Leader-effectiveness across cultural boundaries: an organizational culture perspective.

McLaurin, James Reagan

INTRODUCTION

With the ample evidence on the importance of organizational culture on the effectiveness of organizations, and as companies, markets, and competition are becoming increasingly diverse, one realizes that understanding the concept of diversity and how it relates to national culture and organizational culture has become an important precondition to organizational effectiveness (Owen and Lambert, 1998; Gibson, Ivancevich, Donnelly and Konopaske, 2003). Capitalizing on diversity while overcoming cross-cultural barriers in order to utilize the powerful pool of talents and skills that come with diversity has become a "valued competence of today's leaders within organizations" (Gibson et al, 2003, p. 49). As opposed to working within the confines of organizational culture, leaders are concerned with "redesigning [organizational culture] to maximize performance" (Owen and Lambert, 1998, p. 358). Leaders should learn about the unfamiliar cultures from which employees come and about the rewards that motivate them the most. They should handle language barriers, training, cultural awareness, and career development programs that are consistent with the values of employees. House tells us that "what is expected of leadership, what leaders may or not may do, and the status and influence bestowed upon them vary considerably as a result of the cultural forces in the countries or regions in which the leaders function." (Zagorsek, Jaklic, & Stough, 2004, p.20). However when considering cultural diversity within an organization, is it reasonable to assume that a leader would be able to adjust his/her style in response to individual cultural differences (i.e. diversity) in the workforce in order to be effective?

Definitions of diversity abound, and the concept is sometimes confused with equal employment opportunity or affirmative action. Moreover, the concept itself is rather broad as it encompasses the "vast array of physical and cultural differences that constitute the spectrum of human differences" including ethnicity, age, gender, physical attributes, race, and sexual orientation as core dimensions that influence people's behaviours and attitudes throughout their lifetime (Gibson et al, 2003, p. 47). Other aspects of diversity that can be changed include educational background, marital status, and religious beliefs among others (Gibson et al, 2003). However, of particular importance for the discussion on overcoming cross-cultural differences is cultural diversity or cultural variation reflected in the differences in the sets of values, attitudes, beliefs, and norms shared by subordinates coming from a certain country or nation. Such differences have direct implications for effective leader behaviours and styles of leadership (Pierce and Newstrom, 2006). These implications are very important because dynamic and globalized markets necessitate a "broadened pool of experience and knowledge found in an effectively managed diverse workforce" (Pless and Maak, 2004, p. 130).

In this paper, it is demonstrated that leaders need not adopt a dynamic or constantly changing style as suggested by some of the earlier research (Pierce and Newstrom, 2006). It is proposed that leaders should create a strong organizational culture that has values and norms that supersede national culture values and norms in order to minimize the adverse effects of cultural diversity. By following certain techniques, leaders should be able to "undo" the individual's previously held goals and orientations and create new ones that are close to how the organizational culture should look like (Gibson et al, 2003). Furthermore, to compliment this proposition a model of how leaders is presented to create such a culture. In other words, this paper attempts to answer the following questions:

1. What role Organizational Culture plays in overcoming the obstacles created by differences in national cultures? (the importance of the socialization process)

2. The role of leadership in fostering, transmitting, and integrating an appropriate organizational culture that minimizes the adverse effects of national culture differences?

The paper first covers the existing literature on organizational culture and national culture differences. Then it examines what earlier authors said about influencing organizational culture and transmitting values and norms. Finally, the model for minimizing national culture differences is presented.

NATIONAL CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP STYLES

"Not only [management] practices, but also the validity of theories may stop at national borders" (Pierce and Newstrom, 2006, p.234). With this statement, Hofstede establishes that no one leadership style is fully applicable across all cultures, and that leadership as a practice can only be considered as part of a complex system of societal processes (1980). To Hofstede, culture is "the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes [one nation] from another" (Pierce and Newstrom, 2006, p.240). National culture differences, and thus cultural diversity in a group of people coming from different cultures, can be described and understood based on each culture's configuration on five bipolar dimensions (i.e. power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and time orientation). Each configuration helps us predict and explain the behaviours, attitudes, and motivations of people who belong to the culture that has that particular configuration (Pierce and Newstrom, 2006). What Hofstede was trying to point out is that taking one leadership style that fits an American culture and applying it elsewhere wouldn't result in high performance, because other culture's different configuration on the five dimensions makes its members less at ease with the leader's practices.

Dorfman, Hibino, Lee, Tate, and Bautista further developed Hofstede's propositions by proposing that an effective leader would react to the different cultural configuration of the individuals working for him/her by displaying behaviours that result in higher motivations and positive attitudes in followers, which in turn are likely to foster better performance (Pierce and Newstrom, 2006). These authors viewed national culture of subordinates to be a situational factor to which a leader must respond in terms of behaviour. Whereas some leader behaviours proved to be universally applicable across cultures (i.e. across different situations), other behaviours need to be tailored to appeal to the cultural differences of employees if they are to be effective (Pierce and Newstrom, 2006).

Both studies stress the fact that national culture differences call for different leadership styles that are more suitable to each particular culture. Thus, as markets move more into globalization, and companies respond by following multinational, international, or global strategies, the workforce of most of the companies would continuously diverse. Companies are faced with the need to employ indigenous workers, while sending staff from the home country. In addition, opening the doors of immigration between countries as part of the globalization era makes the workforce even more diverse, as companies find themselves employing third-country nationals not only in the countries of international operations, but also in their own home country (Gibson et al, 2003). Therefore, a leader in today's world should be able to lead while being sensitive to the radically different cultural needs of a Japanese engineer, a European finance manager, and Arab marketing executive, an African owner, and Chinese employees, as an example. Unless these needs are assimilated and dilute it somehow, the leader's task is rather a very complex one.

