries with an egalitarian organizational practice with regard to gender; it is the 14~ most egalitarian country in organizational practice. Spain (2.72), Greece (2.84) and France (3.14) are in the middle among the five southern European countries,
5. Gender
but in the spectrum of the GLOBE countries, they are rather male oriented. Finally, it should be mentioned that the pattern distribution of the scores of the five countries in gender egalitarianism in organizational culture is almost the same with the pattern of societal culture (Figure 2).

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

79

As Should Be
As it was the case in previous paragraph, all five countries score relatively high (5.434.58) in the value of gender egalitarianism compared to other GLOBE countries (5.422.95) (Table 2, Figure 6 ). Portugal has the highest score among the five southern European countries as well as among all GLOBE 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 gap between value and practice of gender egalitarianism (Table 2, Figure 7 ); this means that Italy at organizational level is the least satisfied country with the level that gender egalitarianism is practiced and that

followed by Greece (4.78). Looking at the differences between values and practices, we observe that with the exception of France, Italy, Portugal, and Greece, in descending order would like to be more humane oriented in organizational culture than they are in practice (Table 2, Figure 7 ). For France, although the difference is positive, as it is in the other four countries, it is close to zero; this means that France is satisfied with regard to the practice of humane orientation in

organizations.
7. Power Distance As Is Italy (3.54) is the least stratified country, among the five, in organizational culture. France is second with relatively small difference (3.58) (Table 2, Figure 5). These two countries hold the 10~ and 14~ place among the least power oriented countries in the overall spectrum of GLOBE countries (3.01 - 4.79) (Table 2, Figure 5 ). Portugal (3.91), Spain (3.92), and Greece (4.13) form the second subgroup among the five countries. With regard to all GLOBE countries, their scores 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 stratification in organizational culture is different from the respective pattern in societal culture among the five countries.

should be more egalitarian. France presents the smallest gap of the other four countries. Spain, Portugal, and Greece in descending order would like to see more gender egalitarianism in their organizations than it is practiced.

organizations

6. Humane Orientation As Is
France (4.77) is the most humane oriented country, among the five, and also, the 11 th most humane oriented in organizational practice 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 oriented countries in the GLOBE spectrum. The pattern of distribution of the scores in humane orientation in organizational culture is different from the respective pattern in societal culture.

As Should Be For all five countries power stratification

organizations is not desirable, at least to the degree they think it is practiced in organizations. In particular, for all five
in

countries, the difference between the value

As Should Be

Spain (5.30) more than any of the other four countries would like to be humane oriented in organizational culture (Table 2, Figure 6 ). This score places Spain in the 5t place in the respective scale of all GLOBE
countries (5.54-3.74). Also, for Spain the difference between the &dquo;should be&dquo; value and the &dquo;as is&dquo; is the biggest among the five countries. This means that Spain more than any other country would like to be more humane in organizational culture than it is in practice. Portugal (5.15) and Italy (5.10) and France (4.99) stand in the middle of the group,

practice of this index is negative (Table 2, Figure 7). This means that they all would like to have less stratification than they think they have. The biggest gap is found in Spain. Spain more that the other four countries
and the would like to have less stratification than it perceives it has. For Italy and France, the difference is close to zero; this means that they are satisfied with the degree of practiced stratification in their organizations.

Family Collectivism As Is The practice of family collectivism in organizational culture varies considerably
8.
among the five countries. France has the

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

80

highest score of the five (5.16), which also places it among the six top countries in the practice of this index of organizational culture (Table 2, Figure 5). Spain comes second with score 4.97, a score that places the organizational culture of this country to the 16h place of the most family oriented GLOBE countries (5.52 - 3.86). Italy (4.61), Portugal (4.44), and Greece (4.20) tend to be at the
other side of the spectrum. It is worth to be mentioned that the pattern of distribution of the five countries with regard to family collectivism in organizational culture is almost the opposite. That is, France has the highest score in organizational culture and the lowest in societal culture; Greece has the lowest score in organizational culture and the highest in societal culture.

organizational culture (Figure 5 ) with societal culture (Figure 2), we observe that in both cases, France has the highest scores. However,
the countries with the lowest scores are different in organizational and societal cultures. Greece has the lowest score in societal culture and Portugal in organizational culture. Overall, there is not observed a standard pattern of differences among the five countries. However, France stands out in four of the nine indices with a considerable difference, and in two more indices with a not so considerable difference from the rest of the countries.

