Global Project Management Survey: Cultural, Individual
and Organizational Competence in Project Management
Report
On behalf of GPM
October 2010
Management Summary
The report at hand provides findings from a survey with 449 respondents from 49 countries across a range of
industries and project types.
A high importance of projects is stated across all regions.
General attitudes of respondents towards working and working in projects vary across regional clusters:
The importance of trust, senior management support and standardization varies strongly across
regions.
Japan and China display the highest hierarchy preferences and lowest senior management support.
Transformational leadership is the prevalent leadership behavior in successful projects across all regions.
Respondents assessing their projects as more successful than others concurrently state a higher degree of
transformational leadership displayed by their supervisors.
A gap between the assessed importance of projects and project management is evident in nearly all
regional clusters.
1
1
Objectives and Procedures of the Survey
2
Data Set and Environmental/Cultural Characteristics
3
Individual Competences
4
Organizational Competences
5
Success Outcomes
6
Context Factors
7
Conclusion
8
Comparative Analysis of the Regional Cluster “Germanic”
2
Initial situation/ Motivation of the survey
Growing importance of working in and with projects in many companies
and industry sectors raises interest in the success of this kind of organizational
work.
Projectification of organizational work implies certain characteristics a
company has to meet in order to successful integrate temporary work in
permanent organizational processes.
Contrariwise, working in projects requires different modes of operation of
employees in contrast to long-established processes.
These modes of operation serve as indicators for the level of maturity of a
company's project management.
3
Aims of the study
To investigate the requirements of project management („objectives“) and
its status quo („practices“).
To analyze personal competences of project workers and managers and
organizational competences, fostering employees’ potentials.
To identify how personal and organizational competences impact project
management outcomes.
To consider cultural particularities in project management.
4
Conception of survey (1/3)
Rationale of survey concept: The success of a company‘s project management is based on several factors and
dimensions.
Project management success constituted of hard (“iron triangle”) as well as soft
(stakeholder satisfaction) elements:
Survey on present status quo of project management in organizations has to cover PM-influencing factors
on several levels and dimensions.
Measurement of project management success has to be carried out multi-dimensionally in order to
commensurably grasp project management success.
The inclusion of respondent’s national and cultural background allows us to:
Compare project management competence of firms on an international level, thereby showing possible
differences in project management success caused by society/national-based culture.
Indicate where country-specific characteristics in the project management context apply – and thus how
to cope with them.
5
Conception of survey (2/3)
The reasons stated motivate the following items included in the survey:
PM-influencing factors measured on several levels and dimensions, i.e. national, organizational and
individual level.
Organizational capabilities measured according to factors which can be clustered in hard and soft
factors.
Regional Culture is herewith regarded as the crucial element, since it is assumed to influence the
potential of project participants and must therefore be especially regarded.
The inclusion of contextual factors such as country, industry, organizational characteristics allows the
measurement of their respective impact on project management success factors. In particular, countryspecific characteristics of variables are of interest.
6
Conception of survey (3/3)
Overview of research model:
2/6
Context factors: Culture | Industry & Project Type | Work conditions
Individual
Competences
3
5
Project
Success
Organizational
Competences
4
X
7
= project related capabilities
= contextual factors
= respective section of
presentation
= influence
1
Objectives and Procedures of the Survey
2
Data Set and Environmental/Cultural Characteristics
3
Individual Competences
4
Organizational Competences
5
Success Outcomes
6
Context Factors
7
Conclusion
8
Comparative Analysis of the Regional Cluster “Germanic”
8
Data set and sample composition
Sample
Members of the IPMA and clients of PA (worldwide)
Instrument of data collection
Standardized questionnaire with free text field questions
Method of data collection
Online-survey with open access
Survey period
January 22nd until June 30th 2010
Number of responses
449
Size of company
Role of the respondent in project
Number of employees
<5
3,8
57,8
Project manager/ Project leader
9,6
5 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 50
10,1
Member of project team/project staff
11,3
Leader/Manager of project office (PMO)
11,0
3,8
21,1
50 - 100
Project office staff/ Member project
office
12,0
> 100
No answer
16,1
Program manager/ Coordinator
5,0
14,9
4,8
N = 449;
frequencies (%)
9
No answer
3,1
0,7
A wide range of industries and project types are represented
Industry
Type of projects
No answer
17,0
Information systems
Other
10,6
Consulting
10,3
Automotive
9,6
Financial Industry
Internal
Project
External
Project
Organizational development
project
16,7
6,6
IT projects
14,6
16,3
Investment project
8,7
14,3
R&D project (e.g. technical or
product development)
7,8
6,1
Organizational project
4,6
0,7
Other
1,2
2,4
6,7
Public sector
5,8
Construction
5,0
Manufacturing industry
4,1
Telecommunication
3,4
Transportation
3,4
Utilities
2,6
Electronics
2,2
Aerospace
1,9
Mechanical / plant engineering
1,9
Service industry
1,9
Pharmaceuticals
1,7
Chemicals
Type of Project
11,8
0,2
N = 449;
frequencies (%)
10
Characteristics of data set and environment of respondents
Characteristics of data set and environment have to considered for several reasons
The industry,
in which a company operates and its surrounding characteristics are important in order to draw conclusions on
industry-specific factors influencing project work and its effectiveness.
