AN INTRODUCTION TO ELEMENTS OF

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL DIVERSITY

2017-2018

TD6

1
 Fons Trompenaars

Fons Trompenaars is a Dutch author in the field of cross-cultural

communication. His books include: Riding the Waves of Culture,
Seven Cultures of Capitalism, Building Cross-Cultural Competence,
21 Leaders for the 21st Century and Innovating in a Global Crisis. His
most recent book is called Servant-Leaders Across Cultures.

Trompenaars studied economics at the Free University of Amsterdam

and later earned a Ph.D from Wharton School, University of
Pennsylvania, with a dissertation on differences in conceptions of organizational structure in
various cultures. He experienced cultural differences firsthand at home, where he grew up
speaking both French and Dutch, and then later at work with Shell in nine countries.

Much of Trmpenaars’ work has been carried out in collaboration with his long-time British
colleague, Charles Hampden-Turner.

The Three Layers of Culture :

The outer layer : this is what people primarily associate with culture: the visual reality of
behaviour, clothes, food, language, housing, etc. This is the level of explicit culture.

The middle layer : refers to the norms and values which a community holds: what is considered
right and wrong (norms) or good and bad (values). Norms are often external and reinforced by
social control. Values tend to be more internal than norms. Values and norms structure the way
people in a particular culture behave. However, they are not visible, despite their influence on
what happens at the observable surface.

The inner layer : the deepest level of implicit culture. Understanding the core of the culture
onion is the key to successfully working with other cultures. The core consists of basic
assumptions, series of rules and methods to deal with the regular problems that it faces. These
methods of problem-solving have become so basic that, like breathing, we no longer think about
how we do it. For an outsider these basic assumptions are very difficult to recognize.

Every culture has developed its own set of basic assumptions which can be measured by
dimensions. Each dimension is like a continuum and, although cultures differ in how they deal
with these dimensions, they do not differ in needing to make some kind of response.

According to Trompenaars, every culture distinguishes itself from others by the specific
solutions it chooses to certain problems which reveal themselves as dilemmas. We can look at
these problems under three headings:

• those which arise from our relationships with other people;

• those which come from the passage of time;
• those which relate to the environment.

From the solutions different cultures have chosen to these universal problems, we can further
identify seven fundamental dimensions of culture:

2
1) UNIVERSALISM versus PARTICULARISM
Rules/systems versus exceptions and relationships
What is more important - rules or relationships?

People in universalistic cultures share the belief that general rules, codes, values and
standards take precedence over particular needs and claims of friends and relations. In
universalistic societies, the rules apply equally to the whole "universe" of members. Any
exception weakens the rule.

For example: the rule that you should bear truthful witness in a court of law, or give your
honest judgment to the insurance company concerning a payment it is about to make to you,
is more important here than particular ties of friendship or family. It isn't that in
universalistic cultures, particular ties are completely unimportant. But the universal truth,
the law, is considered logically more significant than these relationships.

Particularistic cultures see the ideal culture in terms of human friendship, extraordinary
achievement and situations; and in intimate relationships. The "spirit of the law" is deemed
more important than the "letter of the law". Obviously there are rules and laws in
particularistic cultures; but these merely codify here how people relate to each other. Rules
are needed - if only to be able to make exceptions to them for particular cases - but we need
to be able to count on our friends.

2) INDIVIDUALISM versus COMMUNITARIANISM

Individualism versus Communitarianism

Do we function in a group or as an individual?

In a predominantly individualistic culture people place the individual before the

community. Individual happiness, fulfilment, and welfare set the pace. People are expected
to decide matters largely on their own and to take care primarily of themselves and their
immediate family. The community is judged by the extent to which it serves the interest of
individual members.

In a predominantly communitarian culture people place the community before the

individual. It is the responsibility of the individual to act in ways which serve society. By
doing so, individual needs will be taken care of naturally. The quality of life for the
individual is seen as directly dependent on the degree to which he takes care of his fellow
man, even at the cost of individual freedom. The individual is judged by the extent to which
he serves the interest of the community.

3
3) NEUTRAL versus AFFECTIVE Relationships
Controlling emotions versus expressive emotions

Do we display our emotions?

In an affective culture people do not object to a display of emotions. It isn't considered

necessary to hide feelings and to keep them inside. Affective cultures may interpret the less
explicit signals of a neutral culture as less important. They may be ignored or even go
unnoticed.

