Global vs. Local Communication and Cultural Patterns: Regional Differences in the Norwegian Business Culture

Transcription

1 Global vs. Local Communication and Cultural Patterns: Regional Differences in the Norwegian Business Culture By Gillian Warner-Søderholm (Published in Norwegian in MAGMA 0310: 2010) Norway is fast becoming part of the knowledge based global economy. Consequently, the competitive value of a company lies not only in its staff s skills within business and investment matters but also in their ability to appreciate how to do business with business partners from different cultures In other words their communication and cultural awareness abilities are a key asset to their company. Why might one claim that an understanding of not only the global but also the local cultural landscape is essential for the success of business people and economists today? How can a better understanding of regional communication patterns in Norway help a manager to develop his or her key business skills? Clearly a lack of cultural awareness can easily weaken a company in a number of ways if a manager does not take regional and global manifestations of culture into consideration. This lack of understanding can lead to miscommunication and conflict between management and staff, or between customers and staff who may have different ways of expressing themselves. On the other hand, intercultural communication skills give a company a much needed competitive edge, both nationally and regionally. This article presents the quantitative and qualitative findings of a recent societal cultural research project which was based on GLOBE instrument (House et al., 2004) survey responses from 710 Norwegian middle managers in all regions of Norway along with findings from 58 in-depth interviews in all regions. The findings indicate significant differences in, for example, how directness in communication patterns is perceived in different regions of Norway, how individualist versus collectivist values impact working patterns in different regions of Norway and not least, which regions most appreciate planning in order to avoid uncertainty. This article is based on the author s doctorate thesis: Understanding perceptions of cultural and intracultural societal practices and values of Norwegian Managers. Project GLOBE Cultural dimensions applied within this study The initial GLOBE project (House et al., 2004; Chhokar et al., 2007) endeavored to research Global Leadership and Organizational Behaviours Effectiveness (thus the name). As many as 17,370 respondents worldwide, from three industries (telecommunications, finance and food processing) in 62 social cultures completed the research questionnaires. The nine GLOBE project s cultural dimension applied in this study correlate to a degree with Hofstede s dimensions and values initially developed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) and also McClelland s dimensions (1964). Let us review what the GLOBE cultural terms: Assertiveness, Gender Egalitarianism, Collectivism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Future Orientation, Performance Orientation and Humane Orientation and Hall s High/Low Context represent in relation to business culture.

2 Performance Orientation Project GLOBE presents Performance Orientation as the degree to which an organization or society encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence (House et al, 2004:12). Weber, a prominent thinker in the 1900s influenced research into Performance Orientation with his classic analysis in The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Max Weber, 1904). Weber posited that the fundamental difference between the Catholic and Protestant work doctrines was that Catholicism focused on good works as Christian values, whereas the Protestant doctrine introduced the idea of hard work and performance as the calling. Weber in turn had been influenced by the work of Martin Luther ( ) and John Calvin ( ) in regards to Protestant work values. High scoring cultures tend to focus on achievement, the future, taking initiative, job related accomplishments. Low scoring countries on the other hand tend to focus on tradition, family, affiliation and social ties. Hence social relationships are valued more than achieving. Additional predictors of Performance orientation were found to be related to a country s level of economic prosperity, higher levels of human development and a stronger social support for competitiveness (House et al., 2004: 255). Table 1. below offers a summary of elements of this dimension: Societies with stronger Performance Orientation: Value education and learning Emphasize results Set high performance targets Value initiative taking Prefer explicit, direct communication Societies with weaker Performance Orientation: Value social and family relations Value loyalty and traditions Value sensitivity Value seniority and experience Value subtle, indirect language Table 1. Key elements of Performance Orientation (based on House et al., 2004:245) Future Orientation Future Orientation is the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies engage in future-oriented behaviours such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying individual or collective gratification (House et al., 2004:12). With regard to economic and social predictors of this dimension, project GLOBE applied relevant data from the IMD Global Competitiveness Ranking (1994), the World Economic Forum s Competitiveness Ranking (1998), the United Nation s Human Development Report( 1998) and the World Values Survey (Inglehart et al., 1994). This data shows the following factors as predictors of high levels of Future Orientation: economic prosperity, high levels of society health, active political ideology and positive attitudes towards gender issues. Table 2 below offers a summary of the key elements recognized in the Future Orientation dimension. Societies with stronger Future Orientation: Emphasize visionary leadership that is capable of seeing patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty Value deferment of gratification placing a higher priority on long term success Have organizations with a longer strategic orientation Value collective safety nets in society Societies with weaker Future Orientation: Emphasis leadership that focuses on repetition of reproducible and routine sequences Value instant gratification and place higher priorities on immediate rewards Have organizations with a shorter strategic orientation Do not see a specific need for society to provide a collective safety net. Table 2. Key elements of Future Orientation (based on House et al., 2004:302) Gender Egalitarianism One of the most fundamental ways in which societies differ is the extent to which each prescribes and proscribes different roles for women and men (Hofstede, 1980:11). Some societies are more Gender Egalitarian and seek to minimize gender role differences (House et al., 1999). Researchers of this dimension support these claims (Coltrane, 1996; Williams and Best; 1982;