Organizational Culture

The concept of culture is a complex topic that evolved throughout history. At the beginning, this concept was defined from a sociological and anthropological perspective as the group of characteristics that human held in common. As Edgar Schein suggested, culture was related to "the customs and rituals developed by societies over the course of their history" (2004, p7). Later, the concept of culture took another perspective when organizational researchers and managers started to use it. At the early attempts to apply the term culture to the world of organizations, culture was defined simply as "the unconscious shared beliefs at work in organizations" (Shankleman, 2000, p.7). Later, when theorists discovered the relationship between culture and performance, the concept of organizational culture was taken seriously, especially with the discovery of its complexity and its power in framing a successful organizational strategy".

In the present, organizational culture has become a standard vocabulary of management because of its importance in understanding the practices that organizations should develop to deal with their people as a way to increase the effectiveness of their performance. So, what is organizational culture?

Because of its importance in organizational effectiveness, so many organizational theorists tried do define it (McAleese and Hargie, 2004). However, because of its complexity, this concept was found to be the most difficult to define of all organizational concepts. Thus, we realize that there are various definitions to organizational culture. For instance, culture was defined as "a system of publicly and collectively accepted meanings operating for a given group at a given time" (Pettigrew, 1979, p.574), "the glue that holds an organization together through a sharing of patterns of meaning" (Siehl and Martin, 1984, p.227), " the knowledge members of a given group are thought to more or less share"(Van Maanen, 1988, p.3), "[the] collective phenomena that embody people's responses to the uncertainties and chaos that are inevitable in human experience"(Trice and Beyer, 1993, p.2), also, " distinctive social units possessed a set of common understandings for organizing action" that comprise organizational culture (Louis, 1983,p.39).

Nonetheless, by looking at the multiple definitions of those theorists, it was assumed that these definitions agree on the fact that organizational culture refer to the set of shared beliefs and assumptions which are unique to the organization and which shape the way organizational members think and act.

The following section reviews some of the most prominent perspectives on organizational culture.

Unity View

The prominent organizational theorist Edgar Schein developed the most influential model of organizational culture. According to this theorist, culture refers to the accumulated learning shared by a set of members of an organization. Thus, for Edgar Schein, organizational culture is "the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that have worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to these problems" (1992 p.6). This new model, which was generally perceived to have resolved the confusion behind the complex concept of culture, came up with three different levels that form organizational culture. These three levels are artefacts (on the surface), values and behavioural norms (underneath artefacts), and beliefs and assumptions (at the deepest level). According to Schein "These levels range from the very tangible overt manifestations that one can see and feel to deepest embedded, unconscious, basic assumptions that I am defining as the essence of culture" (2004, p.25).

To begin with, artefacts which come on the surface of culture refer to the visible and tangible product of the group behaviour. It includes all the physical manifestations created by members of a group such as the architecture of buildings, the design, the logo, and the appearance. It also includes the behavioural manifestations of the group such as traditions, customs, ceremonies and rituals, and also the verbal manifestations such as the group's written and spoken language. This level of organizational culture is important because "it is easy to observe but very difficult to decipher" (Schein, 2004, p.26). For instance, it is easy to observe the architecture of the physical environment but it is difficult to decipher the meaning behind this architecture. This suggests that artefacts are a mean by which one can identify the major images and roots that reflect the deepest level of culture if one can identify their meaning.

The second level of culture is the beliefs and values. This level, according to Schein, forms the core of the organization's culture. They refer to what members believe as real and truth. They represent the normative or moral guidance for the members of the group and serve as a tool to deal with the uncertainties and problems facing them. They also influence the way people think, their feelings and what they perceive as real. Moreover, as people continue to use them in their daily life, they become no discussible assumptions. "From the perspective of the members of a culture, the set of basic assumptions is truth, and what they assume or believe to be real is generally not open for discussion (Hatch, 1997, p.210). These beliefs and assumptions are important because they allow one to predict the behaviours that can be seen in the artefact level of culture. However, not all values and beliefs can predict this behavioural aspect of artefact. To be considered as values and assumptions, they have to be reliable in solving the problem of the group, socially valid by being confirmed only by the shared social experience of a group, and taken for granted. Otherwise, these values and assumptions will only predict what will be said and not what will actually be done.

Finally, the last level of culture which is "the deepest level of culture and its essence" (Schein, 1992, p10) is the basic underlying assumptions. These are the unconscious, taken for granted beliefs and feelings about the organization. When they are discovered, they allow deciphering the culture under consideration and thus the way the other two levels of the organizational culture can be assessed and interpreted. As Edgar Schein argued, "When we see the essence of a culture, the paradigm by which people operate, we are struck by how our insight into that organization now is, and we can see instantly why certain things work the way they do, why certain proposals are never bought, why change is so difficult, why people leave and so on" (1992, p.207). These basic assumptions are important because they allow the group to build its own integrity, identity, and autonomy and thus differentiate itself from the other groups. They also allow the group to prevent uncertainty because they allow predicting the hidden aspects of artefacts and adopted values. However, these basic assumptions restrict the group to certain ways of behaviour and thinking and they are difficult to change because they are hidden and very rarely confronted.

