Strategic Leadership across Cultures: The GLOBE Study of CEO Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness in 24 Countries

Strategic Leadership across Cultures: The GLOBE Study of CEO Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness in 24 Countries


Robert J. House, Peter W. Dorfman, Mansour Javidan, Paul J. Hanges & Mary F. Sully de Luque


Strategic Leadership: The GLOBE Study of CEO Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness Across Cultures is the third volume in a three-part series showcasing the multinational, multi-year, multi-phase research undertaken by the GLOBE team.

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Copyright


    Being asked to write a foreword to the GLOBE project's third book gives me the rare opportunity to fully appreciate how “ancient” I am in the field of cross-cultural comparative management and how my longitudinal view of the subject may benefit this endeavor. My “review” of cross-cultural organizational psychology and management is not a technical one. For me, this is an emotional journey—seeing, feeling, and influencing the progression of the field since its embryonic stage in the late 1960s. Working alongside, sometimes collaboratively and at other times argumentatively, with pioneering contributors such as Bernie Bass, Harry Triandis, and Geert Hofstede I am in awe as I witness how researchers and practitioners conjoined their studies into a major and highly pertinent discipline.

    Many readers will probably find it surprising that Comparative and International Management courses in MBA programs in the United States were only endorsed by AACSB around 1985. Indeed, there was only one textbook available at the time—I know because it so happened that I wrote it (Ronen, 1986).

    As pointed out by the authors of this volume, the field was characterized by scarcity of data at its early stages, experiencing a dramatic change only in the past two decades or so. Large multinational studies are expensive, cumbersome, and characterized by a myriad of both technical and conceptual problems (e.g., language barrier, back translation, the cultural outlook of investigators vs. respondents, variance among subjects, organizations, ownership, and so on). It is a small miracle that such a project can be completed in a timely manner, as planned, and with comprehensibly intelligent results. In itself, this merits a big round of applause for the GLOBE researchers—both leaders and other team members. While potentially intimidating, the GLOBE success should serve as inspiration to new (or old) scholars in the field.

    The historical unfolding of the field thus reflects the true magnitude of the contribution of the GLOBE project to comparative and cross-cultural management. The scarcity of available comparative field documentation was acutely felt. For years, we had but one source of data. Indeed, many significant multicountry comparative publications (e.g., Hofstede, 1976, 1980; Ronen & Kraut, 1977; Sirota & Greenwood, 1971) have all relied on the international survey data that was collected within a single multinational corporation (MNC).

    The 1980s were a period of growing cultural awareness. Cross-cultural managerial training tended to be hands on, in expatriate contexts. Fueled by the increasing share of foreign operations (and revenues) of U.S. and European MNCs, cross-cultural training manuals, courses, and seminars proliferated the management field. Not only was data scarce but so was theoretical reasoning. I recall the symposium, organized by Peter Dorfman and myself at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management in 1991, in which we assembled recognized leaders in the field to speculate to what extent prevailing theories would hold in different cultural settings. So little did we know, even then, about leadership in different cultures. And where such evidence had accumulated, it was often limited to the comparison of just a few single countries.

    Advances in communication sciences and new statistical techniques encouraged cooperation among researchers, increased the volume of relevant grants, and enabled a growing body of multicountry comparative studies. Anecdotal evidence as well as scientific publications reporting cross-cultural employee and manager attitudes and behaviors have (and often still do) attributed observed differences to the mere fact that the compared samples came from different societies, countries, or cultures. The findings were interesting and challenging, and at times even useful in terms of practical adaptation to the “foreign” cultures. However, more comprehensive causal models were still lacking. Not surprisingly, the real transformation in scientific rigor occurred when rather than associating the cross-cultural national differences in work attitude and behavior to the mere origin of the sample— that is, the country or geographic zone—scientifically anchored causes were required as explanatory variables.

    One of Hofstede's main achievements and thus influence was indeed his pioneering contribution to this challenge. He showed that data retrieved from employees and managers in a large number of countries (subsidiaries) could be analyzed to provide insights into cultural values that could predict leaders' and employees' attitudes and behaviors. This legacy and subsequent consolidation of the field during the 1980s in both the United States and Europe as well as the wealth of periodicals reporting cross-cultural studies in psychology, organizational behavior, and management created fertile grounds for creative visionaries. When Bob House and his colleagues Peter Dorfman, Mansour Javidan, and Paul Hanges started to develop and design this monumental research project more than two decades ago, I was overwhelmed by the breadth of their vision, their innovative theoretical conceptualization, and the scientific rigor they embraced in their planned research.

    It was later that the extent of their leadership became fully apparent, as they led the project and coordinated the work of the country co-investigators (CCIs). The monumental effort and result of the collaboration of over 250 CCIs from all populated continents has been an unprecedented research project. I was fortunate enough to see the project unfold from a short distance, as I was asked to be a discussant at some of the teams' symposia at annual meetings of the Academy of Management. I shared from afar the team's progress and excitement—sometimes mixed with envy, sometimes with frustration but always with sheer admiration.

    The 20-year-long Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) Research Program set the goal of empirically determining the role of culture in leadership behavior and effectiveness. It contributed to building evidence-based managerial and leadership theories and practices. The team's focus in the 1990s was to develop a method by which to define and measure national cultural practices (i.e., “as is”) and values (i.e., “should be”) as described by employees in a variety of organizational employment and simultaneously to identify which leadership attributes are consistent with and are likely to succeed in these cultures. And indeed, the results demonstrated that societal culture values predicted leadership expectations as endorsed in these societies. This was an extension of the hypothesis developed by House, Wright, and Aditya (1997), known as the cultural congruence hypothesis.

    To date, the scientific harvest has been immense and its impact on leadership scholarly publications enormous. With two award-winning massive published volumes behind them, delineating leadership in culture-based organizational context among 62 societies (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta 2004) and portraying an in-depth profile of 27 European societies (Chhokar, Brodbeck, & House 2007), and more recently, the special issue of the Journal of World Business (2012) that was devoted entirely to global issues in leadership that emerged from the project (in addition to numerous other articles), the GLOBE project has been a rich source for cross-cultural data mining.

    The present volume follows the tradition of the previous stages and offers a document that is based on sound theoretical models and that provides practical insights to executives and researchers alike. It endeavors to analyze managerial attributes, styles, behavior, and outcomes of senior executives and CEOs in terms of their strategic leadership paradigms and behavior effectiveness across cultures. The goal was to assess whether such leadership behaviors are directly influenced by cultural dimensions or whether culture indirectly influences leadership through leadership expectations. Relating culture values and practices to leadership attributes is an achievement that contributes to the lean body of such information to date. Of 112 leadership attributes that were isolated cross-culturally in GLOBE 2004, the researchers found 22 leadership attributes to be universally desirable, 8 leadership attributes were found to be universally undesirable, and 35 leadership attributes are culturally contingent (desirable in some, undesirable in others). Mapping out these attributes into behavioral items in the current volume, I am certain the current volume opens a new vista in cross-cultural leadership research.

    In this latest phase of the GLOBE Project, researchers tested relationships between observed leadership behaviors of CEOs, societal leadership expectations (i.e., culturally endorsed implicit leadership theory [CLT] attributes), as well as between leadership and organization effectiveness. While rigorous empirical research on CEOs is in its infancy, the focus has so far been on outcomes rather than drivers of CEO behavior. Surveying over 5,000 senior executives who directly report to over 1,000 CEOs in 1,015 organizations in 24 countries, the current volume finds that cultural values do not directly predict leadership behavior. Instead, they drive the cultural expectations that in turn drive leader behaviors. In other words, the researchers found that leaders are perceived to be effective if their behaviors are congruent with societal expectations. While the achievement is outstanding, this finding leaves room for future research: How can CEOs change the status quo if they are successful only when they enact behaviors that are consistent with cultural expectations? We rely on CEOs, top management teams (TMTs), and upper echelon executives to change and reshape organizational realities, yet in effect, the current volume shows that they are influenced by their own societal culture and its value-based expectations concerning adequate leadership etiquette.

    Treading where others have not (or hardly) gone before, I must agree with the authors of this volume that before this phase of the GLOBE project, there simply wasn't enough data to determine if CEO Charismatic leadership is universally effective or varies in importance and impact across cultures. Nor did we know if the same set of leadership behaviors can capture the essence of Charismatic leadership. Their results point to the importance of leaders who are visionary, performance oriented, inspirational, and decisive and who personify high levels of integrity. While Charismatic leadership may be an obviously desired behavior, the researchers were surprised that Team-Oriented and Humane-Oriented leadership were also deemed important. And yet, one wonders if this is indeed such a surprising finding considering the globalizing, computerizing virtual world in which networks and the human interrelatedness are increasingly endorsed. In fact, the authors report that among earlier GLOBE (2004) findings, the Humane-Oriented leadership expectations (i.e., CLTs) were rated as being only slightly important for outstanding leadership. However, the current empirical results found that Humane-Oriented leadership behavior has a huge impact on TMT Dedication and is the most predictive of all leadership behaviors for TMT Commitment. These findings are important not only by themselves but also in pointing to an emergent lacuna in which organizational leadership and behavior could be tied to the growing body of business-related networks.

    Just as leadership is a new word in the dictionary, although the linguistic concept has been around for at least 5,000 years, one may also say that cross-cultural variation in the field of organizational behavior and industrial psychology is a relatively young arena—just about 50 years old, struggling in a long tradition of scientific research. Dealing with slow-to-change cultural variation, we can only hope that we will be able to “unpack the black box of culture” as it impacts leadership and leadership effectiveness across cultures. With cultural clustering related to organizational behavior, values, and attitudes remaining nearly unchanged throughout four decades of study (Ronen & Shenkar, 2010), it seems that the chances are in our favor.

    The current volume has set out to understand and empirically measure the nature and drivers of CEO leadership behavior, the drivers of CEO leadership effectiveness, the relationship between CEO leadership behavior and effectiveness, and the impact of the new fit index between CEO leadership behavior with CLTs as well as assess the leadership distinctions between the high-performing CEOs (i.e., superior), and underperforming CEOs (i.e., inferior). These are big promises—all of which are competently and skillfully achieved from design to analysis, to synthesis, to integration, and conclusion. Notwithstanding, the cultural experience is still very much driven by the Western–American worldview (the Europeans were rightfully skeptical of models developed in North America), and much is clearly desired to further develop leadership concepts from other cultural perspectives in order for us to truly appreciate the notion of leadership in all its cultural colors.

    Walking the walk, the leading researchers of the GLOBE project should be recognized for their own cultural colors and commended for their openness, positive collaboration, and information transparency that are manifested in this volume. Based on personal experience and encounter with a myriad of opposing attitudes in the field, I feel confident to assume that these traits greatly contributed to the overall success of the project and the ability to extract such wealth of in-depth valuable cross-cultural information over the span of two decades or more.