In a neutral culture people are taught that it is incorrect to show one's feelings overtly. This
doesn't mean they do not have feelings, it just means that the degree to which feeling may
become manifest is limited. They accept and are aware of feelings, but are in control of
them. Neutral cultures may think the louder signals of an affective culture too excited, and
over-emotional. In neutral cultures, showing too much emotion may erode your power to
interest people

4) SPECIFIC versus DIFFUSE Relationships

Segmenting versus integrating relationships

How far do we get involved?

People from specific cultures start with the elements, the specifics. First they analyze them
separately, and then they put them back together again. In specific cultures, the whole is the
sum of its parts.
Each person's life is divided into many components: you can only enter one at a time.
Interactions between people are highly purposeful and well-defined. The public sphere of
specific individuals is much larger than their private sphere. People are easily accepted into
the public sphere, but it is very difficult to get into the private sphere, since each area in
which two people encounter each other is considered separate from the other, a specific
case. Specific individuals concentrate on hard facts, standards, contracts.

Diffusely oriented cultures start with the whole and see each element in perspective of the
total. All elements are related to each other. These relationships are more important than
each separate element; so the whole is more than just the sum of its elements. Diffuse
individuals have a large private sphere and a small public one. Newcomers are not easily
accepted into either. But once they have been accepted, they are admitted into all layers of
the individual's life. A friend is a friend in all respects: tennis, cooking, work, etc. The
various roles someone might play in your life are not separated. Qualities cherished by
diffuse cultures include style, demeanour, ambiance, trust, understanding, etc.

5) ACHIEVEMENT versus ASCRIPTION

Status based on: “What you do” versus “Who you are”

Do we have to prove ourselves to receive status or is it given to us?

Achieved status refers to what an individual does and has accomplished. In achievement-
oriented cultures, individuals derive their status from what they have accomplished. A
person with achieved status has to prove what he is worth over and over again: status is
accorded on the basis of his actions.
Ascribed status refers to what a person is and how others relate to his or her position in the
community, in society or in an organization. In an ascriptive society, individuals derive their
4
status from birth, age, gender or wealth. A person with ascribed status does not have to
achieve to retain his status: it is accorded to him on the basis of his being.

6) TIME
Monochronic versus Polychronic

Do we do things one at a time or several things at once?

Sequential vs Synchronic cultures

Every culture has developed its own response to time. The time orientation dimension has
two aspects: the relative importance cultures give to the past, present, and future, and their
approach to structuring time.

Time can be structured in two ways.

In one approach time moves forward, second by second, minute by minute, hour by hour in
a straight line. This is called sequentialism.
In another approach time moves round in cycles: of minutes, hours, days, years. We call
this synchronism.

People structuring time sequentially tend to do one thing at a time. They view time as a
narrow line of distinct, consecutive segments. Sequential people view time as tangible and
divisible. They strongly prefer planning and keeping to plans once they have been made.
Time commitments are taken seriously. Staying on schedule is a must.

People structuring time synchronically usually do several things at a time. To them, time is
a wide ribbon, allowing many things to take place simultaneously. Time is flexible and
intangible. Time commitments are desirable rather than absolute. Plans are easily changed.
Synchronic people especially value the satisfactory completion of interactions with others.

Past-oriented cultures : If a culture is predominantly oriented towards the past, the future
is seen as a repetition of past experiences. Respect for ancestors and collective historical
experiences are characteristic of a past-oriented culture.

Present-oriented cultures : A predominantly present-oriented culture will not attach much

value to common past experiences nor to future prospects. Day-by-day experiences tend to
direct people's life.

Future-oriented cultures : In a future-oriented culture most human activities are directed

toward future prospects. Generally, the past is not considered to be vitally significant to a
future state of affairs. Planning constitutes a major activity in future-oriented cultures.

5
 7) INTERNAL CONTROL versus EXTERNAL CONTROL
Internal Control (dominate nature) versus External Control (part of nature)

Do we control our environment or work with it ?

Relations with Nature. Every culture has developed an attitude towards the natural
environment. Survival has meant acting with or against nature. The way we relate to our
environment is linked to the way we seek to have control over our own lives and over our
destiny or fate.

Internalistic people have a mechanistic view of nature. They see nature as a complex
machine and machines can be controlled if you have the right expertise. Internalistic people
do not believe in luck or predestination. They are 'inner-directed' - one's personal resolution
is the starting point for every action. You can live the life you want to live if you take
advantage of the opportunities.