Project type
is regarded in order to find patters of similar success factors depending on project type.
Role of respondent
in referred project gives us insights on the perspective, the individual has when assessing a project and its
characteristics.
The national context
enables us to regard possible cultural differences and resulting divergence in the perception of and behavior
within projects . Here, cultural dimensions as indicated by research* allow us to analyze different patterns in
project work according to possible underlying cultural differences.
* Trompenaars / Hampden-Turner 1997, Hofstede 2001; House 2004
11
Surveys from 49 countries were received
Afghanistan
Croatia
Indonesia
Norway
Singapore
Albania
Denmark
Iran
Oman
Sweden
Australia
Egypt
Italy
Poland
Switzerland
Austria
Estonia
Japan
Romania
Turkey
Belgium
Finland
Latvia
Russia
United Arab Emirates
Botswana
Germany
Lesotho
Saudi Arabia
United Kingdom
Brazil
Greece
Luxembourg
Slovenia
United States
Bulgaria
Hungary
Mexico
South Africa
Zambia
Canada
Iceland
Nepal
Spain
Zimbabwe
China
India
Netherlands
Sudan
12
Participants were classified in 10 regional / cultural cluster
Germanic (n=163)
Scandinavian (n=67)
Anglo-Saxon (n=56)
Japan (n=42)
East Europe (n=25)
Mediterranean (n=11)
China / Far East (n=37)
Latin America (n=3)
Sub Sahara (n=22)
Arab/Islam World (n=23)
13
Cultural differences affect working styles and preferences
Culture as collective patterns of thinking, feeling and acting of a group of people
Research has indicated that national cultures can be put in relation towards each other
2-dimensional Matrix for classifying organizational culture in four ideal types of corporate culture:
Egalitarian
Incubator
Incubator
Fulfillment-oriented
Guided Missile
Guided Missile
Project-oriented
Person
Family cultures
assumed to have
difficulties with
project-group
organizations
Task orientation and
management by
objectives the
dominating
management style
Task
Family
Family
Person-oriented
Eiffel Tower
Eiffel Tower
Role-oriented
Hierarchical
14
Sources:
Trompenaars / Hampden-Turner 1997,
Hofstede 2001
Project work and leadership influenced by societal cultures
Affinity to project-based work seems to be influenced by culture
Also leadership and its perception dependent on cultural background:
Leadership as process leading to the perception if leaders by others.
Notion of culturally endorsed implicit leadership theories (CLT) acknowledges cultural differences in
underlying perceptions of leadership.
Research on intercultural management indicates charismatic-visionary and charismatic-inspirational
leadership dimensions to be universally perceived as leadership qualities -independent from the cultural
background of respondents.
Working (Chapters 2-6) and leading (Chapter 3) in projects seems to be influenced by societal culture
Sources:
Lord/Maher 1993; House 2004
15
Regional comparison of general attitudes on a continuum
Selected statements concerning preferences of project work characteristics
No blame culture
Low tolerance for mistakes
Low senior management
support
Senior management
support
Low importance of
standardization
High importance of
standardization
High importance of trust as
element of project work
Low importance of trust
Decentralism
Centralism/Hierarchy
Gender
inequality
Gender equality
N = 449
Germanic
Scandinavian
Anglo-Saxon
Japan
Other
Answers from Japan tend to be comparably on the left side, except for the importance of standards. This indicates a comparatively
higher perceived importance of equality, encouragement and trust in project work in other Country Clusters.
16
Regional comparison of general attitudes: Regions “Other”
Selected statements concerning preferences of project work characteristics
Low tolerance for mistakes
No blame culture
Low senior management
support
Senior management
support
Low importance of
standardization
High importance of
standardization
Low importance of trust
High importance of trust
Centralism/Hierarchy
Decentralism
Gender
inequality
Gender equality
N = 121
East Europe
Mediterranean
China / Far East
Latin America
Sub Sahara
Arab/Islamic World
Respondents from Sub Sahara and Arabian World Cluster emphasize the importance of a no blame culture and top management
support to the greatest extent, while centralism is distinct for the Cluster China.
17
Perceived PM relevance varies across cultural clusters
How important are projects and project management to your company?
disagree
Importance of Projects
Arithmetic mean according to
project success
agree
3
92
Importance of PM
7
80
Importance of projects
for strategy
5
80
Integration of
top-management
17
0,15
0,55
0,30
high
medium
low
65
3,0
left diagram: Nbr. of measurements, answers for scale 1&2
and 4&5 were summed up, scale point=3 was neglected
Spread between high and low
project success
3,5
1 = strongly disagree
4,0
4,5
0,29
5,0
5 = strongly agree
N = 449
Japanese respondents ranked the relevance of project management consistently higher except the perceived overall relevance of
projects to their company. This could be an indicator for a higher appraisal of PM as necessary procedure for the overall firm.