As Should Be

As Should Be
In the scale of the value of family collectivism in organizations in GLOBE countries (6.51-3.09), the five southern European countries stand rather in the middle (Table 2, Figure 6 ). Spain (5.99) has the highest score in this value and Greece the lowest (5.70); France (5.88), Italy (5.88) and Portugal (5 .81 ) stand in the middle among the five. However, looking at the difference between value and perceived practice, we observe that Greece has the biggest gap (Table 2, Figure 7). This means that Greece is the least satisfied country with the degree of practice of family collectivism in organizations and would like to see more of it, more than any of the rest four countries. Portugal and Italy have the second and third biggest gaps followed by Spain, while France has the smallest gap.

Spain (4.99) has the highest score with regard 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 certainty avoidance with the respective value in organizations, we observe some very interesting variations. Spain which has the highest score in this value (Table 2, Figure 6) has the smallest gap (Figure 7) -almost zerobetween value and practice. Therefore, in Spain organizations are almost content with the level of uncertainty avoidance they practice. In France, the gap is negative; organizations think they should practice less uncertainty avoidance than they actually do. Italy on the other hand has the biggest positive difference 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 second order indices of leadership coming out of the GLOBE-project analysis of data of all participating countries. For the purposes of this paper, we present the scores of these indices for the five southern European countries, as well as the range for all GLOBE countries. The six indices are: autonomous,

9.

Uncertainty Avoidance As

Is

As it was the case with most of the indices of organizational practice, France (4.60) (Table 2, Figure 5 ) in the case of uncertainty avoidance stands higher than the rest of the countries under consideration. However, Spain, which comes second, is very close to France (4.59). This means that these two countries, more than the other three, try to avoid uncertainty in organizational culture. Greece comes third (4.14), followed by Italy (3.87). Portugal is the last in the spectrum of the five, but is also the third last among all GLOBE countries (5.35 - 3.40). Comparing

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

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

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

is last. Spain (5.90) and Portugal (5.75) stand in the middle of the spectrum. Following the previous pattern, Greece (5.16) gets the highest score in humane leadership among the five and France the lowest (3.82). Spain (4.66), Portugal (4.60) and Italy (4.38) stand in the middle.

(4.93)

Figure 8: Country Rankings of Leadership

team

The indices of self-protectiveness and orientation follow almost identical patterns (Table 3, Figure 8). The index of participation differentiates, to some extent, from the previous indices. France (5.90) has the highest score followed by Greece (5.81); Spain (5.11) and Italy (5.47) have the second lowest. Summing up, the observed pattern is that Greece in five out of the six indices has

the highest scores; France on the other hand in five out of the six indices has the lowest
scores.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The answer to the first question addressed in this paper seems to be that there are more similarities than differences among

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

82 countries in the southern part of the European Union that may support clustering them. the group. The results of the present study confirm the findings of previous research. Overall, none of the five southern European countries shows a stable pattern of differences from the other four. In terms of the deontological aspect of societal culture (should be), the five southern European countries seem to place a more or less similar emphasis on societal values. Thus, reward for performance improvement and collectivism and excellence, family of fair, generous, friendly and encouragement caring behaviors, future-oriented behaviors and collective distribution of resources and collective action are the most important values in all southern countries, even though each them country prioritizes differently. Performance orientation is the first priority of societal values for all countries, except for France, which places more emphasis on the humane aspects of society.