Man can dominate nature - if he makes the effort. Externalistic people have a more organic
view of nature. Mankind is one of nature's forces, so should operate in harmony with the
environment. Man should subjugate to nature and go along with its forces. Externalistic
people do not believe that they can shape their own destiny. 'Nature moves in mysterious
ways', and therefore you never know what will happen to you. The actions of externalistic
people are 'outer-directed' - adapted to external circumstances.

The Reconciliation Method

How do we, or should we, better accommodate the differences between our cultures and others
with whom we are trying to work, do business or manage ?

In dealing with different cultures, you have several options:

Ignoring other cultures : One type of response is to ignore the other orientation. You are
sticking to your own cultural standpoint. Your style of decision making is to either impose your
own way of doing things because it is your belief that your way of doing things and your values
are best, or because you have rejected other ways of thinking or doing things because you have
either not recognised them or have no respect for them.

Abandon your standpoint : Another response is to abandon your orientation and 'go native'.
Here you adopt a 'when in Rome, do as Roman's do' approach. Acting or keeping up such
pretences won't go unseen - you will be very much an amateur. Other cultures will mistrust you
- and you won't be able offer your own strengths to the marriage.

Compromise : Sometimes do it your way. Sometimes give in to the others. But this is a win-
lose solution or even lose-lose solution. Compromise cannot lead to a solution in which both
parties are satisfied - something has to give.

Reconciliation : What is needed is an approach where the two opposing views can come to
fuse or blend - where the strength of one extreme is extended by considering and
accommodating the other. This is reconciliation.

6
In short, people need to learn to :

 Recognise cultural differences

 Respect cultural differences
 Reconcile cultural differences
 Realise and Root the reconciliation in practice

Fons Trompenaars - http://www.thtconsulting.com/

7
 Introduction to the GLOBE Research Project on Leadership
Worldwide
Cornelius N. Grove, Ed.D., GROVEWELL LLC

GLOBE is the acronym for “Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness,”
the name of a cross-cultural research effort that exceeds all others (including Geert
Hofstede’s landmark 1980 study) in scope, depth, duration, and sophistication. The first
book-length report of the GLOBE Research Program was recently published by Sage, and
it is this book that GROVEWELL is overviewing here. It is Robert J. House et al., Culture,
Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage Publications, 2004.

The GLOBE Project's Definition of Leadership

The GLOBE researchers studied leadership worldwide; they defined leadership as
"...the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to
contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which
they are members" [p. 15].
Introductory Overview of the GLOBE Research Effort
Conceived in 1991 by Robert J. House of the Wharton School of the University of
Pennsylvania, and led by Professor House, the GLOBE Project directly involved 170
“country co-investigators” based in 62 of the world’s cultures as well as a 14-member group
of coordinators and research associates. This international team collected data from 17,300
middle managers in 951 organizations (for details about the research sample, see Note 1).
They used qualitative methods to assist their development of quantitative instruments. In
order to accurately and sensitively record the nuances of local meanings, all instruments
were developed in consultation with members of each target culture, and instrument
translation was done with enormous care. Specific attention also was paid to the effect of
"response bias" on data-gathering and -analysis (Note 2). Relevant previous literature was
exhaustively reviewed and, as appropriate, applied (making the book being overviewed here
a veritable bibiographic goldmine). Ultimately, 27 research hypotheses were tested.

GLOBE is a research project of at least three phases. The first two are dealt with in the
recently published book. Phase 1 involved the development of research instruments. Phase
2 assessed nine fundamental attributes, or cultural dimensions, of both societal and
organizational cultures, and explored how these impact leadership in 62 societal cultures.
Phase 3, currently underway, is primarily studying the effectiveness of specific leader
behaviors (including that of CEOs) on subordinates’ attitudes and performance.

GLOBE’s 62 Societal Cultures and 10 Societal Clusters

The 62 “societal cultures” assessed by GLOBE range from Albania to Zimbabwe. They
comprise all the business-oriented societies you might hope to find with the exceptions of
Norway and Saudi Arabia, plus several you might not expect such as El Salvador, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Namibia, Qatar, Slovenia, and Zambia.