    Writing the foreword of a massive volume that reports yet another stage of the GLOBE monumental multinational research project, and probably the ultimate pinnacle with respect to implications of cross-cultural comparison of CEOs, is to me personally not only a meaningful professional experience but also an encompassing process. It began almost half a century ago when very few of our colleagues were interested in or were touched by the excitement of international research and theoretical applications. As research in the field continues to evolve, I can only hope for additional active participation and involvement on my part. In the meanwhile, I am sufficiently content to be an official, albeit honorary, part of the GLOBE team.

    Simi (Simcha) Ronen


    Amassive project like GLOBE that spans over two decades needs the support of many individuals to succeed. The latest phase of GLOBE, like its previous phases, was possible only with the generous support and hard work of large numbers of individuals. We owe a debt of gratitude to our many colleagues all over the world who collected data in their countries. They are the GLOBE country co-investigators (CCIs) who worked very hard to collect data from over 1,000 CEOs in over 1,000 corporations and over 5,000 senior executives in 24 countries. We are also thankful to those CEOs and senior executives who agreed to participate in this unique research project. In addition, four individuals deserve special mention for their contribution to this book. Gary Yukl's careful review of the manuscript as it was being crafted illuminated areas that could be clarified, provided new insights for our findings and offered important suggestions for future research. The GLOBE project was helped immeasurably by Juliet Aiken who worked tirelessly for many years conducting complex statistical analyses. Renee Brown helped with many aspects of manuscript preparation and editing. Finally, Megan Markanich, our SAGE copy editor, provided sage editing and advice under very tight deadlines. We sincerely thank all of these people for their dedication and expertise in contributing to this latest GLOBE project.

    We especially thank our spouses—Sharon Dorfman, Soheila Yazdanbakhsh, Carol Hanges, and Edgard Luque—and dedicate this book to them. They have been supportive, understanding, patient, and loving beyond anything we could ask for. During the past 10 years, we spent a huge number of days and weeks meeting away from home and being totally consumed with our work on this book. All along, our spouses patiently and lovingly encouraged us. This book would not have been possible without them at our sides. Also, we'd like to especially thank, and dedicate this book to, Tessa House, who cared so dearly and lovingly for our friend and colleague Bob House during his last years of ill health. We have the utmost admiration for Tessa as a spouse and a human being. She is an inspiration to us all.


    Our Fantastic Journey with Robert J. House and our Farewell to a Dear Colleague

    We write this book with much joy and also sadness. Bob House is not with us any longer, so we felt a need to write this brief note to bring closure to an always wonderful and sometimes challenging long-running set of professional relationships and friendships.

    This book closes a very important chapter in the 20-year GLOBE research program and brings to an end Bob House's impressive publication record and the countless hours, days, weeks, and months of individual and collective work by us and many of our GLOBE colleagues.

    It was in 1991 that Bob House contacted Mansour, Peter, and Paul individually to discuss his ideas about a new research program. Very simply put, he was curious about whether or not leadership means the same thing in different countries and whether country culture impacts people's notion of leadership. Our conversations were intriguing and energizing. Having a research conversation with Bob was an exciting experience. We started to get more and more serious about the idea. Bob started to draft the proposals for research funding. Each one of us started to do a variety of things. Our first milestone was the first gathering of the GLOBE team of researchers, sponsored by Mansour Javidan, at University of Calgary in Canada in 1994. Three of us, Peter, Mansour, and Paul plus several other colleagues worked very closely with Bob to collect and manage the data from over 60 countries. Our research has produced many award-winning publications. Bob's intellectual and scholarly contributions were always invigorating and intriguing. We miss our regular weeklong meetings with Bob at Wharton.

    Upon completion of the data collection for Phase 2 of GLOBE, in the late 1990s, Bob, Paul, Mansour, and Peter had to divide the work of writing the first book, which we all refer to as the “blue book,” published by SAGE in 2004. Due to health issues and also the massive amount of work, Bob played more of an oversight role. Paul Hanges conducted all the statistical analyses throughout the project. He also wrote the relevant chapters of the blue book regarding research design and statistical analyses. Mansour Javidan managed the relationships with CCIs in many countries and worked closely with the authors of the various chapters on dimensions of country cultures. He also wrote several of the chapters in the blue book. Peter Dorf-man wrote the main chapters related to culture and leadership and worked with other authors (including Paul Hanges) of the remaining chapters on leadership. While Bob was not directly involved in writing the chapters, he was always ready to help. We spent hundreds of hours on the phone with Bob, and he always had a funny joke to tell before we started with the serious topics. Our work culminated in a weeklong meeting in Toronto to go over all the chapters and put the finishing touches.

    In the late 1990s and early 2000, Bob, Mansour, Paul, and Peter started to discuss the next steps for GLOBE. As always, Bob did not lack ideas. He started talking about a CEO study where we would test some of the findings of the blue book. The blue book showed us what managers in different societies expect from their leaders. The next logical question for us was the following: Do effective leaders act according to the expectations in their societies? Bob was becoming increasingly interested in this question. Three of us (Mansour, Paul and Peter) were quite busy with the writing of the blue book, so we were not as focused on this interesting question as Bob was. But any chance we had, we would always enjoy a conversation with Bob about this question and how to test it. As part of our division of labor, Bob focused increasingly on drafting the proposal for the next phase of the GLOBE project, the CEO study, as its principal investigator (PI). Peter, Paul, and Mansour agreed to be co-principal investigators with the understanding that the first priority for the three of us was to finish the blue book.

    Bob developed the framework and submitted a proposal for funding that was successful and officially started Phase 3 of GLOBE. Mary Sully de Luque was a postdoctoral fellow working with Bob and agreed to manage the data collection process for this research. She spent countless hours working with tens of CCIs in over 20 countries and managed the GLOBE database throughout the CEO project.

    As co-principal investigators, we were focused on the blue book. Once the blue book was successfully launched, we joined Bob and Mary to complete this third phase. Due to serious health issues, Bob was unable to join our discussions of the next steps. Mary handed the collected database to Paul and Peter, and they worked closely to design new research methodologies for the required analyses. Paul focused on the statistical work needed to produce the expected results. Peter agreed to be the project manager for the design and writing of this book. Over the past 2 years, we have spent many 4-day meetings at University of Maryland and Thunderbird School of Global Management. We have worked closely as a group and as individuals to write this book. We have spent countless hours reviewing the statistical results and their implications and on the design of the chapters of the book. Each chapter is written primarily by one individual and reviewed numerous times by at least one coauthor.

    As always, we have had much joy in these discussions, but we missed Bob. His intellectual rigor and wit were sorely missed. We wish he could be with us.

    Mansour Javidan Peter Dorfman Paul Hanges Mary Sully de Luque

    About the Authors

    Robert J. House received his PhD in management from The Ohio State University. He went on to hold faculty appointments at The Ohio State University, University of Michigan, City University of New York, and the University of Toronto. In 1988, he was appointed the Joseph Frank Bernstein Professor Endowed Chair of Organization Studies at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

    A prolific writer, he authored more than 130 journal articles, several of which have been reprinted in numerous anthologies. Among the multiple awards conferred, House received the award for Distinguished Scholarly Contribution to Management, the Eminent Leadership Scholar award, and the ILA Lifetime Achievement award, as well as many awards for outstanding publications. He also authored two papers, which are Scientific Citations Classics.

    House was the principal investigator (PI) and founder of the GLOBE Research Program. Further, he founded a nonprofit foundation to sustain the GLOBE Project beyond his tenure, including a board of directors and a constitution. House was a fellow of the Academy of Management, American Psychological Association, and Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology (SIOP). House's major research interests were varied but focused on relationships among power, personality, and leadership in contributing to organizational performance. The last two decades of his life focused on the implications of cross-cultural variation for effective leadership. Professor House passed away November 1, 2011.

    Peter W. Dorfman is professor emeritus of management at New Mexico State University. He recently held the Bank of America Professorship in the Department of Management. He is currently chairman of the board of directors and president of GLOBE Foundation. His master's degree and PhD are from the University of Maryland. His articles on leadership, cross-cultural management, and employee discrimination have appeared in Leadership Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Perspectives, Organizational Dynamics, Journal of Management, Journal of World Business, Advances in International Comparative Management, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Advances in Global Leadership. Dr. Dorfman's current research involves investigating the impact of cultural influences on managerial behavior and leadership styles. He has been a co-principal investigator of the two decades-long GLOBE Research Project. As part of GLOBE, he has been a member of the GLOBE coordinating team, an executive board member, and an editor of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) award-winning book Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies.

    Mansour Javidan Multiple award-winning educator and author Dr. Mansour Javidan received his MBA and PhD from the Carlson School at the University of Minnesota. He recently stepped down as dean of Research and is currently the Garvin Distinguished Professor and director of Najafi Global Mindset Institute ( at the Thunderbird School of Global Management in Arizona.

    Mansour is past president and chairman of the board of the GLOBE Research Foundation. He is a coeditor of the first GLOBE book, which won the SIOP award for The M. Scott Myers Award for Applied Research in The Workplace.

    Dr. Javidan is designated an expert adviser by the World Bank and a senior research fellow by the U.S. Army. He has published in Harvard Business Review, Journal of International Business Studies, Organization Science, Strategic Management Journal, Academy of Management Perspectives, Leadership Quarterly, Management International Review, Organizational Dynamics, Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, and Journal of World Business.

    He is past editor of global leadership for the Journal of World Business. He is a fellow of the Pan Pacific Business Association and was named in Lexington's 2001/2002 Millennium Edition of the North American Who's Who Registry and Empire's 2003 Who's Who Registry.

    Paul Hanges is professor, industrial/organizational psychology, of the Department of Psychology at the University of Maryland. He is also an affiliate of the University of Maryland's R. H. Smith School of Business and the Zicklin School of Business (Baruch College). He is on the board of directors of OBA Bank. Paul's research centers on three themes: (1) human resource practices, team/organizational diversity, and organizational climate; (2) leadership, team-processes, and cross-cultural issues; and (3) dynamical systems theory. He has written over 80 articles and book chapters. His publications have appeared in such journals as Advances in Global Leadership, American Psychologist, Psychological Bulletin, Journal of International Business Studies, and Leadership Quarterly. His research has won the M. Scott Myers Award for Applied Research from SIOP twice: in 2004 for being an editor of the first GLOBE book and in 2011 for his work on human resource selection processes. Paul is a fellow of the American Psychological Association, Association for Psychological Sciences, and the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology (SIOP), and he was a founding member of the GLOBE Foundation and has been a principal investigator (PI) of this project since its inception.