3 Barry, Bacon and Child, 1957). Gender Egalitarianism is defined as the degree to which an organization or society minimizes gender role differences while promoting gender equality. Predictors of Gender Egalitarian values include national wealth per capita (Hofstede, 1980). Table 3 below summarizes the key elements of Gender Egalitarianism. Societies with higher Gender Egalitarianism: Have a higher percentage of women in the workplace and more women in positions of authority Accord women a higher status Promote equal opportunities for all people in society Societies with lower Gender Egalitarianism: Have a lower percentage of women in the workplace and fewer women in positions of authority Accord women a lower status Tolerate inequality Table 3. Key elements of Gender Egalitarianism (based on House et al., 2004:359) Assertiveness The concept of Assertiveness originates in part from Hofstede s cultural dimension of Masculinity versus Femininity (House et al., 2004: 401). In Masculine societies men are supposed to be assertive and tough and women are expected to be modest and tender (House et al., 2004:402). Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) discussed dominance as an element of Assertiveness in relation to the nature of the relationship of individuals, groups and societies with the outside world. In line with Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) researched societies orientation to nature. They posit that certain cultural groups believe that they can and should control or dominate nature (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998:14). Assertive societies will thus view relations in terms of dominance. Hence, all elements of previous research into cultural Assertiveness share a common understanding that Assertiveness is the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are assertive, confrontational and aggressive in social relationships (House et al., 2004:12). Table 4 below offers a summary of the key elements of this dimension. Societies with higher Assertiveness: Value assertive, dominant, tough behaviour for everyone in societies Value competition and believe that anyone can succeed if he or she tries hard enough Value direct and unambiguous communication Emphasize results over relationships and reward performance Societies with lower Assertiveness: Value modesty and tenderness Value cooperation, people and warm relations Emphasize the importance of face-saving, ambiguity and subtlety in communication Are concerned that merit pay can be destructive to harmony Table 4. Key elements of Assertiveness (based on House et al., 2004:405) Individualism and Collectivism The importance of the individual versus the importance of the group has been widely studied across a range of research disciplines. Hofstede (1980) posits a correlation between individualism and wealth, with industrialised countries such as England, the US and Australia as the most individualistic cultures (Hofstede 1980). He also suggests that an increase in national wealth in a developing country causes an increase in individualism (Hofstede, 1997). Triandis supports this claim that financial independence leads to social independence (Trandis, 1994:165). Levine and Norenzayan (1999) posit that a more accurate predictor of individualism is pace of life. They argue that individualistic cultures have a faster pace of life than collectivist cultures as they focus on achievement. Triandis discusses intrinsic family systems as an antecedent to Collectivist values (Triandis, 1995). Table 5 below summarises key elements of this dimension:

4 Societies with higher Collectivism: Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive groups The self is viewed as interdependent with groups Duties and obligations are important elements of social behavior Individuals make greater distinctions between in-groups and out-groups Societies higher Individualism: Individuals look after themselves or their immediate families The self is viewed as autonomous and independent of groups Individual goals take precedence over group goals and commitments Few distinctions are made between ingroups and out-groups Table 5. Key elements of Collectivism-Individualism (based on House et al., 2004:463) Power Distance Power Distance is defined as the degree to which members of an organization or society expect and agree that power should be stratified and concentrated at higher levels of an organization or government (House et al., 2004:12). McClelland (1961) and McClelland and Burnham (1976) determined that effective managers were characterised primarily by their need for power. Bass (1985) posits that charismatic attributes and behaviours play an important role in Power Distance. Mulder defined Power Distance as the degree of inequality in powers between a less power individual and a more powerful other (Mulder, 1977:90). Firms in high Power Distance cultures tend to have hierarchical decision making processes. Table 6 below offers a summary of elements of Power Distance: Societies with higher Power Distance: Society differentiated into social classes based on several criteria Clear power is seen as offering social order, relational harmony and role stability Civil liberties are weaker, public corruption can be higher Democracy does not ensure equal opportunities Societies with lower Power Distance: Society has a large middle class Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion and dominance Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low Civil liberties are stronger and public corruption lower Table 6. Key elements of Power Distance (based on House et al., 2004) Humane Orientation The concept of urban helpfulness is an important concept in relation to this cultural dimension. Project GLOBE claims that there is a correlation between decreasing unhelpfulness and urbanization with increasing population density (House et al., 2004; 563). According to Triandis (1975), values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love and generosity are salient motivating factors guiding people s behaviour in societies characterised by a strong Humane Orientation. Rokeach s Value Theory (1968) and Schwartz Value Theory (1992) support this proposition. A summary of key elements of this dimension are:

5 Societies with higher Humane Orientation: Societies with lower Humane Orientation: People are urged to provide social support People are expected to solve personal for each other problems on their own Offspring are expected and are prepared to Offspring are not expected to give material give material support to their parents in support to their parents in their old age their old age Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness Values of pleasure, comfort, self enjoyment and generosity have high priority have high priority Others are important, i.e. family, friends, Self interest is important community, strangers Table 7. Key elements of Humane Orientation (based on House et al., 2004:570) Uncertainty Avoidance Uncertainty Avoidance is the extent to which members of an organization or society strive to avoid uncertainty by relying on established social norms, rituals and bureaucratic practices. People in high uncertainty avoidance cultures actively seek to decrease the probability of unpredictable future events that could adversely affect the operation of an organization or society and remedy the success of such adverse effects (House et al., 2004:13). Hofstede (2001) posits that people in societies create coping mechanisms to handle the anxiety produced by excessive uncertainty. He notes that technology has helped us to defend ourselves against uncertainties caused by nature, law to defend against uncertainty in the behaviour of others and religion to accept the uncertainties we cannot defend ourselves against (Hofstede, 2001:1461). Table 8 below offers a summary of the key traits associated with high or low uncertainty avoidance. Societies with higher Uncertainty Avoidance: Show a stronger desire to establish rules and have less tolerance for the breaking of rules Document agreements in legal contracts Take more moderate risks Show a stronger desire to establish rules, agendas and routines Societies with lower Uncertainty Avoidance: Have a higher tolerance for risk taking Rely on the word of others they trust rather than the contractual arrangement Show more tolerance for breaking rules Are less concerned with orderliness and the maintenance of records Table 8. Key elements of Uncertainty Avoidance (based on House et al., 2004:618) High - Low Context Communication High - Low Context patterns of communication are concepts derived from Hall s (1959) studies. Hall strongly supported cultural relativism, the belief that a particular cultural element should only be judged in the light of its context (Hall, 1959; Modell, 1983; Hertskovits, 1973; Rogers et al., 2002). Societies that value harmony and an indirect communication pattern are classified as High Context communicators, where the context surrounding the words plays a significant part in the communication process. On the other hand, societies that value honesty, candidness and a direct pattern of speech are defined as Low Context communicators: High Context communication societies: The message is embedded in the context surrounding the message Honour and face-saving are implicit values Para-verbal and nonverbal communication should be read very carefully Low Context communication societies: The message is explicit in the words used Honesty and directness are valued Clear and direct communication both verbally and nonverbally can be expected Table 9.. High- Low Context Communication (based on Hall, 1959)