Therefore, the organizational model of Schein is very important because it shows how culture works by presenting the culture of an organization at three levels. Moreover, Schein model shows that culture is driven from the deep basic assumptions, values and norms to the surface where artefacts can be seen. However, this model of organizational culture presents the culture as an organizational unity. In fact, he sees culture as a set of shared meanings and values. While outlining the features of a particular culture, it is important also to emphasize that culture is far from being a unitary, cohesive, static or stable whole. Culture is more complex than Schein's unitary framework often leads one to believe. Moreover, what Schein did not examine in his organizational model is how the culture can be used to explain the differences between the various subgroups of the organization. This diversity aspect of culture is manifested by the different subcultures that exist in an organization. In fact, culture not only deals with things that group members share or hold in common but also with differences that exist among group members within the organization. As the author of organization theory argued "Culture depends on both community and diversity" (Hatch, 1997, p.206). In fact, Schein emphasized the need to "be sensitive to the presence of subcultures and ... to determine their relevance to what the organization is trying to do" (2004, p.362). In exploring a particular organization, one should not only attempt to identify the unifying culture but also be aware of the existing subcultures which fragment the organizational unity.

Fragmentation View

The conclusion of the previous section leads us to talk about the theories that focus on subcultures (i.e. the subculture and fragmentation view) instead of those that focused on the culture as a set of shared meanings and values (the unity view). Among those theorists who focused on subcultures, is found the theorist Geert Hofstede who examined the idea that organizations are manifestations of larger cultural systems. Hofstede's first step to analyze subcultures was to examine the national cultures in IBM , the large and multinational corporation in US. By doing so, he came up with the evidence of cultural differences within IBM's organizational culture. These cultural differences are manifested by the different attitudes of the managers across IBM's different affiliates. So, to explain these differences of behaviours across cultures, Hofstede used five dimensions that he called power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, and time orientation as pointed out in section 2.1. These dimensions are useful in explaining the differences among subgroups within the organization.

To begin with, power distance according to Hofstede refers to "the extent to which members of a social system are willing to accept an unequal distribution of power" (1980). For instance, power distance is low in countries like Denmark which means that unequal distribution of power is difficult to accept by members of the Danish society. "When Danes try to put themselves forward as more prestigious or powerful than others, they are quickly reprimanded by peers" (Hatch, 1997, p.207). However, power distance is high in other countries. In the organizations of those countries in which authority forms a hierarchy, members accept the unequal distribution of power and find difficulties to live in a low power distance organization.

The second dimension that explains differences across cultures is uncertainty avoidance. This dimension refers to the degree to which members of a culture feel threatened by uncertainty, ambiguity, and risk (Fu, Kennedy, Tata, and Yukl, 2004). In fact, evidence suggests that the way people cope with uncertainties differ among different countries. For instance, in countries like Singapore, Hong Kong, and Sweden, uncertainty avoidance is low because in those countries people are more accepting of new ideas and new behaviours. However, in countries like Greece, Japan, and Portugal, uncertainty avoidance is high. Thus, in those countries, people resist to innovative ideas and behaviours. Despite that, uncertainty avoidance is a changeable dimension as technology, law, and religion can lower the degree to which members of a given culture perceive uncertainty and ambiguity (Hofstede, 1980).

The third dimension is individualism which Hofstede opposed with collectivism. This dimension refers to "the degree to which individuals in a culture are expected to act independently of other members of the society" (Hatch, 1997, p.207; Fu et al, 2004). Individualism is high in cultures like the US. In the US, individualism is seen as a source of well being. However, Individualism is low in countries like China and Mexico because in those cultures, it is considered to be alienating while collectivism is considered to be important in giving identity, belonging, and security to the members of the society (Hofstede, 1980).

The fourth dimension provided by Hofstede to explain cultural differences across nations is the concept of masculinity. This dimension which refers to "the clear separation of gender roles in society" varies across cultures (Hatch, 1997, p.207). For instance, masculinity is high in cultures like the ones in Japan, Austria, and Venezuela. In such cultures which are more tasks oriented, men are expected to be more assertive, while women are more intuitive and thus gender role stereotypes are expected to be high. Moreover, in such countries, because of the high separation of roles in the society, women leaders are expected to face difficulties in assuming their leadership role as was argued by Eagly and Johnson in 1990 (Pierce & Newstrom, 2006). However, Masculinity is low in cultures like Sweden, Norway, and Netherlands. In such countries which are more relationship oriented, separation of gender roles is considered to be low.

The last value dimension is time orientation. A long tome orientation which characterizes Pacific Rim Countries refers to "a long range perspective coupled with a concern for thrift and weak expectations for quick returns on investments" (Hofstede, 1980, p.53-61). As for the short time orientation, it is characterized by demands for immediate results and a low propensity to save and it is specific to cultures like Canada and the US.

These value dimensions identified by Hofstede constitute evidence about the diversity aspect of culture and support the idea that organizational culture is a manifestation of large national cultures. Therefore, the work of Hofstede is important because it showed the existence of these cultural differences between nations and the fact that "organizational culture is an entry point for social influence on organizations" (Hatch, 1997, p.210). Hofstede's work is also complimentary to Schein's work because the dimensions identified by Hofstede provide information about the deep level of culture labelled as beliefs and assumptions that was identified by Schein in his model of organizational culture.

Types of Organizational Culture

Gibson asserts that employee-culture fit is extremely important, because if an employee has orientations radically different from those of the work environment, stress results, eventually possibly causing the employee to leave the organization (Gibson et al, 2003). The orientations the employee brings with him/her to the work place, we believe, are likely to be the product of his configuration on Hofstede's cultural dimensions discussed in the previous section. In clarifying his point, Gibson identifies 4 types of organizational culture: Bureaucratic, Clan, Entrepreneurial, and Market cultures. This typology is consistent with Lund's typology of Hierarchy, Clan, Adhocracy, and Market respectively (Lund, 2003). Before we proceed into explaining the major properties of each culture, we need to point out that an organization may or may not have a dominant organizational culture. In fact, the typology presented below may exist at the departmental or even at the project level.

A Bureaucratic culture is one in which decision making is centralized, with structured rules, policies, and procedures for almost every activity. The chain of command and the position a person occupies in the organization is the source of power. It's characterized by hierarchy, strictness, and certainty, with mainly autocratic leaders (Gibson et al, 2003).