    Mary Sully de Luque is an associate professor of management at the Thunderbird School of Global Management. She is currently a member of the board of directors of GLOBE Foundation and has been extensively involved in GLOBE Phase 3 research since 2000. She was a senior research associate for the first GLOBE book.

    Dr. Sully de Luque's research interests include the influences of culture on leadership effectiveness, stakeholder decision making, feedback processes in the work environment, and human resource management (HRM). She is academic co-director of Project Artemis, a program that helps women entrepreneurs develop and grow businesses in emerging markets and has served as faculty member for the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women Project.

    She has presented her research at international conferences and has published in such journals as Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Review, Journal of International Business Studies, and Academy of Management Perspective, as well as many book chapters. Along with the GLOBE book editors, she won the 2005 M. Scott Myers Award for Applied Research in the Workplace from the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). In 2008, she won the Western Academy of Management Ascendant Scholar award for outstanding early career research.

    List of Country Co-investigators1

    Adetoun, Bolanle Akande, Economic Community of West African States Executive Secretariat (Nigeria)

    Alas, Ruth, Estonia Business School (Estonia)

    Antino, Mirko, Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Spain)

    Barrasa, Angel, University of Zaragoza (Spain)

    Bhal, Kanika T., Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (India)

    Bobina, Mariya, University of Iowa (Russia)

    Bodur, Muzaffer, Boğaziçi University (Turkey)

    Bostjancic, Eva, University of Ljubljana (Slovenia)

    Bourantas, Dimitris, Athens University of Economics and Business (Greece)

    Catana, Alexandru, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca (Romania)

    Catana, Doina, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca (Romania)

    Chen, Yi-Jung, National Kaoshiung University of Applied Science (Taiwan)

    Debbarma, Sukhendu, Tripura University (India)

    de Hoogh, Annebel H. B., University of Amsterdam (Netherlands)

    den Hartog, Deanne N., University of Amsterdam (Netherlands)

    DeVries, Reinout, Vrije University (South Pacific: Fiji, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu)

    Dorfman, Peter, New Mexico State University (Mexico)

    Duarte, Roberto Gonzalez, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)

    Dzuvichu, Rosemary R., Nagaland University (India)

    Evcimen, Idil, Istanbul Technical University (Turkey)

    Fenn, Mathai, The Talk Shop, Bangalore (India)

    Fischman, David, Fischman and Associates (Peru)

    Fu, Ping Ping, Chinese University of Hong Kong (China)

    Garagozov, Rauf, Center for Strategic Studies under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan (Azerbaijan)

    Gil Rodríguez, Francisco, Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Spain)

    Grachev, Mikhail, Western Illinois University (Russia)

    Gupta, Vipin, California State University—San Bernadino (India)

    Howell, Jon, New Mexico State University (Mexico)

    Jone, Kuen-Yung, Kaohsiung Medical University (Taiwan)

    Kabasakal, Hayat, Boğaziçi University (Turkey)

    Khan, Mohamed Basheer Ahmed, Pondicherry University (India)

    Kharbihih, Hasina, Impulse NGO Network, Shillong (India)

    Konrad, Edvard, University of Ljubljana (Slovenia)

    Koopman, P. L., Vrije University (Netherlands)

    Lang, Rainhart, Chemnitz University of Technology (Germany)

    Lin, Cheng-Chen, National Pingtung University of Science & Technology (Taiwan)

    Liu, Jun, Renmin University (China)

    Martinez, Boris, Universidad Francisco Marroquín (Guatemala)

    Mathew, Mary, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore (India)

    Munley, Almarie E., Regent University (Guatemala)

    Ortiz, José Agustín, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas—UPC (Peru)

    Palin, Gary, Elon University (United States)

    Papalexandris, Nancy, Athens University of Economics & Business (Greece)

    Paquin, Anthony R., Western Kentucky University (South Pacific: Fiji, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu)

    Pathak, R. D., University of the South Pacific (South Pacific: Fiji, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu)

    Peng, T. K., I-Shou University (Taiwan)

    Prieto, Leonel, Texas A&M International University (Mexico)

    Quigley, Narda, Villanova University (United States)

    Rajasekar, James, Sultan Qaboos University (India)

    Reddy, Lokanandha Irala, KKC Group of Institutions, Puttur (India)

    Reddy, S. Pratap, Dhruva College (India)

    Rodríguez Muñoz, Alfredo (Spain)

    Rohmetra, Neelu, Jammu University (India)

    Saran, Pankaj, EMPI Business School (India)

    Sharma, Dinesh, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (India)

    Shrivastava, Mrinalini, United Nations, Guinea Bissau (India)

    Srinivas, E.S., Indian School of Business, Hyderabad (India)

    Steyrer, Johannes, Vienna University of Economics & Business (Austria)

    Sully de Luque, Mary F., Thunderbird, School of Global Management (United States)

    Tanure, Betania, Pontificia 0Universidade Católica—PUC-MG (Brazil)

    Thierry, Henk, Tilburg University (Netherlands)

    Thomas, Fr. Vattathara M., Don Bosco Institute, Guwahati (India)

    Tuulik, Krista, Estonian Entrepreneurship University of Applied Sciences (Estonia)

    van den Berg, Peter T., Tilburg University (Netherlands)

    Waldman, David, Arizona State University (United States)

    Washburn, Nathan, Thunderbird, School of Global Management (United States)

    Wilderom, Celeste P. M., University of Twente (Netherlands)

    Wollan, Melody L., Eastern Illinois University (United States)

  • : GLOBE Cultural Dimensions

    Performance Orientation: This dimension is the degree to which a collective encourages and rewards (and should encourage and reward) group members for performance improvement and excellence.

    Assertiveness: This dimension is the degree to which individuals are (and should be) assertive, confrontational, and aggressive in their relationship with others.

    Future Orientation: This dimension is the extent to which individuals engage (and should engage) in future-oriented behaviors such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying gratification.

    Humane Orientation: This dimension is the degree to which a collective encourages and rewards (and should encourage and reward) individuals for being fair, altruistic, generous, caring, and kind to others.

    Institutional Collectivism: This dimension is the degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward (and should encourage and reward) collective distribution of resources and collective action.

    In-Group Collectivism: This dimension is the degree to which individuals express (and should express) pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families.

    Gender Egalitarianism: This dimension is the degree to which a collective minimizes (and should minimize) gender inequality.

    Power Distance: This dimension is the degree to which members of a collective expect (and should expect) power to be distributed equally.

    Uncertainty Avoidance: This dimension is the extent to which a society, organization, or group relies (and should rely) on social norms, rules, and procedures to alleviate unpredictability of future events. The greater the desire to avoid uncertainty, the more people seek orderliness, consistency, structure, formal procedures, and laws to cover situations in their daily lives.

    GLOBE Six Global Leadership Dimensions

    Charismatic/Value-Based Leadership: Charismatic leaders inspire their followers with a desirable and realistic vision that is based on appropriate analysis and high performance expectations. They are viewed as sincere, decisive, and credible because of their integrity and willingness to sacrifice their own self-interest.

    Team-Oriented Leadership: Team-oriented leaders are loyal to their teams and care for the welfare of their team members. They use their administrative and interpersonal skills to manage the team's internal dynamics and to create a cohesive working group.

    Participative Leadership: Participative leaders believe that employees can contribute to decision making and should be engaged in the process of decision making and implementation. They also believe that debate, discussion, and disagreement are a natural part of good decision making and should not be suppressed.

    Humane-Oriented Leadership: Humane-oriented leaders are unpretentious, show humility, and are reticent to boast. They are empathetic and likely to help and support team members in a humane manner by offering resources and other forms of assistance.

    Autonomous Leadership: A newly defined leadership dimension. These leaders have extreme confidence in their own abilities and lack respect for others' abilities and ideas. They view themselves as unique and superior to others and as a result prefer to work independently and without collaboration with colleagues or direct reports.

    Self-Protective Leadership: This newly defined leadership dimension refers to leaders who have a deep desire to succeed among a group of colleagues and direct reports who may act as competitors for the leaders' position and success. To protect themselves, these leaders defer to positions of power, hide information that might advantage potential competitors, follow rules and policies to avoid risk, and interact carefully with others to ensure they leave a positive impression.

    GLOBE Twenty-one Primary Leadership Dimensions (Grouped by the Six Global Leadership Dimensions)
    Charismatic/Value-Based Leadership

    Visionary: This dimension describes leaders who clearly articulate his or her vision of the future and make plans and act based on future goals.

    Inspirational: This dimension describes leaders who inspire others, increase morale of subordinates, and are energetic and confident.

    Self-Sacrificial: This dimension indicates an ability to convince followers to invest their efforts in activities that do not have a high probability of success, to forgo their self-interest, and make personal sacrifices for the goal or vision.

    Integrity: This dimension indicates a leader who is honest and trustworthy, keeps his or her word, and speaks and acts truthfully.

    Decisive: This dimension indicates leaders who make decisions firmly, quickly, and logically and are insightful.

    Performance oriented: This dimension describes leaders who set high goals, seek continuous improvement, and are excellence oriented for themselves and subordinates.

    Team-Oriented Leadership

    Collaborative team orientation: This dimension indicates a leader who is concerned with the welfare of the group and is collaborative and loyal.

    Team integrator: This dimension indicates a leader who gets members to work together and integrates people into a cohesive working unit to achieve group goals.

    Diplomatic: This dimension describes leaders who are diplomatic and skilled at interpersonal relations.

    Malevolent: This dimension reflects leaders who are dishonest, vindictive, and deceitful and act negatively toward others.

    Administratively competent: This dimension reflects leaders who are administratively skilled and well organized. They can effectively coordinate and control activities of the team members.

    Participative Leadership

    Participative: This dimension reflects leaders who share critical information with subordinates and give them a high degree of discretion to perform work.

    Autocratic: This dimension indicates leaders who are dictatorial, do not tolerate disagreement, and expect unquestioning obedience of those who report to them (reverse scored in computations for the global Participative leadership dimension).

    Humane-Oriented Leadership

    Modesty: This dimension reflects leaders who do not boast, are modest, and present themselves in a humble and unassuming manner.

    Humane orientation: This dimension emphasizes empathy for others by giving time, money, resources, and assistance when needed. It reflects concern for followers' personal and group welfare.

    Autonomous Leadership

    Autonomous: This dimension describes tendencies to act independently without relying on others, self-governing, and preferring to work and act separately from others.

    Self-Protective Leadership

    Self-Centered: This dimension reflects a leader who is self-absorbed, is a loner, is aloof, and stands off from others.

    Status conscious: This dimension reflects a consciousness of one's own and others' social position, holding an elitist belief that some individuals deserve more privileges than others. A status-conscious leader adjusts his or her style of leadership and communication according to the status of the individual(s) he or she is dealing with.