6 Perceptions of regional differences in business behaviour In order to be able to understand cultural and communication values, business people first need to be open and aware of their own values and then be able to compare their own cultural norms with those of their business partners from other regions. If business people appreciate how their behavior is perceived by others and how they can expect the other party will act, cultural clashes which could otherwise threaten the business relationship can be avoided. Participants in this study unanimously saw societal culture and behaviour in business in Norway as regionally different. Respondents were divided into 7 groups depending on the geographical regions where they are culturally acclimatized key criteria for the suitability of each participant for the study included being a Norwegian manager, working in the private sector in Norway, for a Norwegian owned company and also living and working in the specific region. Figure 1 below outlines the 7 regions of Norway in the study: Figure 1. 7 regions of Norway (Based on Statistics Norway, 2008) Illustrative statements below from the interviews provided specific examples of how managers in different regions perceive the behavior of collaboration partners in other regions of Norway.

7 Statements used to describe the northern region Statements used to describe the Trøndelag region Statements used to describe the Oslo region Statements used to describe the southern region Illustrative statements used by people from other regions to describe people s cultural norms in this region Quantitative findings supported by the qualitative data More direct Not afraid of upsetting others Call a spade a spade Don t waste words Say it how it is More outgoing More time for others Always ready to help out Get straight to the point Collectivist values highest in the north (m=4.14) vs. Oslo (m=3.68) Humane Orientation values higher in the north (M=4.98) vs. south (M= 4.87) Lowest context in the north (M=2.58) vs. south (M=3.38). Less aggressive Not openly ambitious Proud of the Technical University NTNU which is located in the region Pleased that so many NTNU graduates, both men and women, choose to stay and hold technical and managerial jobs in the region Rural culture where you try to look after others Gender Egalitarian values highest in Trøndelag (M= 4.87 vs. south (M=4.44). More aggressive, stressed Busy Ambitious Less time to get to know others Colder Less trusting A good place for men and women who want to do well Less time for voluntary work Urban anonymous culture More assertive More focused on work and career Professional performance Performance Orientation highest in Oslo (M=4.48 vs. north (M= 4.00). Future Orientation highest in Oslo region (M= 4.80) vs. north (M= 3.79). Assertiveness highest in Oslo (M=3.95). More conservative More religious Christian communities Proud More reserved Less direct Less outgoing Less open to newcomers Less willing to call a spade a spade Strong family values Traditional jobs and roles at work and home Stronger family focus Less urban, less busy Power Distance highest in the south Uncertainty Avoidance highest in south (M= 4.64) vs. north (M=4.18). Lowest Assertiveness (M=3.00) Highest context in south(m=3.38) vs. north (M= 2.58) Table 10: qualitative findings compared to quantitative findings for northern, Trøndelag, Oslo and southern regions 1 1 The purpose of the interviews was to explore in some depth how business people in different regions define regional business and societal culture both implicitly and explicitly (Chhokar et al., 2007:983). The focus group interviews in this Norwegian study were conducted by means of semi-structured interviews. The interviews, which were carried out in Norwegian to avoid response bias in a second language, were taped and key texts were transcribed and then back-to-back translated into English. Content analyses were then carried out to discover which key definitions of regional culture were repeatedly used by respondents.