8
 These societal cultures are not referred to as “nations” because the researchers were
admirably thinking as social anthropologists instead of political scientists. Among the 62 are
included “Canada (English-speaking),” “Germany (Former East),” “Germany (Former
West),” “South Africa (Black sample),” “South Africa (White sample),” and finally both
“Switzerland (French-speaking)” and "Switzerland" [said on p. 725 to be German-speaking].

To aid in the interpretation of findings, the researchers grouped the 62 societies into 10
“societal clusters” or simply “clusters.” The clustering decisions were finalized before the
research findings were collected, not as a result of the findings. One of the more interesting
chapters in the book (Chapter 10) concerns the reasons why each societal culture was
included in this or that cluster. The ten societal clusters, and the number of societies within
each cluster, are as follows. (Note 3)

The Ten "Societal Clusters" and Number of Societies in Each

Anglo - 7 Latin Europe - 6
Nordic Europe - 3 Germanic Europe - 5
Eastern Europe - 8 Latin America - 10
Sub-Saharan Africa - 5 Middle East - 5
Southern Asia - 6 Confucian Asia - 6

There are almost no surprises in terms of which societies appear within each cluster. I say
"almost" because there is one: Israel is in the “Latin Europe” cluster. About this decision,
the authors explain that, long ago, some Jews in Southern Europe converted to Catholicism
due to religious persecution while others migrated to Eastern Europe. Members of the latter
group were largely responsible for founding Israel, and they "retained their social and business
ties with the Latin European region" [p. 184].

GLOBE’s Standards for Measurement: Nine "Cultural Dimensions"

The first major question addressed by the GLOBE researchers was which measurement
standards to use so that they could be precise about the similarities and differences among
various societal and organizational cultures. After a thoroughgoing literature review as well
as two pilot studies, the team identified nine “cultural dimensions” that would serve as their
units of measurement, or (in research language) "independent variables."

Cultural dimensions have been an often-used tool of intercultural researchers for decades;
readers familiar with them will find among the GLOBE nine some that are well-known and
some that have been carefully redefined or even newly developed. Each of these nine units
of measurement receives a great deal of attention in the book, and are discussed at length in
my third interpretative article (click here). Here I will list them by name only:

9
 The Nine Units of Measurement or "Cultural Dimensions"

Performance Orientation Uncertainty Avoidance Humane Orientation

Institutional Collectivism In-Group Collectivism Assertiveness
Gender Egalitarianism Future Orientation Power Distance

For readers who are not familiar with cultural dimensions, I will explain that each of these
is conceptualized and depicted as a continuum between two extreme poles. For example,
people in a society or an organization might be extremely non-assertive, extremely assertive,
or anywhere in between. As visually portrayed in my third article (click here), the GLOBE
researchers used a 7-step rating scale. Continuing with assertiveness as our example, “1” is
greatly non-assertive, “4” is neither non- assertive nor assertive, and “7” is greatly assertive.
If you are new to cultural dimensions, it is essential that you avoid thinking of them,
implicitly or explicitly, as dichotomies.

Another significant fact about GLOBE’s nine cultural dimensions is that each one was
conceptualized in two ways: practices or “as is,” and values or “should be.” Continuing with
the example above, people in a society or an organization could rate themselves in actual
practice as “6” or somewhat assertive, but simultaneously could rate themselves as valuing,
or preferring, a state of affairs that is “3” or slightly non-assertive. Some of GLOBE’s most
fascinating findings come to light because the team consistently sought to compare
respondents’ values with their practices.
To summarize, within each of the nine cultural dimensions, the GLOBE researchers probed
respondents about both practices and values, and did so within both the larger society and
the specific organization:

Investigated for each of the

Wider Society Organization
nine cultural dimensions:
PRACTICES (as is)

VALUES (should be)

A Major Research Question about Leadership

One of the most important questions addressed by the GLOBE research team concerned the
extent to which the practices and values associated with leadership are universal (i.e., are
similar worldwide), and the extent to which they are specific to just a few societies. To probe
this issue, the team began with a large number of possible leader "attributes." As a result of
their findings from the 17,300 respondents worldwide regarding all these attributes, the team
was able to identify 21 “primary leadership dimensions” or “first order factors” that in all
societal cultures are viewed as, to some extent, contributing to a leader's effectiveness or lack
of effectiveness. (To view an illustration in my second article depicting the overall research
design, click here.) The 21 primary leadership dimensions are:

10
 The Primary Leadership Dimensions (also called First Order Factors)

Administratively Competent Decisive Non-participative

Autocratic Diplomatic Performance oriented
Autonomous Face saver Procedural
Charismatic / Visionary Humane orientation Self-centered
Charismatic / Inspirational Integrity Status consciousness
Charismatic / Self-sacrificial Malevolent Team collaborative
Conflict inducer Modesty Team integrator

Each of the 21 primary leadership dimensions comprises two to four of the original
“attributes.” For example, the first of the 21, Administratively Competent, comprises four
attributes: orderly, administratively skilled, organized, and good administrator. The last of
the 21, Team Integrator, likewise comprises four attributes: communicative, team builder,
informed, and integrator. The full list of 21 dimesions, each with its set of attributes, is
found in the book in Table 8.4 [p. 131].

Returning for a moment to the level of the numerous component “attributes,” three major
research questions were these (the wording below is mine):
1. Are one or more attributes universally viewed as contributing to outstanding leadership?
If "yes," they are termed “universal positive leader attributes.”

2. Are one or more attributes universally viewed as inhibiting outstanding leadership? If

"yes," these are termed “universal negative leader attributes.”

(For information about the meaning above of “universal,” consult the final section of this
article, “A Word About GLOBE’s Research Design.”)

3. Are one or more attributes culturally specific, viewed as contributing to outstanding

leadership in some societies and as inhibiting outstanding leadership in other societies? If
"yes," these are termed “culturally contingent leadership attributes.”

GLOBE’s Six “Culturally Endorsed Leadership Theory Dimensions”

A principal outcome of this huge research effort was the development of six universally
shared conceptions of leadership, known most often as "culturally endorsed leadership
theory dimensions," also known as "global leadership dimensions" and by several other
names (Note 4).
It is of critical importance to keep in mind that these six are dimensions, or continua, and as
such are not statements of what is outstanding leadership. Rather, they are about the ways
in which people worldwide distinguish between leaders who are effective and ineffective.

These six culturally endorsed leadership theory dimensions are a direct outgrowth of the
research within all 62 societal cultures. The six are described using the 21 “primary

11
 leadership dimensions” or “first order factors” from the table above. The six are listed below
[based on Table 21.1, p. 676]:

The Six Global Leadership Dimensions ** means "reverse scored"

Charismatic/Value-Based Team Oriented Self-Protective

» Charismatic/Visionary » Team collaborative » Self-centered
» Charismatic/Inspirational » Team integrative » Status conscious
» Charismatic/Self-sacrificing » Diplomatic » Conflict inducer
» Integrity » Malevolent ** » Face saver
» Decisive » Admin. competent » Procedural
» Performance oriented

Participative Humane Oriented Autonomous

» Autocratic ** » Modesty » Autonomous
» Non-participative ** » Humane oriented

Much of the analysis in the book is focused on explaining how the nine cultural dimensions
(e.g., “performance orientation,” “assertiveness,” and seven others) as independent variables
relate to the six culturally endorsed leadership theory dimensions (e.g., “charismatic / value-
based,” “team-oriented,” and four others) as dependent variables across the 10 societal
clusters. Constantly referenced in all analyses are the findings at the societal and
organizational levels, and the findings in terms of practices (as- is) and values (should-be).

A Few Words About GLOBE’s Research Design

The book includes extended, highly technical discussions of the project’s research design
and statistical analyses; in fact, the 140-page Part III is entitled “Research Methodology.”
Although I have a basic understanding of statistics and research procedures and have
personally been involved with rigorously designed research, I am not qualified to pass
judgment on the excellence of these admittedly critical features of the GLOBE Project.
However, I would like to note two matters that may be of interest to the general reader.

CLIMATIC DETERMINISM: As mentioned above under the heading “GLOBE’s 62

Societal Cultures and 10 Societal Clusters,” the book includes a compelling chapter (Chapter
10, within Part
III) on the clustering of the 62 societies. What I did not mention previously is that this chapter
also includes an extended consideration of the extent to which physical climate can be a
basis for the clustering of societies. As the co-authors point out, many scholars have argued
that climate influences culture, a recent example being Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and
Steel (1997). If climate does determine culture to a significant extent, then GLOBE’s
research team clearly wanted climate to be a factor that they properly took into account. With
respect to climate, the authors' conclusions are these: It is true that “…extremity of
thermoclimate (temperature) has a particularly important influence on the societal
behaviors” [p. 211]. However, “On the whole, the societies [in the GLOBE sample] showed
a capacity to develop practices and values that eschew climatic determinism” [p. 215].
12
THE MEANING OF "UNIVERSAL": As noted above under the heading “A Major
Research Question about Leadership,” the research team was determined to explore whether
there are cultural universals with respect to leadership. I was impressed by the very stringent
requirements the team imposed upon itself in order to say that a leadership attribute is
"universal" or “universally endorsed” as positive or negative [pages 677-8]:

Universal Positive: To be “universally endorsed” as contributing to effective leadership,

an attribute had to meet both of two criteria: (a) 95% of the societal averages had to exceed
a mean of 5 on a 1-to-7 scale (on which 7 is high), and (b) the worldwide grand mean score
for that attribute (considering all 62 cultures together) had to exceed 6 on a 1-to-7 scale.

Universal Negative: To be “universally endorsed” as an impediment to effective leadership,

an attribute had to meet similar criteria: (a) 95% of the societal averages had to be less than
a mean of 3 on a 1-to-7 scale, and (b) the worldwide grand mean score for that attribute
(considering all 62 cultures together) had to be less than 3 on a 1-to-7 scale.

*****

NOTE 1: About the research sample, the GLOBE team reports that "...sampling strategy
required that data from each society met the following criteria: (a) respondents had to be
middle managers, (b) multiple respondents had to be obtained from organizations, (c) two
or more organizations had to be obtained from two of three types of industries (financial,
food processing, and telecommunication), and (d) at least two industries had to be obtained
for each society. Half of the respondents from a given organization completed one version
of the GLOBE culture and leadership questionnaire. The other half completed a second
version of the [same] questionnaire. By administering these questionnaires to separate
samples of middle managers from the same organization or society, we minimized or even
eliminated common source response bias....

"A total of 17,370 middle managers from 951 organizations in three industries completed
the culture and leadership questionnaires in both Phases 1 and 2 of GLOBE. Specifically,
1,943 respondents participated in the Phase 1 pilot studies and 15,427 respondents
participated in Phase 2. The number of respondents by country ranged from 27 to 1,790 with
an average per country of 251 respondents.

"Approximately 74.8% of our respondents were men." [Note: This percentage is

approximate due to cultural sensitivities in the collection of demographic information.]
"Respondents had an average full- time work experience of 19.2 years, of which an average
of 10.5 years were spent as managers. They had worked for their current organizations an
average of 12.2 years.

"Phase 2 data were obtained from middle managers employed in 951 separate organizations.
Only corporations headquartered in the host cultures were included in our sample.
Therefore, we deliberately excluded from our sample foreign multinational corporations.
Multinational corporations were excluded because their members would be from multiple
13
cultures and their responses would not be indicative of [their] societal culture..." [p. 96,
italics added].

NOTE 2: Response bias occurs when a group of respondents tends to use a generally
positive, or generally negative, response set; or when group members tend to use only end-
points (e.g., 1, 2, 6, 7) or only mid-points (e.g., 3, 4, 5) of a scale. Existing research has
shown that there are societal-wide tendencies in individuals' responses to scaled
questionnaire items. The research team "went to extraordinary lengths" to avoid, detect,
and statistically correct for, response bias [pp. 680-1].

NOTE 3: The GLOBE research report usually refers to 62 societies. There are only 61
societies in this table, which is based on the book's Table 10.1 [p. 191]. The reason appears
to be that the Czech Republic has been excluded from some measures due to "pervasive
response bias" (see page 27, Note 1, in the book).

Also worth noting is that, in the book being overviewed here, there is little information
about specific societal cultures. In a forthcoming book, leadership profiles from some 25
societal cultures will be presented and discussed. In Robert J. House’s book, this
forthcoming book is said to be “Jagdeep S. Chokkar et al., Cultures of the World: A GLOBE
Anthology, Sage Publications, in press.” However, my call to Sage Publications in
September 2007 reveals that Sage has no record of this book.

NOTE 4: The various names applied to these six key dimensions are...
» "culturally endorsed implicit theories of leadership"
» "culturally endorsed leadership theory dimensions"
» "global leadership dimensions" and "global leader behaviors"
» "second order factors"
» "CLTs," an acronym for Cultural Leadership Theory [dimensions]

14