    Internally competitive (formerly labeled conflict inducer): This dimension reflects the tendency to view colleagues as competitors and to conceal information due to a lack of willingness to work jointly with others.

    Face-Saver: This leadership dimension reflects the tendency to ensure followers are not embarrassed or shamed. A face-saving leader maintains good relationships by refraining from making negative comments and instead uses metaphors and analogies.

    Bureaucratic (formerly labeled procedural): This dimension emphasizes leaders who habitually follow established norms, rules, policies, procedures, and routines.

    GLOBE Culturally Contingent Leadership Dimensions (of the Twenty-One Primary Leadership Dimensions)
    • Self-Sacrificial: This dimension indicates an ability to convince followers to invest their efforts in activities that do not have a high probability of success, to forgo their self-interest, and make personal sacrifices for the goal or vision.
    • Status conscious: This dimension reflects a consciousness of one's own and others' social position, holding an elitist belief that some individuals deserve more privileges than others. A status-conscious leader adjusts his or her style of leadership and communication according to the status of the individual(s) he or she is dealing with.
    • Internally competitive (formerly labeled conflict inducer): This dimension reflects the tendency to view colleagues as competitors and to conceal information due to a lack of willingness to work jointly with others.
    • Face-Saver: This leadership dimension reflects the tendency to ensure followers are not embarrassed or shamed. A face-saving leader maintains good relationships by refraining from making negative comments and instead uses metaphors and analogies.
    • Bureaucratic (formerly labeled procedural): This dimension emphasizes leaders who habitually follow established norms, rules, policies, procedures, and routines.
    • Humane orientation: This dimension emphasizes empathy for others by giving time, money, resources, and assistance when needed. It reflects concern for followers' personal and group welfare.
    • Autonomous: This dimension describes tendencies to act independently without relying on others, self-governing, and preferring to work and act separately from others.
    CEO Dependent Variables
    Internally Oriented Outcome of Top Management Team Dedication: This Outcome Measure Combines the Measures of Effort, Commitment, and Team Solidarity

    Effort: This outcome variable reflects the level or amount of effort put forth by the TMT member. Respondents assess their agreement (or disagreement) with a set of questions, indicating that they put forth a very high level of effort, effort beyond expectations, and effort beyond the call of duty.

    Commitment: This outcome variable indicates the level of commitment of the TMT member. Respondents assess their agreement (or disagreement) with a set of questions indicating commitment to the organization by indicating they expect to have a continuing employment relationship and are optimistic about their future and the organization's future.

    Team solidarity: This outcome variable indicates the level of team solidarity of the TMT members' work unit. Respondents assess their agreement (or disagreement) with a set of questions, indicating that they work well together and TMT members work effectively as a team.

    Externally Oriented Outcome of Firm Competitive Performance: This Outcome Measure Combines the Measures of Competitive Sales Performance and Competitive Industry Dominance

    Competitive Sales Performance: This outcome variable indicates the perception of the CFO (or other knowledgeable top management team [TMT] member) of the financial sales performance of the firm in comparison to their major competitors.

    Competitive Industry Dominance: This outcome variable indicates the perception of the CFO (or other knowledgeable TMT member) of the extent to which the firm dominates its industry.

    Statistical Analysis Terms

    Correlation: A correlation provides a standardized measure (theoretically, bounded between −1 and +1) of the relationship between two variables. A correlation coefficient close to +/-1 indicates a strong relationship, whereas a correlation coefficient close to 0 indicates a weak relationship.

    HLM technique: Regression analyses have the underlying assumption that observations are independent, an assumption that is violated when observations are clustered within individuals, teams, organizations, and so forth. Random coefficient modeling (RCM) is a regression technique that accounts for dependence amongst observations. RCM is employed in the current study to account for dependence of observations within countries. RCM can be conducted by using several types of software, including HLM software, which has led this technique to be occasionally called hierarchical linear modeling (HLM).

    HLM coefficients: RCM analyses yield unstandardized regression coefficients; when we call a coefficient an HLM coefficient, this indicates that the coefficient is an unstandardized regression coefficient derived through RCM analysis.

    Fit: The GLOBE fit index assesses two aspects of the fit between CEO leader behavior and cultural expectations (CLTs). The first aspect of fit assesses the similarity in patterns or profiles between a CEO's leadership behavior profile and the country's expected leadership profile—that is, CLTs measured for each of the global leadership dimensions. This fit measure is described in Chapter 5 as a profile pattern similarity that is defined and measured as a within-person slope between their societal CLT and their corresponding 21 leadership behaviors. The second aspect of fit was an assessment of absolute level of agreement between CLTs and behavior. The second measure of fit calculates the distance between each of the CEO's behaviors and its corresponding CLT dimension. It reflects the overall similarity in level or magnitude between each CEO's observed behavior and the CLT dimensions. Fit measures were calculated for each global leadership dimension (e.g., Team Oriented) by using the two aspects of fit mentioned previously. In addition, an overall fit measure was calculated by using all 21 primary dimensions together. The latter is designated as the “Gestalt Fit” measure (see Chapter 9).

    R2: R2 denotes the percentage of variance in the outcome (dependent variable) accounted for by the predictor (independent) variable(s).

    : CEO Leadership Survey Items

    Primary Leadership Dimension Global Leadership Dimension Leadership Survey Items
    Visionary (Survey A) Charismatic Clearly articulates his/her vision of the future
    Anticipates possible future events
    Makes plans and takes actions based on future goals
    Inspires others to be motivated to work hard
    Smart, learns and understands easily
    Has a clear understanding of where we are going
    Visionary (Survey B) Charismatic Anticipates and prepares in advance
    Has a vision and imagination of the future
    Has a clear sense of where he/she wants this organization to be in 5 years
    Inspirational (Survey A) Charismatic Highly involved, energetic, enthused, motivated
    Gives courage, confidence, or hope through reassuring and advising
    Demonstrates and imparts strong positive emotions for work
    Increases morale of subordinates by offering encouragement, praise, and/or by being confident
    Inspirational (Survey B) Charismatic Mobilizes and activates followers
    Emphasizes the importance of being committed to company values and beliefs
    Is generally optimistic and confident
    Self-Sacrificial (Survey A) Charismatic Foregoes self-interests and makes personal sacrifices in the interest of a goal or vision
    Can be trusted to serve the interests of his/her subordinates rather than him/herself
    Self-Sacrificial (Survey B) Charismatic Views obstacles as challenges rather than threats
    Is usually able to persuade others of his/her viewpoint
    Integrity (Survey A) Charismatic Talks to subordinates about his/her important values and beliefs
    Emphasizes the importance of having a strong sense of purpose
    Can be relied on to meet obligations
    Speaks and acts truthfully
    Acts according to what is right or fair
    Integrity (Survey B) Charismatic Means what he/she says
    Deserves trust, can be believed and relied upon to keep his/ her word
    Builds trust with subordinates
    Makes sure that his/her actions are always ethical
    Decisive (Survey A) Charismatic Makes decisions firmly and quickly
    Has good intuition, insightful
    Applies logic when thinking
    Performance oriented (Survey A) Charismatic Sets high goals; works hard
    Seeks continuous performance improvement
    Sets goals for my performance
    Primary Leadership Dimension Global Leadership Dimension Leadership Survey Items
    Performance oriented (Survey B) Charismatic Strives for excellence in performance of self and subordinates
    Sets high performance standards
    Communicates his/her performance expectations for group members
    Insists on only the best performance
    Collaborative team orientation (Survey A) Team Oriented Tends to be a good friend of subordinates
    Concerned with the welfare of the group
    Stays with and supports friends even when they have substantial problems or difficulties
    Intervenes to solve conflicts between individuals
    Team integrator (Survey A) Team Oriented Easily understood
    Communicates with others frequently
    Integrates and manages work of subordinates
    Knowledgeable, is aware of information
    Integrates people or things into cohesive, working whole
    Team integrator (Survey B) Team Oriented Works at getting members to work together
    Explains what is expected of each member of the group
    Is open in his/her communication with subordinates
    Diplomatic (Survey A) Team Oriented Skilled at interpersonal relations
    Is able to negotiate effectively, able to make transactions with others on favorable terms
    Diplomatic (Survey B) Team Oriented Able to identify solutions which satisfy individuals with diverse and conflicting interests
    Interested in temporal events, has a world outlook
    Is able to maintain good relationships with others
    Primary Leadership Dimension Global Leadership Dimension Leadership Survey Items
    Malevolent (Survey A) Team Oriented Tends to believe the worst about people and events
    Is sly, deceitful, full of guile
    Is not sincere, fraudulent
    Is actively unfriendly, acts negatively toward others
    Malevolent (Survey B) Team Oriented Is punitive; has no pity or compassion
    Is vengeful; seeks revenge when wronged
    Pursues own best interests at the expense of others
    Administratively competent (Survey A) Team Oriented Is able to plan, organize, coordinate, and control work of
    large numbers (over 30) of individuals
    Explains the rules and procedures group members are expected to follow
    Has the ability to manage complex office work and administrative systems
    Administratively competent (Survey B) Team Oriented Well-organized, methodical, orderly
    Is organized and methodological in work
    Clarifies priorities
    Participative (Survey B) Participative Gives subordinates a high degree of discretion to perform their work
    Shares critical information with subordinates
    Allows subordinates to have influence on critical decisions
    Seeks advice concerning organizational strategy from subordinates
    Will reconsider decisions on the basis of recommendations by those who report to him/her
    Primary Leadership Dimension Global Leadership Dimension Leadership Survey Items
    Autocratic (Survey A) Participative Makes decisions in dictatorial way
    Is overbearing
    Forces his/her values and opinions on others
    Is inclined to dominate others
    Tells subordinates what to do in a commanding way
    Is an extremely close supervisor; one who insists on making all decisions
    Autocratic (Survey B) Participative Is in charge and does not tolerate disagreement or questioning; gives orders
    Acts like a tyrant or despot; imperious
    Does not allow others to participate in decision making
    Expects unquestioning obedience of those who report to him/her
    Modesty (Survey A) Humane Oriented Not easily distressed
    Does not boast, presents self in a humble manner
    Given to being moody; easily agitated (Reverse Coded)
    Modesty (Survey B) Humane Oriented Has and shows patience
    Is modest
    Humane Orientation (Survey A) Humane Oriented Has empathy for others, inclined to be helpful or show mercy
    Willing to give time, money, resources, and help to others
    Humane Orientation (Survey B) Humane Oriented Is aware of slight changes in others' moods
    Sees that the interests of subordinates are given due consideration
    Looks out for the personal welfare of others
    Autonomous (Survey A) Autonomous Acts independently, does not rely on others
    Autonomous (Survey B) Autonomous Is individually oriented; places high value on preserving individual rather than group needs
    Self-Centered (Survey A) Self-Protective Avoids people or groups, prefers own company
    Aloof, stands off from others, difficult to become friends with
    Self-absorbed, thoughts focus mostly on one's self
    Is a loner, tends to work and act separately from others
    Status conscious (Survey A) Self-Protective Is conscious of class and status boundaries and acts accordingly
    Believes that a small number of people with similar backgrounds are superior and should enjoy privileges
    Status conscious (Survey B) Self-Protective Aware of others' socially accepted status
    Believes that all individuals are not equal and only some should have equal rights and privileges
    Does not show favoritism toward an individual or group of individuals
    Internally competitive (Survey B) Self-Protective
    Holds people accountable for work over which they have no control
    Stimulates unrest
    Tends to conceal information from others
    Does not criticize subordinates without good reason (Reverse Coded)
    Is unwilling to work jointly with others
    Face-Saver (Survey A) Self-Protective Refrains from making negative comments to maintain good relationships and save face
    Avoids disputes with members of his/her group
    Avoids saying no to impracticable requests
    Face-Saver (Survey B) Self-Protective Ensures that subordinates are not embarrassed or shamed
    Bureaucratic (Survey A) Self-Protective Administers rewards in a fair manner
    Uses a common standard to evaluate all who report to him/her
    Acts in accordance with rules, convention, and ceremonies
    Bureaucratic (Survey B) Self-Protective Follows established rules and guidelines
    Tends to behave according to established norms, policies, and procedures