On the other extreme comes the Clan Culture, in which collaboration and participation is the norm. Decision making is decentralized, and people tend to manage themselves. In contrast with bureaucratic cultures, clan cultures emphasize traditions, rituals, and social influence. Members feel as part of the group and "celebrate success together" (Gibson et al, 2003, p. 36).

Somewhere between these two extremes lies the Entrepreneurial Culture, which stresses such values as creativity, innovation, flexibility, risk taking, exploiting opportunities, and individual initiatives. Autonomy is the main characteristic of this culture. Also in this in-between area lies the Market Culture, in which cooperation is emphasized only when necessary for achieving well-established organizational goals. The relationship between the employee and the organization is rather "contractual" with little regard for affections and cohesiveness (Gibson et al, 2003, p. 37). In section 3.0, we present figure 2, in which these 4 organizational culture types are summarized as illustrated in Gibson's book (2003).

Influencing Organizational Culture

Very rarely are leaders engaged in creating organizational culture from scratch. Most of the time, leaders are hired to take over existing organizations and achieve effectiveness targets. Therefore, we are primarily concerned with ways by which leaders can influence an existing culture as opposed to creating culture. Whereas creating culture is generally viewed as a complex task, influencing or changing it is even harder (Gibson et al, 2003). In fact, organizational culture evolves over time as described by Schien:

 The culture that eventually evolves in a particular organization is
 ... a complex outcome of external pressures, internal potentials,
 responses to critical events, and, probably, to some unknown
 degree, chance factors that could not be predicted from a knowledge
 of either the environment or the members (Gibson et al, 2003,
 p.27).

Given this complexity of culture formation, several arguments against attempts to change organizational culture include considering it to be too elusive and hidden for leaders to identify and change (Harris & Ogbonna, 1998). Also, the very function of organizational culture is to be stable and sustaining so that it could unify employees and provide guidelines for action in different situations. This necessitates unique skills on the parts of leaders and a long time frame for making changes, making such attempts impractical (Sathe, 1983). In fact the amount of research on the issue of organizational culture change is rather very limited (Duck, 2001).

However, evidence exists that culture can be changed. When viewed as a process, organizational culture is "continually renewed as changing circumstances force assumptions to be reassessed, and recreated as new members are introduced to, and question, old assumptions" (Shankleman, 2000, p.12). Gibson provides that leaders who are "courageous" and would like to attempt organizational culture change should go through the following steps, borrowed from V. Sathe (1983).

1. Changing behaviours of subordinates, because that's the most effective way of changing people's beliefs (Harris & Ogbonna, 1998)

2. Justifying the new behaviour to employees so that they can see its worth, because changes in behaviour alone do not guarantee commitment and cultural change

3. Motivating the new behaviours through cultural communication via announcements, memos, rituals (i.e. the recurring activities that reflect what the underlying culture values most), stories (i.e. anecdotes that get passed down about the values underlying the organization), dress, etc.

4. Socializing new employees and teaching them the target cultural values

5. Removing members of the organization who misfit the target culture if the cost of training them for it exceeds the value their skills and experience adds to the organization.

Another model of influencing organizational culture was proposed by Gagliardi, who built his model on Schien's levels of culture. Gagiliardi asserts that different strategies affect organizational cultures differently (Gagliardi, 1986). Some strategies can aim at changing the artefacts level of organizational culture. He termed these changes as Apparent Changes. Such changes do not alter the foundations of the existing organizational culture, but only presents the same culture to new problems and challenges and responds to them by techniques that are consistent with existing values. On the other hand, Incremental Changes allow the extension of organizational culture to include new values, while keeping the existing ones. Strategies that result in such changes ultimately reach the deepest levels of culture represented in values and assumptions. The third type of change is a revolutionary one, wherein the used tactics are incongruent with at least some of the values and assumptions in the existing organizational culture. Old symbols are destroyed, and new ones are created. Such changes can be used when organizations need to be transformed, or in cases of mergers and acquisitions (Gagliardi, 1986). The ultimate result of this influence attempt is the destruction or replacement of the existing culture with a new one. Of particular interest to our discussion is incremental change, as it seems to be consistent with the previous model provided by Gibson. It's these changes, which extend rather than disturb the organizational culture, that strike us as relevant when talking about using organizational culture to minimize the negative effects of national culture differences within the organization.

The Role of Socialization

Socialization, in terms of its dictionary meaning, refers to the "process by which an individual learns the appropriate modifications of behaviour and the values necessary for the stability of the social group of which he is a member" (Danielson, 2004, p.354). As mentioned above, socialization is a process applied by the organization on new members for the purpose of teaching them the organizational culture. Through socialization, the leader can transmit to followers the organizational values, assumptions and attitudes in an attempt to change their own in order to maximize the fit between new employees and the organizational culture. However, socialization is not restricted in application by leaders to new employees, as it is a process that is continuous across a person's career. In other words, then the organization faces new demands or wishes to go in new directions (i.e. undergo change), employees need to be socialized to orient themselves and their behaviours accordingly. The fact of the matter is that socialization tends to be more important when a new employee joins the organization, or when employees change positions within the organization (Gibson et al, 2003).

Gibson, Ivancevich, Donnelly, and Konopaske explain the various steps of the socialization process (2003). Reviewing the model is useful for laying the grounds of viewing socialization as a process for implementing a "change" in Organizational Culture itself, wherein one can view socialization as one of the ways that leaders can use to minimize cultural differences as opposed to only teaching newcomers about the existing Organizational Culture.

TRANSMISSION AND INTEGRATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

In the previous sections, we tried to give a general picture of what organizational culture is, the different levels at which culture manifests itself, and the diversity aspect of culture which manifests in the subcultures that exist in an organization. It is seen that leaders can influence organizational culture through certain intervention points.

