Essays on Implications of the Globe Study of Leadership for Multinational Companies Operating across Four Continents Case Study

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Implications of the Globe Study of Leadership for Multinational Companies Operating across Four Continents" is a great example of a Management Case Study.   Leadership has frequently been defined as the capability of influencing a group with the objective of achieving shared goals. GLOBE study offers a more recent opinion about leadership by considering it as an individual ability to motivate, influence as well as allow others to contribute toward the organization’ s success and effectiveness (House et al. , 2004, p. 15). This notion exhibits the roles held by leadership in bringing about success as well as the effectiveness of the business organizations.

Thus far, there are different concepts concerning leadership, due to the fact that ideal leadership conceptions change from one culture and time to another. Even though culture has been defined differently by different authors, House et al. (2004) in their GLOBE study established that the main theme of culture is cultural characteristics the ‘ sharedness’ amongst the members: shared identities and meanings; shared ways of reacting, feeling, and thinking; and universally experienced happenings such as the members’ language, history, as well as religion.

The focus of the GLOBE study was to assess the values and beliefs of a particular society. The essay examines the implications of the globe study of leadership for multinational companies operating across four continents, where leadership effectiveness is believed to be the key to achieving high performance Discussion Contemporary multinational companies are interested in developing as well as enacting instruments and policies like universal leadership competency models (LCMs) across the continents so as to improve the shared corporate culture as well as bring about the enterprise’ s global success. In consideration of a large number of involved national cultural standards as well as the multifaceted demands within the global virtual setting on contemporary‘ s leaders, business organisations are struggling to espouse and manage modernized leadership competencies.

As observed by House et al. (2004) with insufficient capabilities of global leadership, business organisations have to develop leadership competency models that primarily acknowledge the cultural contingency. Given that the majority of the past leadership research focussed on Western Europe and North America, the embedded cultural assumptions of such nations have transformed into the competency frameworks utilized by scores of MNCs in the present day.

House et al. (2004) noted that charismatic leadership theories have turned out to be a default for the success of the global business, even in countries that lack value leadership that is oriented to performance. Human resources instruments like 360-degree feedback, balanced scorecards, and Management by Objectives all stemmed from the United States and are inextricably associated with modern-day leadership competency models. According to Shi and Wang (2011, p. 93), cultural models express the basic problems’ patterns that impact the functioning of individuals and groups.

To comprehend the cultural differences, a number of models have been created, like the Hofstede (1991) Model, studies by Trompenaars (1993), and GLOBE Model by House et al (2004). Hofstede’ s five dimensions of culture have been cited by scores of researchers within the field of intercultural management. Hofstede (1991) created an influential framework that explains the differences within the national culture that consist of five main dimensions: the first dimension is the power distance or the level to which the societies accept that power in the organizations, as well as institutions, is unequally distributed.

The second dimension is uncertainty avoidance or the level to which the societies feel vulnerable to unclear circumstances and attempt to circumvent them. The third dimension is individualism/collectivism, or the level of which people are included in the groups. The fourth dimension is masculinity/femininity, or the level of which values that are dominant are ‘ male’ values like assertiveness, acquiring goods and money, as well as failure to care for others. The last dimension is the long-term versus short-term orientation, associated with gratification postponement.

The date that was gathered by Hofstede (1991) enabled more than 50 countries to be rated in terms of the first four dimensions. Hofstede (1991) managed to show the considerable variations between countries anchored on such five dimensions; however, other countries were comparable. This made it possible to group countries based on their cultural similarities as well an offer direction on how a leadership approach can be adjusted when a multinational company moves from one group of cultures to a different culture; for instance, from the United States to the Middle East (Javidan et al. , 2006, p. 904).

GLOBE project conducted by Javidan et al. (2006) is the most cited study with regard to cultural differences in leadership as well as management. The study was conducted in 62 societal cultures and more than 17,000 managers were involved. After reviewing the existing literature, particularly the works of Trompenaas (1993), Hofstede, and others, nine cultural dimensions’ measures were conceptualized and created during the GLOBE study: Uncertainty Avoidance, Assertiveness, Performance Orientation, Institutional Collectivism, Humane Orientation, Future Orientation, Gender Egalitarianism, In-Group Collectivism as well as Power Distance (Harzing, 2004, p. 694; Shi & Wang, 2011, p. 95; House et al. , 2004).

According to Javidan et al. (2006, p. 899), such are some of the aspects that define the culture of a country, and that differentiates one society from another.


Harzing, A.-W., 2004. Ideal Jobs and International Student Mobility in the Enlarged European Union. European Management Journal, vol. 22, no. 6, pp.693–703.

Hofstede, G., 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London, UK: McGraw-Hill.

House, R.J., Hanges, ‎.J. & Javidan, ‎., 2004. Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Javidan, M. et al., 2006. Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: a comparative review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 37, pp.897–914.

Shi, X. & Wang, J., 2011. Interpreting Hofstede Model and GLOBE Model: Which Way to Go for Cross-Cultural Research? International Journal of Business and Management, vol. 6, no. 5, pp.93-99.

Trompenaars, F., 1993. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: Nicholas Brealey Publ.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us