    Adler N. J. (1997). International dimensions of organizational behavior. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
    Agarwal S. DeCarlo T. E., & Vyas S. B. (1999). Leadership behavior and organizational commitment: A comparative study of American and Indian salespersons. Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (4), 427743.
    Agle B. R. Nagaragan N. J. Sonnenfeld J. A., & Srinivasan D. (2006). Does CEO charisma matter? An empirical analysis of the relationships among organizational performance, environmental uncertainty, and top management team perceptions of CEO charisma. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 161174.
    Aguinis H., & Kraiger K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451474.
    Aiken J. Dorfman P. W. Howell J. P., & Hanges P. J. (2012). Gender and leadership: Effects of culture and institutions. Manuscript in preparation.
    Anderson L. R. (1983). Management of the mixed-cultural work group. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 303330.
    Ashford S. Sully de Luque, M., Wollan, M., Wellman, N., & DeStobbelier, K. (2011). Seeking from the top: CEO feedback seeking—a boon to firm performance? Presented at the Annual Meeting of Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology (SIOP), Chicago.
    Avolio B. J. Walumbwa F. O., & Weber T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421449.
    Aycan Z. (2006). Paternalism: Towards conceptual refinement and operationalization. In K. S. Yang K. K. Hwang, & Kim U. (Eds.), Scientific advances in indigenous psychologies: Empirical philosophical, and cultural contributions (pp. 445466). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Aycan Z. (2008). Cross-cultural approaches to leadership. In M. F. Peterson P. B. Smith, & D.C. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Ayman R., & Chemers M. M. (1983). Relationship of supervisory behavior ratings to work group effectiveness and subordinate satisfaction among Iranian managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68 (2), 338341.
    Baer M., & Frese M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 4568.
    Barnard C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Barnard C. I. (Ed.). (1951). Functions of status systems in formal organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Barrett P. (2006). Orthosim 2 v.01: Online help in manual form. Retrieved from
    Barrick M. Stewart G. Neubert M., & Mount M. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (3), 377391.
    Bass B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
    Bass B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
    Bass B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130139.
    Bass B. M. (2008). Globalization and cross-national effects. In B. M. Bass & Bass R. (Eds.), The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (pp. 9801048). New York: Free Press.
    Bass B. M., & Avolio B. J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14, 2127.
    Bass B. M., & Avolio B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers & Ayman R. (Eds.), Leadership theory and research (pp. 4980). San Diego: Academic Press.
    Bass B. M., & Avolio B. J. (1997). Full range of leadership: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
    Bass B. M., & Bass R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
    Bass B. M. Burger P. C. Doktor R., & Barrett G. V. (1979). Assessment of managers: An international comparison. New York: Free Press.
    Bass B. M., & Steidlmeier P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181217.
    Bass B. M., & Yokochi J. (1991, Winter/Spring). Charisma among senior executives and the special case of Japanese CEOs. Consulting Psychology Bulletin, 1, 3138.
    Beechler S., & Javidan M. (2007). Leading with a global mindset. Advances in International Management, 19, 131169.
    Bennett M. (1977). Testing management theories cross-culturally. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (5), 578581.
    Bennis W. G., & Nanus B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies of taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.
    Bensman J., & Rosenberg B. (Eds.). (1960). The meaning of work in bureaucratic society. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
    Biffl G. (2012). Labour market integration of low skilled migrants in Europe: Economic impact. Paper presented at the Conference on Managing Migration and Integration: Europe & the US, University of California-Berkeley.
    Bliese P. (Ed.). (2000). Within-group agreement, nonindependence, and reliability: Implication for data aggregation and analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Bliese P. D., & Hanges P. J. (2004). Being both too liberal and too conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational Research Methods, 7 (4), 400417.
    Boal K., & Hooijberg R. (2001). Strategic leadership research: Moving on. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 515549.
    Bodinson G., & Bunch R. (2003, Spring). AQP's national team excellence award: Its purpose, value and process. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 3742.
    Boehnke K. Bontis N. DiStefano J. J., & DiStefano A. C. (2003). Transformational leadership: An examination of cross-national differences and similarities. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24 (1), 515.
    Bohnisch W. Ragan J. W. Reber G., & Jago A. (1988). Predicting Austrian leader behavior from a measure of behavioral intent: A cross-cultural replication. Management under differing labour market and employment systems (pp. 313322). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    Bolchover D. (2012). Competing across borders: How cultural and communication barriers affect business. The Economist.
    Bolon D. S., & Crain C. R. (1985). Decision sequence: A recurring theme in comparing American and Japanese management. Paper presented at the Proceedings, Academy of Management, San Diego, CA.
    Bottger P. C. Hallein I. H., & Yetton P. W. (1985). A cross-national study of leadership: Participation as a function of problem structure and leader power. Journal of Management Studies, 22, 358368.
    Bowers D. C., & Seashore S. E. (1966). Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 238263.
    Bradford L. R., & Lippitt R. (1945). Building a democratic work group. Personnel, 22, 142148.
    Brett J. M. Tinsley C. H. Janssens M. Barsness Z. I., & Lytle A. L. (1997). New approaches to the study of culture in industrial/organizational psychology. In P. C. Early & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on industrial/organizational psychology(pp. 75127). San Francisco: New Lexington Press.
    Brislin R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J.W. Berry (Eds), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology (pp. 389444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
    Brodbeck F. C. Chhokar J. S., & House R. J. (2007). Culture and leadership in 25 societies: Integration, conclusions, and future directions. In J. S. Chhokar, F. C. Brodbeck, & R. J. House (Eds.), Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies (pp. 10251102). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Brodbeck F. C., & Eisenbeiss S. A. (in press). Cross-cultural and global leadership. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations.
    Brodbeck F. C. Frese M. Akerblom S. Audia G. Bakacsi G. Bendova H. et al. (2000). Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 129.
    Brodbeck F. C. Frese M., & Javidan M. (2002). Leadership made in Germany: Low on compassion, high on performance. Academy of Management Executive, 16 (1), 1630.
    Bryk A. S., & Raudenbush S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Burke C. S. Stagl K. C. Klein C. Goodwin G. F. Salas E., & Halpin S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288307.
    Burns J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
    Cannella A. A. Jr., & Monroe, M. J. (1997). Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. Journal of Management, 23, 213238.
    Carpenter M. A. Geletkanycz M. A., & Sanders W. G. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30, 749778.
    Casimir G., & Waldman D. A. (2007). A cross cultural comparison of the importance of leadership traits for effective low-level and high-level leaders. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 7 (1), 4760.
    Castel P. Deneire M. Kurc A. Lacasagne M.F., & Leeds C. A. (2007). Universalism and exceptionalism: French business leadership. In J. S. Chhokar F. C. Brodbeck, & R.J. House. (Eds.), Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Catalyst. (2013). Women CEOs of the Fortune 1000. Retrieved January 5, 2013, from
    Chakravarthy B. S. (1986). Measuring strategic performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7 (5), 437458.
    Chemers M. M. (1983). Leadership theory and research: A systems-process integration. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 939). New York: Springer-Verlag.
    Chemers M. M. (1993). An integrative theory of leadership. In M. M. Chemers & Ayman R. (Eds.), Leadership theory and research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    Chemers M. M. (1997). An integrative theory of leadership. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Chhokar J. S. Brodbeck F. C., & House R. J. (Eds.). (2007). Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Child J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6,(1), 122.
    Child J., & Tayeb M. (1983, Winter). Theoretical perspectives in cross-national research. International Studies of Management and Organization, 3270.
    China Daily. (2012, April 27). Report.
    Chong L.M.A., & Thomas D. C. (1997). Leadership perceptions in cross-cultural context: Pakeha and Pacific islanders in New Zealand. Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 275293.
    Chow I. H. (2007). Culture and Leadership in Hong Kong. In J. S. Chhokar, F. C. Brodbeck, & R. J. House (Eds.), Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Colbert A. E. Kristof-Brown A. L. Bradley B. H., & Barrick M. R. (2008). CEO transformational leadership: The role of goal importance congruence in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 8196.
    Conger J. A. (1990). The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19(2), 4455.
    Conger J. A., & Kanungo R. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637647.
    Conger J. A., & Kanungo R. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Croker J. Fiske S.T., & Taylor S. E. (1984). Schematic bases of belief change. In J. R. Eisen (Ed.), Attitudinal judgment (pp. 197226). New York: Springer-Verlag.
    Cullen J. B. (1998). Multinational management: A strategic approach. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Company.
    Cyert R. M., & March J. G. (1992). A behavioral theory of the firm (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. (Original work published 1963)
    Dasborough M. T., & Ashkanasy N. M. (2002). Emotion and attribution of intention-ality in leader–member relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 615634.
    Davila A., & Elvira M. (2012). Performance management systems in Mexico. In B. Christensen (Ed.), Cultural variations and business performance: Contemporary globalism. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
    DeGroot T. Kiker D. S., & Cross T. S. (2000). A meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, 17, 356371.
    Delbecq A. House R. Sully de Luque, M., & Quigley, N. (2013). Implicit motives, leadership, and follower outcomes: An empirical test of CEOs. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 20 (1), 13.
    Den Hartog, D., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., et al. (1999). Culture specific and cross culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2), 219-256.
    Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1994). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ in the Netherlands. Paper presented at the 23rd International Congress of Applied Psychology, Madrid, Spain.
    Deng L., & Gibson P. (2009). Mapping and modeling the capacities that underlie effective cross-cultural leadership: An interpretive study with practical outcomes. International Journal, 16 (4), 347-366.
    Deutschman A. (2000). The second coming of Steve Jobs. New York: Broadway Books.
    Dickson M.W. Casta~o N. Magomaeva A., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2012). Conceptualizing leadership across cultures. Journal of World Business, 47 (4), 483-492.
    Dickson M. Den Hartog, D., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2003). Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 729-768.
    Doctors Without Borders. (2013). Retrieved from
    Donaldson L. (1993). Anti-management theories of organization: A critique of paradigm proliferation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Dorfman P. W. (1996). International and cross-cultural leadership research. In B. J. Punnett & O. Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook for international management research (pp. 267-349). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    Dorfman P. W. (2004). International and cross-cultural leadership research. In B. J. Punnett & O. Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook for international management research (2nd ed., pp. 265-355). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
    Dorfman P.W. Hanges P.J., & Brodbeck F. C. (2004). Leadership and cultural variation: The identification of culturally endorsed leadership profiles. In R.J. House P.J. Hanges M. Javidan P.W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 667-718). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Dorfman P.W., & House R. J. (2004). Cultural influences on organizational leadership: Literature review, theoretical rationale, and GLOBE Project goals. In R.J. House P. J. Hanges M. Javidan P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 49-71). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Dorfman P.W., & Howell J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns. In R. N. Farmer & E.G. McGoun (Eds.), Advances in international comparative management (Vol. 3, pp. 127-150). London: JAI Press.