A. Societal Culture
With regard to societal culture, as a group subgroups, the five southern European countries 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 high degree of power distance. It seems that middle managers from the south part of the E.U. agree that the perceived emphasis of societal practices is based on high power stratification and pride, loyalty and cohesiveness in families and organizations (family collectivism). They also agree that society wants more equal distribution of power, since they all value power distance very low (highest negative score in the gap between &dquo;should be&dquo; and &dquo;as is&dquo; (Table 1)).
or as

Assertiveness,

uncertainty

avoidance,
B.

gender egalitarianism and humane orientation are the indices with the most considerable differences. With regard to assertiveness, Portugal and Greece differentiate considerably from the other three countries. Portugal shows very low level of assertiveness, while Greece is placed at the other end of the spectrum with the highest level of assertiveness. Overall, the results of the GLOBE study indicate a low level of uncertainty avoidance, even though the countries within the group show considerable differences. Greece is the country with the highest bearing of uncertainty, in practice, while they value uncertainty avoidance. This is due to the fact that Greeks have lived under a highly turbulent environment over the last century
(Papalexandris, 1999). France, on the other hand, shows high uncertainty avoidance but
values
more

Organizational Culture
When

uncertainty bearing.

In

general,

societal values confirm expectations of the In gender avoiding uncertainty tradition.

egalitarianism, Spain departs considerably from the rest of the countries showing the
lowest level of this index of societal culture. Finally, with regard to humane orientation, Portugal seems to be more humane oriented than 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

societal and comparing culture practices, we notice that organizational there are remarkable differences both within and among countries practices, but there is no discemable pattern. Organizational practices seem to be based on a family culture. It is also important to note that organizations also value pride, loyalty and cohesiveness, since it is ranked as first and second priority of organizational values in all southern European countries. Overall, the organizational culture comparisons of the nine indices of the respective values among the five countries did not indicate any standard pattern of difference between countries. However, looking at the difference between values and practices of the nine indices of organizational culture, we observe that France, in six out of the nine cases, has the smallest difference among the five countries. This indicates that for the respective six indices France is the most satisfied, among the five southern European countries, 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 respondents from only one organization from one sector. Previous research findings support that French managers are risk aversive and show lack of concern for peers (Bigoness and

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

83

Blakely, 1989; Kanungo

and Wright, 1983). Here, the results confirm that in organizational

practices French managers tend to avoid uncertainty, comparing to the other four countries, but they value uncertainty bearing, while they have they highest score in the humane orientation as it is practices in the organizations. Gender egalitarianism and performance orientation seem to be the two most important
issues, for all southern countries, since there is remarkable difference between organizational practice and value.
C.

comprise the south axis of E.U. Despite the geographical dispersion of these countries along the Mediterranean basin, common origins of civilization, and religion, as well as a similar stage of economic development are
all factors that contribute to view these countries as culturally convergent. In view of the enlargement of E.U. toward eastern countries, full understanding of existing member states, will help better integration of newcomers. The GLOBE project offers a unique opportunity to examine and understand better cross-cultural and leadership issues. In a number of studies, Greece has been included in the Near-East, or Eastern European cluster (Ronen and Shenkar, 1985;

Leadership

Southern European countries present considerable differences in terms of leadership attributes. Even though humane culture, both societal and organizational, is valued by all five countries, it seems that humane leadership is not a very strong leadership attribute, especially in France, which reported the lowest score from all countries participating in the GLOBE project. Self-protection is another weak leadership attribute, since all five southern European countries score low. In a recent study by Brodbeck et al (2000) it is supported that clusters of European countries which share similar cultural values, also share similar leadership concepts. The results of the present study, support the hypothesis that there is no significant pattern of differences among southern European countries and thus, clustering them may be useful for crosscultural issues. However, we believe that we need to examine the relationship between culture, societal and organizational, and leadership profiles in each country, to better understand differences and similarities among countries.

Smith, 1997; Gupta

based
on

et

al, 2002). However,

the findings of the present study we the Griffeth et al (1980) thesis that support Greece has close proximity to the Latin group. We have compared the five countries along

societal and organizational culture dimensions and leadership attributes and we can infer that there 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 to combine quantitative with qualitative data from organizations in these countries, in order to 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 understand elements of effective leadership in these countries. This can prove very useful,

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

especially in case of mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures and economic cooperation in general. It can also have practical implications for cross cultural management training and
intercultural communication.