8 Statements used to describe western region Statements used to describe the mid region Statements used to describe the south east region Illustrative statements used by people from other regions to describe people s cultural norms in this region More direct than in the south Self confident Give priority to directness More relaxed working environment than Oslo Easier to come into contact with people in Bergen than Oslo or the south Proud of the culture and traditions Less aggressive wrap up what they want to say Less swearing Things take time Rural culture where people look after neighbours and friends Quality conscious beat around the bush far less direct than in the north- their directness is a culture shock for us Less collectivist Less direct here than in Bergen or the north More direct than in the south More women managers here than in the south More cautious and private than in the north Dress more formally less sociable- more focused on work more pushy than in the south more goal oriented Quantitative findings supported by the qualitative data Humane Orientation values higher in the west (M=4.58) vs. Oslo (M= 4.51) Lower context in the west (M=2.96) vs. south (M=3.38). Higher context in the mid region (M=3.56) vs. north (M=2.58). Higher Collectivist 1 scores in the mid region (M=4.44) vs. Oslo (M=3.68) Lower Assertiveness scores in the mid region (M= 3.13) vs. Oslo (M=3.95) Lower Collectivist scores in southeast region (M= 4.00) vs. mid region (M= 4.44) Performance Orientation higher in southeast region (M=4.12) vs. north (M= 4.00). Assertiveness higher in southeast region (M=3.54) vs. southern region (M= 3.01) Gender Egalitarian values higher in southeast (M= 4.60) vs. south (M=4.44) Lower context in the southeast region (M=3.28) vs. mid region (M=3.56). Table 11: qualitative findings compared to quantitative findings for western, mid and south eastern regions As documented in the study, evidence has been found to support the proposition of intracultural differences within different regions of Norway, adding evidence to the hypothesized of differences within societies (Hofstede, 1980; Tanure, 2002; Adler, 2002; House et al., 2004). The intracultural findings can be summarised as follows: quantitative and qualitative data analyses indicate that 1) the Oslo region scores highest in relation to the cultural dimensions of Performance Orientation, Future Orientation, Assertiveness and Individualism. 2) The scores for the north of Norway indicate that this is the region which most values Collectivism, Low Context Communication patterns, Low Uncertainty Avoidance levels, Low Power Distance norms and High Humane Orientation values. 3) The intracultural findings also suggest that Gender Egalitarian values are lowest in the Southern region and highest in the Trøndelag region. Figure 2 below offers a summary of the intracultural findings:

9 Figure 2. Summary findings for the 7 regions of Norway 2 Useful points to consider: 2 The GLOBE researchers used a seven-step rating scale in their value surveys. For example, each dimension is conceptualized and depicted as a continuum between two extreme poles. Taking Assertiveness as a dimension, 1 is greatly non-assertive, 4 is neither non-assertive nor assertive and 7 is greatly assertive. Specific attention was paid to the effect of response bias on data gathering and analysis, and all instruments were developed in consultation with members of each target country with back translations applied to capture the nuance of each question in the 97 question surveys.

10 Questions that may be asked and answered by this study could be 1) What should a team member working within a different region in Norway for the first time expect in terms of cultural differences? And, 2) how should a manager coming from another region deal with employees? In terms of supervision, managers and team leaders in northern and western regions may not be expected to have precise answers to a subordinate s questions but this would be more expected in the Oslo and south eastern regions. Another example of differences is group work: the effectiveness of working in groups is taken for granted in Norway, yet project groups can expect a greater sense of individualism and competitiveness in the Oslo region compared to the north and western regions. More group work and a lively sense debate in decision making is more the norm in the western and northern regions. An inescapable conclusion is that acceptable management practices found in one region are hardly guaranteed to work in a different area (Javidan et al., 2006: 86). Perhaps due to high collectivism scores in the north compared to the Oslo region, teams in the north tend to not value leaders who are individualistic or independent. A manager working in the northern or western regions of Norway would do well to ensure that the group or unit they are managing feel involved in decision making. A Norwegian business person working overseas on the other hand would do well to appreciate that in most other countries, a more hierarchical, individualistic and more formal approach is the norm. Norwegians are traditionally less class, gender and status conscious, shown perhaps in higher egalitarian and lower power distance scores. A foreign manager working in Norway would do well to expect less formality, less power distance and more females in management positions, especially in the western, Trøndelag and northern regions. Furthermore, rooted in the fact that Norway is reported to have a more Humane Oriented culture, managers in Norway, especially in the north, tend to show more interest and compassion for co-workers. It would not be unusual to show interest in each others families and spend time socially with co-workers, especially outside of the urban Oslo area. A Norwegian manager on an assignment in Oslo should not always expect such a sense of familiarity or informality. He or she would benefit from investing time meeting key executives in a new organization, both in and out of meetings. Being a newcomer, it is advantageous to show respect and a willingness to invest time in relationship building in order to develop personal networks, especially outside of urban areas. Food for thought There is no shortage of advice available to managers about how succeed with a new project in a different region. Unfortunately much of this can be superficial as it only focuses on the practical elements of etiquette, such as speak in a low voice in Japan and avoid eye contact with females in Asia. On the other end of the scale we might be given only general advice such as always be ethical. What is important to bear in mind here however is what might be seen as ethical business behavior in one country may not be the same in another. Subtle but disturbing differences may surface when representatives from neighboring regions work together. For example, due to the fact that management practices from the northern region of Norway may differ in subtle ways from those of their southern counterparts because they tend to place greater value on directness, a lively sense of humor and a lower power distance. While these differences are not major, their combined effects may have consequences in certain situations. If a manager from the northern region presented his or her ideas it an open, direct manner, this could be interpreted as confrontational by the other party. A statement could be made by a southern manager such as I m afraid that we believe that the company should consider due diligence