    Dorfman P.W., & Howell J. P. (1997). Managerial leadership in the United States and Mexico: Distant neighbors or close cousins? In C. S. Granrose & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Cross cultural work groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Dorfman P. W. Howell J. P. Hibino S. Lee J.K. Tate U., & Bautista A. (1997). Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 8 (3), 233-274.
    Dorfman P.W. Javidan M. Hanges P. Dastmalchian A., & House R. (2012). GLOBE: A twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership. Journal of World Business, 47 (4), 504-518.
    Dorfman P.W., & Ronen S. (1991). Universal challenges to leadership theories. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Miami.
    Dyer N. G. Hanges P. J., & Hall R. (2005). Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 149-167.
    Eagly A. H., & Carli L.L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807-834.
    Eagly A. H. Johannesen-Schmidt M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 129 (4) 569-591.
    Earley P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (2), 319-348.
    Earley P. C. (1997). Face, harmony, and social structure: An analysis of organizational behavior across cultures. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Echavarria N. U., & Davis D. D. (1994). A test of Bass's model of transformational and transactional leadership in the Dominican Republic. Paper presented at the 23rd International Congress of Applied Psychology, Madrid, Spain.
    The Economist. (2013, January 21). Leaders without followers, World Economic Forum Report, Davos, Switzerland. Retrieved April 30, 2013, from
    Edwards J. R. (1995). Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study of congruence in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 307-324.
    Edwards J. R. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology. In F. Drasgow & N.W. Schmitt (Eds.), Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 350-400). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Eisenhardt K., & Bourgeois L. J. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 737-770.
    Elenkov D. S., & Manev I. M. (2005). Top management leadership and influence on innovation: The role of sociocultural context. Journal of Management, 31 (3), 381-402.
    Elenkov D. S., & Manev I. M. (2009). Senior expatriate leadership's effects on innovation and the role of cultural intelligence. Journal of World Business, 44, 357-369.
    Ensari N., & Murphy S. E. (2003). Cross-cultural variations in leadership perceptions and attribution of charisma to the leader. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92 (1-2), 52-66.
    Epitropaki O., & Martin R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (4), 659-676.
    Erez M. (1997). A culture-based model of work motivation. In P. C. Earley & Erez M. (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 193-242). San Francisco: The New Lexington Press.
    Euwema M. C. Wendt H., & van Emmerik, H. (2007). Leadership styles and group organizational citizenship behavior across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28 (8), 1035-1057.
    Farmer R. N., & Richman B. M. (1965). Comparative management and economic progress. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
    Finkelstein S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 505-538.
    Finkelstein S., & Hambrick D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects on organizations. Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN: West.
    Finkelstein S. Hambrick D. C., & Cannella A. A. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Fiske S. T., & Taylor S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
    Fleishman E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Personnel Psychology, 37, 1-6.
    Fleishman E. A. Harris E. F., & Burtt H. E. (1955). Leadership and supervision in industry. Columbus: Bureau of Educational Research, The Ohio State University.
    Flood P. C. Hannan E. Smith K. G. Turner T. West M. A., & Dawson J. (2000). Chief executive leadership style, consensus decision making, and top management team effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9 (3), 401-420.
    Foster M. (2008). Multi-polar world 2: The rise of the emerging-market multinational. Accenture. Retrieved from
    Fu P. P. Tsui A. S. Liu J., & Li L. (2010). Pursuit of whose happiness? Executive leaders’ transformational behaviors and personal values. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55 (2), 222-254.
    Fu P. P., & Yukl G. (2000). Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the United States and China. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 252-266.
    Gelfand M. J. Erez M., & Aycan Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 1-35.
    Gelfand M. J. Raver J. L. Nishii L. Leslie L. M. Lun J. Lim B. C. et al. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332 (6033), 1100-1104.
    Gerstner C. R., & Day D. V. (1994). Cross-cultural comparison of leadership prototypes. Leadership Quarterly, 5 (2), 121-134.
    Gerstner C. R., & Day D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.
    Goldstein H. (1995). Multilevel statistical models (2nd ed.). London: John Wiley.
    Goodsell C. T. (1983). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
    Grachev M. V. Rogovsky N. G., & Rakitski B. V. (2007). Leadership and culture in Russia: The case of transitional economy. In J. S. Chhokar, F. C. Brodbeck, & R. J. House (Eds.), Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Graen G. B. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross-cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE: A response viewed from the third culture bonding (TCB) model of cross-cultural leadership. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20 (4), 95-101.
    Graumann C. F., & Moscovici S. (1986). Changing conceptions of leadership. New York: Springer-Verlag.
    Green W. (2009). Letter to shareholders. Accenture. Retrieved from
    Grothe M. (2004). Oxymoronica: Paradoxical wit and wisdom from history' greatest wordsmiths. New York: HarperCollins.
    Gupta V., & Hanges P. J. (2004). Regional and climate clustering of societal cultures. In R. J. House P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan P. W. Dorfman, & Gupta V. (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Hackman J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
    Haire M. Ghiselli E. E., & Porter L. (1966). Managerial thinking: An international study. New York: Wiley.
    Hambrick D. C. (1994). Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the “team” label. Research in Organizational Behavior, 16, 171-213.
    Hambrick D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32 (2), 334-343.
    Hambrick D. C., & Finkelstein S. (1987). Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. In L. L. Cummings & B.M. Staw. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 369-406). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
    Hambrick D. C., & Mason P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9 (2), 193-206.
    Hanges P. J. (2004). Response bias correction procedure used in GLOBE. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 737-752). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Hanges P.J., & Dickson M. W. (2004). The development and validation of the GLOBE culture and leadership scales. In R. House P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan P. W. Dorfman, & Gupta V. (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 122-151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Hanges P. J. Dorfman P. W. Shteynberg G., & Bates A. (2006). Culture and leadership: A connectionist information processing model. In W. H. Mobley & Weldon E. (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 4, pp. 7-37). New York: JAI Press.
    Hanges P. J. Lord R. G., & Dickson M. W. (2000). An information processing perspective on leadership and culture: A case for connectionist architecture. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 133-161.
    Hanges P. J., & Wang M. (2012). Seeking the Holy Grail in organizational science: Uncovering causality through research design. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology (pp. 79-116). New York: Oxford University Press.
    Hannan M. T., & Freeman J. H. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-964.
    Heller F. A. Drenth P. Koopman P. L., & Rus V. (1988). Decisions in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Heller F. A., & Wilpert B. (1981). Competence and power in managerial decision-making: A study of senior-levels of organization in eight countries. London: Wiley.
    Hemphill J. K., & Coons A. E. (Eds.). (1957). Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio State University.
    Hickson D. J. Hinings C. R. McMillan J., & Schwitter. (1974). The culture-free context of organization structure: A tri-national comparison. Sociology, 8, 59-80.
    Hitt M. A., & Tyler B. B. (1991). Strategic decision models: Integrating different perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 327-351.
    Hofmann D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23 (6), 723-744.
    Hofmann D. A. Griffin M.A., & Gavin M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. J. Klein & S.W. Koslowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 467-511). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Hofstede G. (1976). Nationality and espoused values of managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 148-155.
    Hofstede G. (1980). Culture' consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    Hofstede G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7 (1), 81-94.
    Hofstede G. (2001). Culture' consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Hofstede G. (2006). What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’ minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 882-896.
    Hollenbeck G.P., & McCall M. W. (2003). Competence, not competencies: Making global executive development work. In W. Mobley & P.W. Dorfman (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 3). Oxford: JAI Press.
    Holmberg I., & Akerblom S. (2006). Modelling leadership: Implicit leadership theories in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 22, 307-329.
    Hoppe M. H. (2004). Cross-cultural issues in the development of leaders. In C. D. McCauley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (2nd ed., pp. 331-360). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Hoppe M. H., & Bhagat R. S. (2007). Leadership in the United States of America: The leader as cultural hero. In J. S. Chhokar, F. C. Brodbeck, & R. J. House (Eds.), Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    House R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leaders. In J. G. Hunt & L.L. Larson. (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
    House R. J. Dorfman P. Sully de Luque, M. F., Hanges, P., & Javidan, M. (2010, August). Strategic leadership across cultures: The new GLOBE multinational study: The new GLOBE study, all-academy showcase symposia. Presented at the Annual Meeting of Academy of Management, Montreal, Canada.
    House R. J. Hanges P. J. Javidan M. Dorfman P. W., & Gupta V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    House R.J. Hanges P.J. Ruiz-Quintanilla S.A. Dorfman P.W. Javidan M. Dickson M. et al. (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE. In W. F. Mobley M. J. Gessner, & Arnold V. (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 1, pp. 171-233). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
    House R.J., & Javidan M. (2004). Overview of GLOBE. In R. J. House P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan P. W. Dorfman, & Gupta V. (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 societies (pp. 9-48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    House R.J. Rousseau D.M., & Thomas D. (1995). The MESO paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 71-114). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
    House R.J., & Shamir B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic and visionary theories. In M. M. Chemers & Ayman R. (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81-107). San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.
    House R.J. Wright N.S., & Aditya R. N. (1997). Cross-cultural research on organizational leadership: A critical analysis and a proposed theory. In P. C. Earley & Erez M. (Eds.), New perspectives in international industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 535-625). San Francisco: The New Lexington Press.
    Howard A., & Wellins R. S. (2008). Global leadership forecast 2008-2009: Overcoming the shortfalls in developing leaders. Pittsburgh, PA: Development Dimensions International.
    Howell J. M., & Avolio B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control and support for innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.
    Howell J. M., & Frost P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43 (2), 243-269.
    Howell J. P. (2013). Snapshots of great leadership. New York: Routledge.
    Inglehart R. Basanez M., & Moreno A. (1998). Human values and beliefs: A cross-cultural sourcebook. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    International Security Assistance Force. (2013, May 7). Troop numbers and contributions. Retrieved from
    Isaacson W. (2011). Steve Jobs. New York: Simon & Schuster.