In this section, the "how" aspect is examined through which leaders reinforce the adaptation of intended beliefs, values, and assumptions. In other words, the mechanisms are examined that leaders use to foster and integrate an effective organizational culture. This task is not an easy one because leaders have to get to the core and deep level of culture, understand how these deep assumptions function, and know how to change these assumptions according to their intended or target beliefs, values, and assumptions. As was argued by Caterina Lucia Valentino in her article the role of managers in the transmission and integration of organizational culture,

"The role of the middle manager as an agent of change is to make sense of, unite, and transmit the organization's culture. This process is complicated because a manager must get deep inside a new organization's culture and come to know its needs, processes, and people in a relatively short period of time to weld them all together into a smoothly functioning entity"(Valentino, 2004, p.393).

Although Charisma can be used by leaders as an effective tool to communicate their beliefs and values to group members, it is not considered among the common mechanisms used to integrate an effective organizational culture. The reason is that there is not enough evidence that charisma is a core trait of effective leaders and because few leaders possess this trait. Therefore, Schein suggested that leaders can change cultures by attempting to change the value set of the organization (Gagliardi, 1986). According to him, there are many mechanisms that constitute a tool used by leaders to communicate their own values and beliefs to the group and influence the way they behave. His model can be seen as a way to carry out the incremental change suggested by Gagliardi. According to Schein, these mechanisms are visible artefacts of the emerging culture and they directly create what would typically be called the "climate" of the organization" (Schein, 2004, p.246). These mechanisms are divided into two categories; the primary Embedding mechanisms and the secondary Articulation and Reinforcement mechanisms.

So, in order to embed what they believe into the group members, leaders have to be systematic in paying attention to certain things. This enables them to communicate their messages effectively to their followers because if they are inconsistent to what they pay attention to, followers will not understand the meaning of their leaders' behaviour and the message they are trying to communicate. Moreover, the reactions of leaders to critical incidents and organizational crises constitute an effective way to communicate their values to their followers. As Schein argued, " when an organization faces a crises, the manner in which leaders and others deal with it creates new norms, values, and working procedures and reveals important underlying assumptions" (2004, p.254). In addition, the way leaders allocate the recourses and create budgets constitute another way that reveals leaders assumptions and beliefs. For instance, by making decisions related to investments and financial crisis, followers can decipher their leader's beliefs about these issues and thus they know what goals to choose and the means to achieve them.

Furthermore, the informal messages that leaders communicate to the newcomers in the organization were shown to be "the more powerful teaching and coaching mechanism" (Schein, 2004, p.258). Moreover, how leaders allocate rewards and status allows communicating the leader's message to his followers. In fact, from the discussion with their leader about the things that the organization values and the things that it dismisses and from their experience with promotions, performance evaluation, followers can decipher the message of their leader. In addition, the way leaders recruit, select, and promote is considered to be an effective way in which the leader's assumptions can be embedded. For instance, these assumptions can be detected through the criteria used to hire or promote, or fire people in the company.

In addition to these primary embedding mechanisms through which leaders can communicate their assumptions to followers, Schein identified secondary articulation and reinforcement mechanisms. These mechanisms come with a growing organization as opposed to the primary mechanisms that come once the organization has matured and stabilized. They begin to work only when the primary embedding mechanisms are consistent. These secondary mechanisms are the artefacts which are the visible aspect of a culture but the difficult one to interpret. So, to begin with, organizational design and structure are considered to be cultural re-enforcers. Second, organizational systems and procedures are also cultural re-enforcers because they allow predicting the future and reducing uncertainty. Moreover, rites and rituals, design of the physical space of the organization, stories about important events and leadership behaviour, and the formal statements of the leader's philosophy are all mechanisms of articulation and reinforcement of organizational culture.

Therefore, leaders can communicate their beliefs, values, and assumptions to their group members by using those mechanisms. However, the primary embedding mechanisms are considered to be the more efficient because they enable leaders to "communicate both explicitly and implicitly the assumptions they actually hold" (Schein, 2004, p.270). As for the secondary mechanisms, they are efficient in the articulation and reinforcement of the primary mechanisms if the leader can use them efficiently, as they are obviously more complex and difficult to use. In other words, changing organizational design or business process procedures is not as simple or fast to implement as a change in reward policy, or recruitment criteria.

Worth noting is that these mechanisms are more efficient for use with newcomers to the organization. However, in the case of merging organizations wherein the responsibility of the leader is to change the culture of the organization, those mechanisms will no longer be efficient and effective. The reason for this is that the intended purpose for their use is not to change the culture in hand (Schein, 2004).

In addition to these transmission techniques, Bennis suggested four competencies that leaders must have to transmit and integrate a new organizational culture (1998). According to Bennis, the first competency that leaders must have is the management of attention. In fact, leaders must create a vision and arouse the enthusiasm of their subordinates about this vision. The second competency that leaders can use is the management of meaning. This competency represents the way that leaders use to communicate their vision to their subordinates which can be summarized in leader's actions and behaviours in demonstrating their vision. The third competency to have is the management of trust. "Management of trust rests on the way that leaders and managers demonstrate reliability and consistency" (Bennis, 1998; Hennessey 1998). By being Honest, leaders can gain the trust of their subordinates who will "know always where they stand" (Hennessey, 1998, p.525). Finally, leaders must use the management of self. This competency consists of "knowing one's skills and deploying them effectively" (Valentino, 2004, p.399). Also, by being confident, leaders can easily confront all the problems and crises. They can also engage in risky operations and make successful decisions across organizational departments. Therefore, by possessing all these competencies, leaders can translate and integrate successfully the new organizational culture.

UTILIZATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE IN HANDLING CULTURALLY DIVERSE SITUATIONS

In this section, we try to identify and explain the steps that a leader should take to influence the existing Organizational Culture for the purpose of minimizing the adverse effects of national culture diversity. The interventions examined could be tailored in such a way to change people's configuration on power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity, and individualism-collectivism in a manner that creates a workforce characterized by homogeneity and the absence of cultural clashes and inefficiencies. This proposition is based on the assertion that an employee's preferences, possibly resulting from his/her national culture influences, affects the employee's fit and harmony with the organizational setting and colleagues (Gibson et al, 2003).

Influencing the value set of organizational members as suggested by Schein, is an attempt to reduce the effect of national culture values that create collision with the organizational climate and its constituents (i.e. other members and groups). The kind of culture change needed is an incremental one, wherein one can reach to the deepest level of culture (i.e. values and assumptions). That's why there is a need to audit the existing culture so that any proposed changes do not clash totally with existing values and assumptions. In other words, it's not revolutionary change that is sought. Rather an incremental one wherein members and subcultures in the organization incorporate new values and assumptions of cultural tolerance and awareness. The steps in the model are as follows:

1. Audit the Existing Organizational Culture

This could be done by such tools as Organizational Culture audits and history mapping and value mapping (Owen and Lambert, 1998). These auditing tools would help the leader identify the type of culture that exists in the organization.

Identifying the type of organizational culture in place is an important step for the leader not to propose radical changes to the existing culture that would jeopardize the success of the initiative. Also, this step helps the leader determine whether or not changes are needed in the culture of the organization to best achieve its goals in its competitive markets before employees are socialized to the wrong culture. The type of culture (whether existing or target) would allow the leader to identify the best-fit configuration on Hofstede's value dimensions. In other words, the leader attempts to seek an answer to the question: Which employee in terms of cultural configuration would best fit the existing culture and have the highest level of performance? Answering this question identifies the "ideal" or "best fit" employee, so that organizational members could be influenced to come close to that ideal. Of course, the aim is not to abolish individual differences and create identical actors in the organization. To the contrary, the aim is to attempt to minimize the national cultural differences that highlight and stress in the eyes of employees areas of incompatibility with the organization and other members.

2. Identify the Best-Fit Cultural Configuration

How can leaders determine the employee-organization fit in the first place? According to Jackofsky, Slocum, and McQuaid (1988), social settings that prefer less centralization, flatter organizational structures, less control, equity of compensation, and equity in recognition are characterised by low power distance orientation. Meanwhile, preferring less structure of task assignments, less formalization, general directions, and variety of tasks reflects low uncertainty avoidance orientation. Also, viewing the group as a family, caring for the welfare of members, and preference for participation reflect low individualism (i.e. high collectivism) orientation. Finally, preference for self-management, social benefits and rewards, and focus on soft skills are an indication of low masculinity orientation (i.e. high femininity). All of these characteristics or conditions are available in a Clan Culture. This means that people with these cultural orientations are most comfortable working in a clan organizational culture. Thus, cell entry 1 is justified on these grounds.

Jackofsky, Slocum, and McQuaid (1988) tell us that social settings characterized by low power distance would have less supervision and thus higher autonomy. Meanwhile, settings characterized by very low uncertainty avoidance would have very low structure, flexible and few rules and constraints to respond for dynamic change, general directions that allow people a space for innovation, and a tendency to take high risks. Also, social contexts characterised by high individualism would give people space and power to act as they please, and would employ practices that encourage personal initiatives. Finally, settings characterized by high masculinity encourage aggressiveness in work accomplishment and a competitive spirit. All of these attributes are consistent with Gibson's definition of an Entrepreneurial Culture. This suggests that people that have the configuration illustrated in cell 2 are more comfortable working in an Entrepreneurial Culture. Explained also by the study Jackofsky, Slocum, and McQuaid (1988)are social settings that are characterized by high power distance emphasize greater centralization, hierarchy, more supervision and control, huge differences in compensation, and structure. In addition, settings of high uncertainty avoidance would be reflected in more structure, rules, division of labour, standard procedures, conservativeness, and low risk taking. Individualism would manifest in "impersonal" organizations, while masculinity would cause the organization to interfere to protect its interests. We find that all of these settings map to Gibson's definition of a Bureaucratic Culture. In other words, people who score high on power distance, high on uncertainty avoidance, high individualism, and high masculinity would be most comfortable working in this type of culture.

Jackofsky, Slocum, and McQuaid (1988) tell us that social settings relatively high on power distance would emphasize formal authority and stress contractual agreements. Also, settings that are characterized by relatively low uncertainty avoidance would specify general guidelines and objectives, and then define less structure for work procedures and activities, which enables people to choose the most appropriate level of cooperation for goal achievement. In addition, social settings characterized by high individualism would have impersonal communication, less collaboration and cohesiveness, little feelings of teamwork. Finally, social settings characterized by high masculinity would place less emphasis on the quality of work relationships, more emphasis on achievement and end results, and material achievement. This is consistent with Gibson's definition of a market culture. Thus, one can believe that employees who have this configuration on the four cultural dimensions would be best fit to market organizational cultures.

What this discussion implies so far is that employees who come from national cultures with configurations that are different from the general organizational culture would face more difficulties, conflicts, and stress than those who fit better with the organizational culture, most likely resulting in inefficiency (Silverthorne, 2004). To minimize such national culture effects, employees' configurations need to be altered to become consistent with that of the organizational culture. Nevertheless, instead of suggesting individualized training programs that tackle each individual's cultural configuration, leaders should utilize employees' identification with and regard to organizational values. Leaders need to encourage organizational behaviours and values emphasizing a unified organizational culture identity as opposed to multiple and sometimes clashing national culture identities. For companies that have no dominant organizational culture, the same should be carried out at the departmental or project level, if different organizational sub-cultures exist at those levels.