11 procedures. The manager from the north might have phrased this message as you, you have follow due diligence procedures!. In a similar way, the communication style of a project member from Oslo might mirror his or her more assertive, performance focused, long term planning values. A colleague from mid or south Norway may misunderstand such goal focused behavior as rather too swift they may value a more trust and relationship building approach to business instead. Knowledge about such specific cultural characteristics within the same nation can help team members from different regions to value and anticipate differences. Potential problems such as interpersonal conflict which leads to stress and unnecessary personal strain and potential loss of revenues can then be minimized To finish this article on a Global note, elements of this study can offer some practical guidelines for business people working with some of our main western trading partners in Norway or abroad: consider how you are perceived as communicators and how your collaborating partners are often perceived: When in doubt as to whether to adapt to your collaborating partners communication style, always remember these two old sayings: When in Rome, do as the Romans, or the customer is King!. References Adler, N.J. (2002). International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. Cincinnati, OH, South-Western, Thomson Learning. Barry, H.I., M.K. Bacon and I. L. Child (1957). Definitions, ratings and bibliographic sources for child training practices of 110 cultures. In C.S. Ford (Ed.). Cross Cultural Approaches. New Haven CT: HRAF Press. (1967) Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Booth, S. (2007). Inspirational variations? Culture and leadership in England. In: Chhokar, J.S., F.C. Brodbeck and R. J. House (2007). Culture and leadership across the world. The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chhokar, J.S., F.C. Brodbeck and R. J. House (2007). Culture and leadership across the world. The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Coltrane, S. (1996). Family man, fatherhood, housework and gender equity. New York: Oxford University Press. Hall, E.T. ( 1959). The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday. Hampden-Turner, C. and F. Trompenaars. (1997). Riding the waves of culture: understanding in global business. London: Nicholas Berkley Publishing. Herskovits, M. (1973). Cultural relativism. New York: Random House. Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture s Consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, CA. Hosted, G. (2001). Culture s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. House, R.J., M. Javidan, P. Dorfman, V.Gupta. (2004). Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The Globe Study of 62 Societies. Beverly Hills: Sage. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization: cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Javidan, M. P. Dorfman, M. Sully de Luque and R. House (2006). In the eye of the beholder: cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives Kluckhohn, F and F Strodtbeck. (1961). Variations in Value Orientation. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

12 Levine, R.J. and A. Norenzayan. (1999). The pace of life in 31 countries. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology Modell, J.S. (1983). Ruth Benedict: Patterns of a life. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Mulder, M. (1977). The daily power game. Leyden, the Netherlands: Martinus Wijhoff. Rogers, E and T. Steinfatt. (1999). Intercultural Communication. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press. Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schwartz, S.H. (1992) Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries, in M.P. Zana.(ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol 25. New York: Academic Press. pp:1-65. Tanure, B. (2002) Perceptions of Values of Brazilian Managers: Cross Cultural Differences and Similarities in Brazil. DBA Dissertation, Henley PowerGen Library. Triandis, H.C. (1994). The contingency model in cross cultural perspective. In: M.M. Chemers and R. Ayman. (Eds). Leadership theory and research perspectives and directions. San Diego: Academic Press. Triandis, H.C. (1995). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: John Wiley. Trompenaars F. and C. Hampden-Turner. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: understanding diversity in global business, 2 nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill. United Nations Development Program. (1998). Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press.-Van Mannen (1983). Williams, J.E. and D.L. Best (1982). Measuring sex stereotypes: a thirty nation study: Beverly Hills: Sage. Williamson, D. (2002). Forward from a critique of Hofstede s model of national culture Human Relations,. 55: Weber, M. (1904) The protestant work ethic and the spirit of capitalism, 1998: 2 nd Ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury. World Economic Forum. (1998). The global competitiveness report. Geneva, Switzerland.