    Ivancevich J.M. Schweiger D.M., & Ragan J. W. (1986). Employee stress, health, and attitudes: A comparison of American, Indian and Japanese managers.Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Chicago.
    Jackson C.L. Colquitt J.A. Wesson M.J., & Zapata-Phelan C. P. (2006). Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 884899.
    Jacobsen C., & House R. J. (2011). Dynamics of charismatic leadership: A process theory, simulation model, and tests. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 75112.
    James L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 219229.
    James L.R. Demaree R.G., & Wolf G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 8598.
    Javidan M. (2004). Performance Orientation. In R. J. House P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan P. W. Dorfman, & Gupta V. (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies(pp. 239281). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Javidan M., & Carl D. E. (2005). Leadership across cultures: A study of Canadian and Taiwanese Executives. Management International Review, 45(1), 2344.
    Javidan M., & Dastmalchian A. (2009). Managerial implications of the GLOBE project: A study of 62 societies. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 47, 4158.
    Javidan M. Dorfman P.W. Howell J.P., & Hanges P. J. (2010). Leadership and cultural context: A theoretical and empirical examination based on Project GLOBE. In N. Nohria & Khurana R. (Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
    Javidan M. Dorfman P. W. Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 6790.
    Javidan M., & House R. (2001). Cultural acumen for the global manager: Lessons from GLOBE [30th anniversary special issue]. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 289305.
    Javidan M. House R. Dorfman P.W. Hanges P.J., & Sully de Luque, M. (2006). Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: A comparative review of GLOBE's and Hofstede's approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 897914.
    Jilani Z. (2011). Taking a moral stand, American Airlines CEO retires with no severance package as company goes bankrupt. ThinkProgress. Retrieved from
    Judge T. A., & Piccolo R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755768.
    Jung D., & Avolio B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers' cultural orientation on performance in groups and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 208218.
    Jung D. Butler M.C., & Baik K. B. (1998). Effects of transformational leadership on group members collective efficacy and perceived performance. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
    Jung D. Wu A., & Chow C. (2008). Towards understanding the direct and indirect effects of CEO's transformational leadership on firm innovation. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 582594.
    Jung D. Yammarino F.J., & Lee J. K. (2009). Moderating role of subordinates' attitudes on transformational leadership and effectiveness: A multi-cultural and multi-level perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 586603.
    Kanter R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mechanisms in utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33, 499517.
    Katz D., & Kahn R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
    Katzenbach J. R., & Smith D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Keller T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An attachment perspective on implicit leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 141160.
    Kennedy J. C. (2007). Leadership and culture in New Zealand. In J. S. Chhokar, F. C. Brodbeck, & R. J. House (Eds.), Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Kennis I. (1977). A cross-cultural study of personality and leadership. Group and Organizational Studies, 2(1), 4960.
    Kirkman B.L. Chen G. Farh J.L. Chen Z.X., & Lowe K. B. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 744764.
    Klein H. Becker T., & Meyer J. (2009). Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new directions. New York: Routledge.
    Klein K. J. Dansereau F., & Hall R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 195229.
    Koene H. Pennings H., & Schreuder M. (1991). Leadership, culture, and organizational effectiveness. In K. E. Clark M. E. Clark, & D.P. Campbell. (Eds.), The impact of leadership. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
    Koh W. L. (1990). An empirical validation of the theory of transformational leadership in secondary schools in Singapore. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52 (2), 602A.
    Koh W.L. Terborg J.R., & Steers R. M. (1991). The impact of transformational leaders on organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, teacher satisfaction and student performance in Singapore. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Miami, FL.
    Kohn M. L. (1971). Bureaucratic man: A portrait and an interpretation. American Sociological Review, 36, 461474.
    Kouzes J.M., & Posner B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Kozlowski, S., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In Borman, W. C., Ilgen, D. R., & Klimoski, R. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12): Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333-375). New York: Wiley.
    Kozlowski S., & Ilgen D. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science and the Public Interest, 7 (3), 77-125.
    Kozlowski S., & Klein K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Kreft I., & Leeuw J. D. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Landy F. J., & Conte J. M. (2010). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
    Lawrence P. R., & Lorsch J. W. (1967). Organization and environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Leana C. R. Locke E. A., & Schweiger D. M. (1990). Fact and fiction in analyzing research on participative decision making: A critique of Cotton, Wollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall, and Jennings. Academy of Management Review, 15, 137-146.
    Leong L. Y. C., & Fischer R. (2011). Is transformational leadership universal? A meta-analytical investigation of multifactor leadership questionnaire means across cultures. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18 (2), 164-174.
    Leung K. Bhagat R. S. Buchan N. R. Erez M., & Gibson C. B. (2005). Culture and international business: Recent advances and their implications for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 357-378.
    Lewin K. Lippitt R., & White R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-301.
    Likert R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    Likert R. (1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    Lindsay C. P., & Dempsey B. L. (1985). Experiences in training Chinese business people to use U.S. management techniques. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21, 65-78.
    Ling Y. Simsek Z. Lubatkin M. H., & Veiga J. F. (2008a). The impact of transformational CEOs on the performance of small- to medium-sized firms. Does tenure or founder status matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 923-934.
    Ling Y. Simsek Z. Lubatkin M. H., & Veiga J. F. (2008b). Transformational leadership' role in promoting corporate entrepreneurship: Examining the CEO-TMT Interface? Academy of Management Journal, 51, 557-576.
    Lok P., & Crawford J. (2004). The effect of organisational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction and organisational commitment: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Management Development, 23 (4), 321-338.
    Lonner W. J. (1980). The search for psychological universals. In H. C. Triandis & W.W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 143-204). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
    Lord R. G., & Brown D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Lord R. G. Foti R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34 (3), 343-378.
    Lord R. G. Hanges P. J., & Godfrey E. G. (2003). Integrating neural networks into decision-making and motivational theory: Rethinking VIE theory. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 44 (1), 21.
    Lord R.G., & Maher K. J. (1990). Leadership perceptions and leadership performance: Two distinct but interdependent processes. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 129-154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Lord R. G., & Maher K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Unwin Hyman.
    Machiavelli N. (1961). The prince (G. Bull, Trans.). London: Penguin. (Original work published 1532).
    Magnusson P., & Boggs D. J. (2006). International experience and CEO selection: An empirical study. Journal of International Management, 12 (1), 107-125.
    Makri M., & Scandura T. A. (2010). Exploring the effects of adaptive and expansive CEO leadership on innovation in high-technology firms. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 75-88.
    Marion R., & Uhl-bien M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 389-418.
    McCall M., & Hollenbeck G. (2002). Developing global executives: The lessons of international experience. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
    McClelland D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
    McClelland D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott-Foresman.
    McKeown B. (1988). Q methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Mehra P., & Krishnan V. R. (2005). Impact of Svadharma-orientation on transformational leadership and followers’ trust in leader. Journal of Indian Psychology, 23 (1), 1-11.
    Meindl J. R. Ehrlich S. B., & Dukerich J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78-102.
    Meindl J. R. Ehrlich S. B., & Dukerich J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78-102.
    Menon T. Sim J. Ho-Ying Fu, J., Chiu, C.-y., & Hong, Y.-y. (2010). Blazing the trail versus trailing the group: Culture and perceptions of the leader' position. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 51-61.
    Meyer J. P., & Allen N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
    Meyer J. P., & Allen N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Mintzberg H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.
    Mintzberg H. (2004). Enough leadership. Harvard Business Review, 82 (11), 22.
    Mintzberg H. (2006). The leadership debate with Henry Mintzberg: Community-ship is the answer. Financial Times. Retrieved from
    Mintzberg H. (2009). Managing. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
    Morrow P. C. (1993). The theory and measurement of work commitment. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
    Mowday R. T. Porter L. W., & Steers R. M. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    Naisbitt J. (1982). Megatrends: Ten new directions transforming our lives. New York: Warner Books.
    Newman K. L., & Nollen S. D. (1996). Culture and congruence: The fit between management practices and national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 27, 753-779.
    Nisbett R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently…and why. New York: Free Press.
    O'Connell, M. S., Lord, R. G., & O'Connell, M. K. (1990, August). Differences in Japanese and American leadership prototypes: Implications for cross-cultural training. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, San Francisco.
    Offermann L. R. Kennedy J. K., & Wirtz P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. The Leadership Quarterly, 5 (1), 43-58.
    O'Reilly, C. A. III, Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487-516.
    Oxfam International. (2013). Retrieved from
    Palrecha R. Spangler W.D., & Yammarino F. J. (2012). A comparative study of three leadership approaches in India. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 146162.
    Parboteeah K.P. Hoegl M., & Cullen J. B. (2008). Managers' gender role attitudes: A country institutional profile approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 795813.
    Paris L.D. Howell J.P. Dorfman P.W., & Hanges P. J. (2009). Preferred leadership prototypes of male and female leaders in 27 countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 13961405.
    Peng M. M., & Luo Y. (2000). Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy: The nature of a micro-macro link. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 486501.
    Peng T.K. Peterson M.F., & Shyi Y. (1991). Quantitative methods in cross-national management research: Trends and equivalence issues. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 87107.
    Pereira D. (1987). Factors associated with transformational leadership in an Indian engineering firm. Paper presented at the Administrative Science Association of Canada, Vancouver.
    Peterson M. F. (2004). [Review of the book Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 641647.
    Peterson M.F., & Hunt J. G. (1997a). International perspectives on international leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 203231.
    Peterson M.F., & Hunt J. G. (1997b). Overview: International and cross-cultural leadership research (Part II). Leadership Quarterly, 8(4), 339342.
    Peterson R.S. Smith D.B. Martorana P.V., & Owens P. D. (2003). The impact of chief executive officer personality on top management team dynamics: One mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 795808.
    Peterson S.J. Walumbwa F.O. Byron K.L., & Myrowitz J. (2009). CEO positive psychological traits, transformational leadership, and firm performance in high-technology start-up and established firms. Journal of Management, 35, 348368.
    Pfeffer J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Administrative Science Review, 2, 104112.
    Pillai R. Scandura T.A., & Williams E. A. (1999). Leadership and organizational justice: Similarities and differences across cultures. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(4), 763779.