More specifically, the next step for leaders according to the model is to identify and disseminate values and assumptions that encourage employees not only to become aware of their own cultural configurations, but also encourage and enable them to change those configurations by prioritizing other values in a manner that maximizes their fit with organizational culture. Research supports the proposition that value systems of individuals can be changed or reshaped by accepting organizational values (Karahanna, Evaristo & Srite, 2005). "[Values] are unstable enough to permit rearrangements of values priorities as a result of a change in culture" (Grojean, Resick, Dickson and Smith, 2004, p.226).

3. Identify New Values:

Identification of new values is important because "they influence behavioural choices as people are motivated to act in a manner that is consistent with those things that are valued ... values motivate behavior by providing direction and emotional intensity to action. " (Grojean et al, 2004, p.225-226). The major value that needs to be emphasized and transmitted is sensitivity to cultural differences as well as awareness of one's own cultural configuration or personal profile. Such values and the resulting awareness is more likely to make employees more tolerant to other people's behaviours and attitudes. In addition to those two values, culture-type-specific values need to be identified.

For example, a leader who identifies a clan culture would need to disseminate, make explicit, and reward behaviours consistent with such values as equality, courage and initiative, collective performance and collaboration, nurturing and not disturbing the good work relationships and the pleasant atmosphere, and caring for the welfare of colleagues (Grojean et al, 2004). Lund adds to this list values of cohesiveness, teamwork, and a sense of family (2003). For an Entrepreneurial culture, leaders need to strengthen and further disseminate values of creativity and adaptability, whereas for a market culture, values of competitiveness and goal achievement should be emphasized. Finally, a bureaucratic culture needs an emphasis on such values as order, discipline, and uniformity and conformance (Lund, 2003).

4. Implementing Change

In fostering the new cultural sensitivity and personal awareness values as well as strengthening the culture-type specific values, leaders can use the embedding mechanisms discussed earlier in this paper. We believe that Schein's approach of moving from inside to outside of culture is more effective. If only artefacts re changed such as dress and rituals, the effect of the initiative would be limited. Through their reactions to critical incidents and crises, leaders create norms, values, and ways of doing things that transmit to the employees important assumptions that in turn direct their own behaviour. Resource allocation decisions, informal messages, reward distribution, promotions, performance evaluations, and recruitment, selection and socialization are all tools through which the leader can communicate and embed the new or emphasized values at the deepest levels of the enhanced organizational culture (i.e the underlying assumptions and values and beliefs). For example, leaders who want to use and emphasize a clan culture to minimize the adverse effects of cultural diversity would normally resolve to group decision making when critical incidents arise, compliment those who respect and excel at group work, aid those who are highly individualistic by training or by adjusting the reward program to acknowledge and reward that individual's attempt to excel at group work. Adding "team player" to the recruitment criteria indicates to members in the organization that this is a highly valued trait, and thus induces their behaviours in that direction. Finally, during performance evaluation, human resource specialists could talk to employees on a case-by-case basis about performance problems possibly related to cultural orientations. Employees high on uncertainty avoidance can be assured that taking risk is highly valued, that assuming the authority to make decisions is highly regarded, and that failure would be tolerated.

Once such values are embedded and the embedding techniques are in place, the next step for leaders is to articulate these values through organizational structure and procedural changes. Also, periodic celebrations of cultural diversity, rituals, stories on the adverse effects of cultural clashes, and presentations or workshops on cultural sensitivity to reflect on experience and challenge dominant assumptions would all enforce the values embedded at the beginning of the initiative (Pless and Maak, 2004). Similarly, designing the physical place in a way consistent with the organizational climate as well as leader's statements of philosophy through announcements and memos would help enforce and strengthen the culture-type specific values. Of particular importance here is the leadership style adopted to enforce the new values and alter existing beliefs. The leader can engage in role playing or modelling during which the leader verbalizes the new beliefs or values. In addition, the leader can help subordinates overcome their own cultural biases and orientations by seeking alternative explanations of why an employee behaved or would behave in a certain way, examining how employees create the cause-and-effects relationships in their minds, fostering critical thinking in order to make employees more open to other possible conclusions than their own, as well as identifying and ruling out "assumptive" information stemming from cultural dispositions and that is not supported by evidence (Friedmand, 2004).

Could socialization be used in implementing this change? What we see is that socialization can be used to teach new employees about the values and attitudes most important to the firm, and to motivate employees to make these firm-valued values take precedence over their own values, at least in the work place. "Values are acquired both through socialization activities and an individual's unique experiences" (Grojean et al, 2004, p.226). This suggests that new employees can be subjected to orientation and training that adjusts their preferences and configurations on Hofstede's dimensions in a way that makes them fit the organization. For example, a new employee who is high on uncertainty avoidance and power distance might find it very difficult to work in a clan culture. However, through proper socialization and orientation, the employee would visualize the needed change, and carry it out with the help of the company if he/she wishes to be part of it.

On the other hand, as mentioned in section 2.3.1, socialization to dilute national culture changes is not limited in application to new employees. It can also be used with existing employees, if we view the strengthening and extension of organizational culture as a "change" in the organization that employees need to be oriented with. Socialization tactics that could be used are not limited to individualized orientation programs, but should expand to include more possibilities for exchange and learning from peers or leaders who already know the target culture. Professional counselling and person-oriented leaders seem to be necessary at this stage (Gibson et al, 2003).