European Union has promoted the integration among European countries. Toward this objective common policies and procedures have been determined, affecting all member states. Understanding similarities and differences within E.U. is important to facilitate cooperation among countries and harmonization in systems and procedures. The five countries under study in this paper,

REFERENCES
Anzizu, J.M. and
P. Nuenos (1984), Leadership under sociopolitical change: Business enterprise in 75 Spain. Paper presented at the th Anniversary Colloquium on Leadership, Harvard Business

School, Boston.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010

84

Aubert, N.,

B.

Ramanantsoa, and R Reitter (1984),

House, R.J., P.J. Hanges, and S.A. Ruiz-Quantanilla

Nationalization, managerial power and societal

change: A field study in France 1982-1983. Paper th presented at the 75 Anniversary Colloquium on Leadership, Harvard Business School, Boston. Ayman, R., M.M. Chemers, and F.E. Fiedler (1995), "The contingency model of leadership effectiveness:Its levels of analysis". Leadership Quarterly 6(2):147-167. Bakacsi, G., S. Takacs, A. Karacsonyi, and V. Imrek (2002), "Eastern European Cluster: tradition and transition". Paper presented at the website of GLOBE publication (http://mgmt3.ucalgary.ca/web/globpriv.nsf/index) Bass, B.M., and B.J. Avolio (1993), "Transformational leadership: A response to critiques". In Chemers, M.M., and R. Ayman, Leadership theory and research: 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 international Bigoness,
comparison. Free Press, New York. W.J. and G.L. Blakely (1989), A
croos-

(1997), "GLOBE: The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness research program". Polish Psychological Bulletin, 28: 215254.

House, R.J., N.S. Wright, and R.N. Aditya (1997),

"Cross-cultural research
on

organizational

study of managerial values. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Washington, D.C.
national
et al (2000), "Cultural of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries". Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73: 1-29. Broome, B. (1996), Exploring the Greek mosaic: A guide 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 international study of attitudinal differences among executives". Academy of Management Journal, 14: 285-304. Faucheux, C., G. Amado, and A. Laurent (1982), "Organizational development and change". Annual Review of Psychology, 33: 343-370. Griffeth, R.W., P.W. Hom, A. Denisi, and W. Kirchner (1980). "A multivariate, multinational comparison of 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 World Business, special issue 37(1): 11-15. Hampden-Turner, C., and F. Trompenaars (2000), Building cross-cultural competence: How to create wealth 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.

Brodbeck, F.C, and M. Frese

variation

and a proposed P.C. Early and M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives in international organizational psychology. 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, Cultural influences and 159 co-authors (1999). 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), "Top management 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: 115129. 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 Work and Organizational Psychology, Special Issue on Organizational Culture, Running Title "Culture and leadership in Europe". Papalexandris, N. (1999), Greece: From ancient myths to modern realities. Chapter submitted for the second GLOBE anthology. Papalexandris, N., and D. Bourantas (1993), "Differences in leadership behavior and influence between public and private organizations in Greece". International Journal of Human Resource Management, 4(4): Ronen, S., and O. Shenkar (1985). "Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and

leadership: theory". In

A critical

analysis

"

synthesis". Academy of Management Review,

10(3): 435-454. Smith, P.B. (1997), "Leadership in Europe: Euromanagement or the footprint of history?". European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 6: 375-386. Smith, P.B., S. Dugan, and F. Trompenaars (1996), "National culture and the values of organizational Journal Cross-Cultural of employees". Psychology, 27(2) 231-263. Triandis, H.C., (1993). "The contingency model in crosscultural perspective". In Chemers, M.M., and R. Ayman, Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions, 167-188. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Trompenaars, F. (1994), Riding the waves of culture: Understanding culture and diversity in business. Nicholas Brealey, London.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at University of New South Wales on July 29, 2010