A manager who succeeds in one country may struggle in another because employees do not interpret authority, consultation and independence in the same way. Research across dozens of societies suggests that effective global leadership requires stable principles but flexible delivery.
The problem is practical for multinational companies. Moving a proven executive to a foreign operation does not guarantee that the methods behind that executive’s previous success will travel with them.
A quick decision can look reassuringly decisive to one team and unnecessarily authoritarian to another. Giving an employee room to work can communicate trust, or it can appear to be a lack of guidance.
The manager’s intention has not changed. What changes is how the behaviour is understood.
GLOBE measured six approaches to leadership
The GLOBE Project’s original culture and leadership study surveyed more than 17,000 middle managers in 62 societies. Researchers asked about 112 leadership attributes and behaviours, then grouped the results into six broad dimensions.
These were charismatic or value-based, team-oriented, participative, humane-oriented, autonomous and self-protective leadership.
GLOBE uses “charismatic” more precisely than everyday conversation does. It includes being visionary, inspirational, decisive, performance-oriented and guided by integrity. Participative leadership refers to involving other people in making and carrying out decisions.
The study found both common ground and cultural variation. Some qualities were widely regarded as helpful, but societies differed in how strongly they endorsed the six broader styles.
One relevant cultural measure was power distance, meaning the extent to which a society accepts differences in authority, power and status. Where visible hierarchy is more accepted, employees may expect clearer direction from the person in charge. In a workplace that favours greater equality, the same employees may expect more consultation before a decision.
This means two teams can both want a decisive leader while disagreeing about the route to the decision. One may expect debate first. The other may see prolonged discussion as uncertainty.
Cultural fit was associated with CEO performance
Leadership preferences are not automatically evidence of business performance. GLOBE therefore conducted a later study involving more than 1,000 chief executives and more than 5,000 senior executives in 24 countries and several industries.
The 2014 CEO study found that the fit between a CEO’s behaviour and the leadership expectations in that society predicted top-management-team dedication and what the researchers called firm competitive performance.
A top management team, often shortened to TMT in research, is the small group of senior executives who work directly with the chief executive. Firm competitive performance was the study’s performance measure. It should not be read as a reported profit figure or share-price return.
Charismatic or value-based leadership had the most consistent relationship with both outcomes. Team-oriented leadership came next, followed by humane-oriented leadership. Autonomous and self-protective leadership were generally ineffective in the study.
Fit did not mean that the strongest CEOs simply copied local expectations. The researchers reported that the better-performing CEOs tended to exceed expectations, particularly in charismatic, team-oriented and administratively competent behaviour. The weaker group fell short on most dimensions and was more autonomous than expected.
These are associations from a large cross-country study, not proof that adopting one style will cause a company’s performance to improve. Industry conditions, strategy, resources and the quality of the wider management team also matter.
Country averages are not management instructions
The findings are most useful as questions, not labels. National scores describe averages across groups. They do not tell a manager what every employee from a country wants.
GLOBE’s study overview says the original sample came from 951 organisations in food processing, financial services and telecommunications. It was broad by the standards of cross-cultural research, but it did not represent every occupation, generation or type of company.
A multinational team can contain several nationalities, operate under a corporate culture set elsewhere and work in an industry with its own norms. Age, profession, experience and personality can produce large differences within the same country.
The safer approach is to ask how the particular team works. Do employees challenge a manager openly? Are difficult opinions raised in meetings, in writing or in private? How much direction do people expect before they begin? Who is consulted before a decision becomes final?
This does not require a company to compromise safety, legal compliance, ethical conduct or equal treatment. It can keep the principle and adjust the method. A manager committed to consultation might hold an open discussion with one team but collect written comments or speak individually with another.
GLOBE is also updating its evidence. Its current programme reports more than 60,000 confirmed responses and completed data collection in 143 countries. The expanded project is examining whether cultures have changed and what may be driving those changes. Those totals describe the programme’s progress, not yet a simple new set of conclusions about how leadership has changed.
For companies, the main lesson is not to build a handbook of national stereotypes. It is to prepare managers to observe, ask and adapt. The best international appointment may be the executive who knows which principles must remain fixed and which habits can change.