    Podsakoff P.M. MacKenzie S.B. Jeong-Yeon L., & Podsakoff N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
    Podsakoff P.M. MacKenzie S.B. Moorman R.H., & Fetter R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107142.
    Poortinga Y.H., & Malpass R. S. (1986). Making inferences from cross-cultural data. In W. J. Lonner & J.W. Berry. (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research(pp. 1246). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    Priem R.L. Lyon D.W., & Dess G. G. (1999). Limitations of demographic proxies in top management team heterogeneity research. Journal of Management, 6, 935953.
    Rauch C.F., & Behling O. (1984). Functionalism: Basis for an alternate approach to the study of leadership. In J. G. Hunt D. M. Hosking, C. A. Schriesheim, & Stewart R. (Eds.), Current studies in social psychology(pp. 4562). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    Reber G. Jago A., & Bohnisch W. (1993). Interkulturelle unterschlede im fuhrung-suerhalten Globalisierung der Wirtschaft-Einvirkungen auf die Betribswirtschaftslehre (pp. 217240). Stuttgart: Verlag Paul Haupt Bern.
    Recht R., & Wilderom C. (1998). Kaizen and culture on the transferability of Japanese suggestion systems. International Business Review, 7 (1), 7-22.
    Reicher S. D. Haslam S. A., & Hopkins N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 547-568.
    Richards D., & Engle S. (1986). After the vision: Suggestions to corporate visionaries and vision champions. In J. D. Adams (Ed.), Transforming leadership (pp. 199-214). Alexandria, VA: Miles River Press.
    Robbins S. P., & Judge T. A. (2011). Organizational behavior (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Romero E. J. (2004). Latin American leadership: El Patrón and El Líder moderno. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 11, 25-37.
    Ronen S. (1986). Comparative and multinational management. New York: Wiley.
    Ronen S., & Kraut A. I. (1977). Similarities among countries based on employee work values and attitudes. Columbia Journal of World Business, 12 (2), 89-96.
    Ronen S., & Shenkar O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10, 435-454.
    Ronen S., & Shenkar O. (2010). Country clusters: A cultural guiding map to global business. Invited keynote address at International Society for the Study of Work and Organizational Values, Portugal.
    Rosch E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104 (3), 192.
    Rousseau D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multilevel and cross-level perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1-37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
    Sachs J. (2000). Using a small Sample Q sort to identify item groups. Psychological Reports, 86, 287-294.
    Sagie A., & Aycan Z. (2003). A cross-cultural analysis of participative decision-making in organizations. Human Relations, 56, 453-473.
    Sagie A., & Koslowsky M. (2000). Participation and empowerment in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Salancik G. R., & Meindl J. R. (1984). Corporate attributions as strategic illusions of management control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 238-254.
    Sapienza H. J. Smith K. G., & Gannon M. J. (1988, Winter). Using subjective evaluations of organizational performance in small business research. American Journal of Small Business, 45-53.
    Scandura T. A. Von Glinow, M. A., & Lowe, K. B. (1999). When East meets West: Leadership “best practices” in the United States and the Middle East. In W. Mobley, M. J. Gessner, & V. Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 1, pp. 235-248). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
    Schein E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Schmidt A. (2013). Antecedents and outcomes of toxic leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
    Schyns B. Kiefer T. Kerschreiter R., & Tymon A. (2011). Teaching implicit leadership theories to develop leaders and leadership: How and why it can make a difference. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10 (3), 397-408.
    Shahin A. I., & Wright P. L. (2004). Leadership in the context of culture: An Egyptian perspective. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25 (6), 499-511.
    Shamir B. House R. J., & Arthur M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept theory. Organization Science, 4, 1-17.
    Shaw J. B. (1990). A cognitive categorization model for the study of intercultural management. Academy of Management Review, 15 (4), 626-645.
    Shondrick S. J. Dinh J. E., & Lord R. G. (2010). Developments in implicit leadership theory and cognitive science: Applications to improving measurement and understanding alternatives to hierarchical leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 959-978.
    Shrout P. E., & Fleiss J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
    Sinha J. B. P. (1980). The nurturant task leader. New Delhi, India: Concept.
    Sinha J. B.P. (1995). The cultural context of leadership and power. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Sirota D., & Greenwood J. M. (1971). Understand your overseas work force. Harvard Business Review, 49 (1), 53-60.
    Smith K. G., & Hitt M. A. (2005). Great minds in management: The process of theory development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    Smith P. B. Dugan S., & Trompenaars F. (1996). National culture and the values of organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27 (2), 231-264.
    Smith P. B., & Peterson M. F. (1988). Leadership, organizations and culture: An event management model. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Smith P. B., & Peterson M. F. (1995). Beyond value comparisons: Sources used to give meaning to management events in 30 countries. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Vancouver, Canada.
    Smith P. B. Peterson M. F., & Schwartz S. H. (2002). Cultural values, sources of guidance, and their relevance to managerial behavior: A 47-nation study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33 (2), 188-208.
    Smith P. B. Peterson M. F., & Thomas D. C. (2008). The handbook of cross-cultural management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Smith P. B. Peterson M. F., & Wang Z. M. (1996). The manager as mediator of alternative meanings: A pilot study from China, the U.S.A. and U.K. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (1), 115-138.
    Smith P. B. Wang Z. M., & Leung K. (1997). Leadership, decision-making and cultural context: Event management within Chinese joint ventures. Leadership Quarterly, 8 (4), 413-431.
    Spector P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9 221.
    Spreitzer G. M. Perttula K. H., & Xin K. R. (2005). Traditionality matters: An examination of the effectiveness of transformational leadership in the United States and Taiwan. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26 (3), 205-227.
    Stahl G.K., & Javidan M. (2009). Cross-cultural perspectives on international mergers and acquisitions. In R. S. Bhagat & Steers R. (Eds.), Culture, organizations and work (pp. 118-147). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Steenkamp J. E. M., & Baumgartner H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-107.
    Stewart R. Barsoux J. L. Kieser A. Ganter H. D., & Walgenbach P. (1994). Managing in Britain and Germany. London: St. Martin' Press/MacMillan.
    Stogdill R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New York: Free Press.
    Swidler A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273-286.
    Tabuchi H. (2011, May20). Head of Japanese utility steps down after nuclear crisis. New York Times (online). Retrieved from
    Tan J. J., & Litschert R. J. (1994). Environment-strategy relationship and its performance implications: An empirical study of the Chinese electronics industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 1-20.
    Tosi H. L. Misangyi V. F. Fanelli A. Waldman D. A., & Yammarino F. J. (2004). CEO charisma, compensation, and firm performance. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 405-421.
    Triandis H. C. (1993). The contingency model in cross-cultural perspective. In M. M. Chemers & R. E. Ayman, Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 167-188). San Diego: Academic Press.
    Triandis H.C. (1994). Cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology. In H. C. Triandis M. D. Dunnette, & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 103-172). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
    Triandis H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    Triandis H. C. (2004). Foreword. In R. House P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan P. W. Dorfman, & Gupta V. (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. xv-xix). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Tsui A. S. Nifadkar S. S., & Ou A. Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33 (3), 426-478.
    Tung R. L. (2004). Female expatriates: The model global manager? Organizational Dynamics, 33 (3), 243-253.
    Turley J. (2010). Redrawing the map: Globalization and the changing world of business, featuring excerpts from The Globalization Index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Ernst & Young Report.
    Union of International Associations (Ed.). (2012). Number of international organizations by type. The yearbook of international organizations (49th ed., Vol. 3, App. 3, Table 1). Boston: Brill.
    U.S. Department of Defense. (2010, December 31). Active duty military personnel strengths by regional area and by country (309A). Retrieved from http://siadapp
    Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Van der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multifunctional teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532-547.
    van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Organizational error management culture and its impact on performance: A two-study replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1228-1240.
    van Quaquebeke, N., van Knippenberg, D., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2011). More than meets the eye: The role of subordinates’ self-perceptions in leader categorization processes. Leadership Quarterly, 22 (2), 367-382.
    Vroom V. H., & Jago A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Vroom V. H., & Yetton P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
    Waldman D. A. de Luque, M. S., Washburn, N., House, R. J., Adetoun, B., Barrasa, A., et al. (2006). Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 823-837.
    Waldman D. A. Javidan M., & Varella P. (2004). Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: A new application of upper echelons theory. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 355-381.
    Waldman D. A. Ramirez G. A. House R. J., & Puranam P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134-143.
    Waldman D. A., & Yammarino F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review, 24, 266-285.
    Waller D. (2001). Wheels on fire: The amazing inside story of the Daimler Chrysler merger. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
    Walsh J. P., & Seward J. K. (1990). On the efficiency of internal and external corporate control mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 15, 421-458.
    Walumbwa F. O., & Lawler J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations: Transformational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes and withdrawal behaviours in three emerging economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14 (7), 1083-1101.
    Wang H. Tsui A. S., & Xin K. R. (2011). CEO leadership behaviors, organizational performance, and employees’ attitudes. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 92-105.
    Wang H. Waldman D. A., & Zhang H. (2012). Strategic leadership across cultures: Current findings and future research directions. Journal of World Business, 47 (4), 479-706.
    Weber M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press.
    Weiss J. W., & Bloom S. (1990). Managing in China: Expatriate experiences and training. Business Horizons, 33, 23-29.
    Wendt H. Euwema M. C., & Van Emmerik, H. (2009). Leadership and team cohesiveness across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 20 (3), 358-370.
    Werther W. B. J. (1996). Toward global convergence. Business Horizons, 39 (1), 3-9.
    Westphal J. D., & Zajac E. J. (1995). Who shall govern? CEO/board power, demographic similarity, and new director selection. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (1), 60-83.
    Wolgemuth L. (2010). What the resumes of top CEOs have in common. US News Report.
    World Trade Organization' Regional Trade Agreement Database. (2012). Retrieved from
    Yavas B. F. (1995). Quality management practices worldwide: Convergence or divergence? Quality Progress, 28 (10), 57-61.
    Young J. S.& Simon W. L. (2005). iCon Steve Jobs: The greatest second act in the history of business. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
    Yukl G. (2001). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Yukl G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Yukl G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 708-722.
    Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
    Yukl G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 66-85.
    Yukl G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Zaccaro S. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical analysis of success. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
    Zaccaro S. J., & Klimoski R. J. (2001). The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today' leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Zaccaro S. J. Rittman A. L., & Marks M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451-484.

    Name Index

    • Loading...
Back to Top