Worth noting is that by socialization, we do not mean an aggressive attempt to eliminate the individuality of employees in a manner that precludes their ability to express their pride in their origins and national cultures. As a matter of fact, research indicates that strong socialization for acculturation would create organizations with no room for innovativeness and cultures that inhibit responding to environmental changes. In other words, individuals should "incorporate fewer nonrelevant organizational habits" than relevant or conforming organizational habits (Danielson, 2004).

CONCLUSION

"Organizational leaders are expected to be sensitive to local cultures and traditions, yet at the same time become initiators of change" (Kbasakal and Dastmalchian, 2001). The change introduced in this paper is one that is incremental and enforcing so to speak. To minimize the adverse effects of national culture differences in the ever diversifying workforce of today's global business environments, leaders need to focus on and strengthen organizational culture with the purpose of making its values supersede to an extent those diverse values that employees bring with them to the job. Values need not only be consistent, but also cohesive across the organization if work is to proceed with minimum disruption. In addition, incremental change is opted for incremental rather than radical change in organizational culture, as radical transformations destroy rather than enhance organizational cultures (Harris & Ogbonna, 1998).

The model provided has few limitations that can be tackled by future research efforts. For instance, it is not shown how the matrix for determining the employee-culture fit and the subsequent implementation tips could be used at the level of sub-cultures (i.e. orthogonal, enhancing, and counter subcultures). Also, the attempt to identify the dominant cultural configuration on Hofstede's dimensions under each type of organizational culture was limited to 4 dimensions out of Hofstede's 5 dimensions due to the lack of evidence, caused by time limitations, on the time orientation dimension. Finally, the steps of disseminating values and implementing change could be further developed and elaborated for each type of culture. Again, this could not be accomplished within the scope and time of this project.

REFERENCES

Bennis, W. (1998). Why leaders can't lead. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Danielson, M. (2004). A Theory of Continuous Socialization for Organizational Renewal. Human Resource Development Review. December, 3 (4): 354-385.

Duck, J. (2001). The change monster: the human forces that fuel or foil corporate transformation and change. New York: Crown Business.

Friedmand, S. (2004). Learning to make more effective decisions: changing beliefs as a preclude to action. The Learning Organization. 11 (2/3):110-128

Fu, P., Kennedy, J., Tata, J., & Yukl, G. (2004). The impact of societal cultural values and individual social beliefs on the perceived effectiveness of managerial influence strategies: a meso approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 35 (4): 284

Lund, D. (2003). Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. 18(2/3): 219-236.

Gagliardi, P. (1086). The creation and change of organizational culture. Organization Studies, 7: 117-134.

Gibson, J., Ivancevich, J., Donnelly, J., & Konopaske, R. (2003). Organizations: Behavior, Structure, Processes, 11th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Grojean, M., Resick, C., Dickson, M., & Smith, D. (2004). Leaders, Values, and Organizational Climate: Examining Leadership Strategies for Establishing an Organizational Climate Regarding Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 55: 223-241.

Harris, L. & Ogbonna, E. (1998). Employee responses to culture change efforts. Human Resource Management Journal, 8 (2): 78-93.

Hatch, M. J. (1993). The Dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of management review, 18, 657-63.

Hatch, M. (1997). Organizational theory: Modern, Symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press. 200235.

Hennessey, J. (1998). Reinventing Government: Does leadership make the difference? Public Administration Review, 58 (6): 522-32.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture consequences: International differences in work-related values, 2nd ed. Beverly Hills, CA Sage.

Jackofsky, E., Slocum, J., & McQuaid, S. (1988). Cultural Values and the CEO: Alluring Values?. The Academy of Management Excellence,11 (1):39-49.

Karahanna, E., Evaristo, R., & Srite, M. (2005). Levels of Culture and Individual Behaviour: An Integrative Approach. Journal of Global Information Management,13 (2): 1-20.

Kbasakal, H. & Dastmalchian, A. (2001). Introduction to the Special Issue on Leadership and Culture in the Middle East. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50 (4): 479-488.

Louis, M. R. (1983). Organizations as culture-bearing milieux. In L. Pondy, P. Frost,G.

McAleese, D. & Hargie, O. (2004). Five guiding principles of culture management: A synthesis of best practice. Journal of Communication Management, 9 (2): 155-170.

Owen, J. & Lambert, F. (1998). Evaluation and the Information needs of organizational leader. American Journal of Evaluation, 19 (3): 355-366.

Pettigrew, A. (1997). On studying organizational culture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 570-81.

Pierce, J. L. & Newstrom, J. W. (2006). Leaders and the leadership process, 4th ed. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.

Pless, N & Maak, T. (2004). Building an Inclusive Diversity Culture: Principles, Processes, and Practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 54: 29-147.

Sathe, V.(1983). Implications of Corporate Culture: A Manager's Guide to Action, Organizational Dynamics, pp. 4-23

Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership, 3nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Shankleman, L. K. (2000). Inside the BBC and CNN: managing media organizations, London: Routledge.

Siehl, C. & Martin, J. (1984). The role of Symbolic management: how can managers effectively transmit organizational culture? In J. D. Hunt, D.

Silverthorne, C. (2004). The impact of organizational culture and person-organization fit on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 25 (7/8): 592-599

Trice, H, & Beyer, J. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Valentino, C. L. (2004). The role of Middle Managers in the Transmission and Integration of Organizational culture. Journal of healthcare management, 49 (6): 393-404.

Van Maannen, J. & Barley, S. (1985). Cultural organization: fragments of a theory. In P.J. frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis (eds), Organizational culture. Beverly Hills: Sage, 31-54.

Zagorsek, H., Jaklic, M & Stough, S. (2004). Comparing Leadership Practices Between the United States, Nigeria, and Slovenia: Does Culture Matter?. Cross Cultural Management, 1 (2): 16-35.

James Reagan McLaurin, American University of Sharjah