18
PM relevance varies across cultural clusters: Regions “Other”
How important are projects and project management to your company?
Arithmetic mean according to region
Importance of Projects
Importance of PM
East Europe
Mediterranean
China / Far East
Latin America
Sub Sahara
Arab/Islamic World
Importance of projects
for strategy
Germanic
Scandinavian
Anglo-Saxon
Japan
Integration of
top-management
3,0
N = 121
3,5
1 = strongly disagree
4,0
4,5
5,0
5 = strongly agree
3,0
3,5
1 = strongly disagree
4,0
4,5
5,0
5 = strongly agree
Highest importance of projects in the Sub Sahara Cluster while the importance of PM is perceived considerable lower. Here, Latin
America ranks PM with highest importance. The Mediterranean Region scores the integration of top management in PM processes
lowest, probably indicating the standing of projects less important than regular processes.
19
Summary on project work - context of different cultures (1/2)
Working and leading in projects seems to be influenced by societal culture
Cultural background of given working environments differs from region to region.
Special cultural-dependent characteristics exist, which could partly facilitate working in project contexts.
Preferences in the settings of project-based work could also be based on a regional context, encompassing
hard (i.e. standardization) as well as soft factors like trust, communication etc.
Differences exists in preferences of hard and soft-factors relevant to working in projects.
Results for Japan differ from other regions as it has lowest scores on the preferences of soft-attributed
factors, and highest scores on the importance of standardization as a hard factor.
20
Summary on project work - context of different cultures (2/2)
Working and leading in projects seems to be influenced by societal culture
Centralism as indicator of the adherence to written rules and formality of an Organization is in particular
distinct in China, thus shaping the climate of project work.
Respondents from the Arab/Islam World state a high importance of projects for their companies while the
relevance of project management practices is evaluated comparatively lower. This indicates a possible lack of
understanding the potential benefit of project management methods and processes.
The gap between the estimated importance of project and project management for the companies and their
institutional integration of senior management in project management processes is evident in all country
clusters.
Still, the Mediterranean Country Cluster is about average in assessing project and project management
importance, while its institutional integration of senior management in project management processes is also
compared to the other Country Clusters low.
In general, Country Clusters of East Europe and China give the lowest average scores in assessing the
importance of projects.
21
1
Objectives and Procedures of the Survey
2
Data Set and Environmental/Cultural Characteristics
3
Individual Competences
4
Organizational Competences
5
Project Success / Outcomes
6
Context Factors
7
Conclusion
8
Comparative Analysis of the Regional Cluster “Germanic”
22
Three areas of individual competences are regarded
The regarded individual competences consist of self-assessment as well as perception of others
2/6
Context factors: Culture | Industry & Project Type | Work conditions
Individual Competences:
Perceived leadership
5
behavior: transactional
3
Project
Success
Perceived leadership
behavior: transformational
Project experience
Organizational
Competences
X
4
23
= project related capabilities
= contextual factors
= respective section of
presentation
= influence
Individual competences as influencing PM
Time spent in projects as source of project experience
Respondents characteristics
Certifications in PM as specific source of PM competence
Experience in project work and perceived leadership behavior represent individual competences
Research indicates leadership to be one of the central factors influencing project work and its outcome.
The characteristics of perceived leadership are particularly considered in terms of charismatic behavior, since
results of research indicate this manner as universally applicable.
Also task-oriented leadership is taken into account, representing the “guided missile culture” which is
characterized by task-orientation as stated by the matrix on p.15.
Sources:
Keagan/DenHartog 2001; Trompenaars and HampdenTurner 2001; House 2004
Leader characteristics
24
Indicators for charismatic/task-oriented leadership
Transformational and transactional leadership as two leadership dimensions
Transformational Leadership
Transactional Leadership
Tasks stand in the limelight
Transformational leader “transforms” values and
motives of his followers to a higher level and
expected direction.
Transactional leadership means compliance is
exchanged for reward
Sphere of action starts where awarding, punishment
and other instrumental effects stop to work
Leader enters into a transaction relation with
subordinates where)
A project leader should be capable of sharing a
vision in order to commit project members to project
and project goals
Instrumental effects like awarding and punishing are
used
Both leadership dimensions seem to be important in projects, question is, which leads to success under
which settings
25
Leadership behavior in projects: Country/region comparison
Transformational leadership behavior as prevalent leadership behavior in projects
Leadership index
65
transactional
transformational
60
Japan shows for both leadership
behaviors the strongest statements
55
Germanic countries have the highest
proportion of transformational
leadership in contrast to transactional
leadership
50
45
40
Germanic
Scandinavian Anglo-Saxon
Japan
Other
N = 449; values were computed by the index of items indicating leadership behavior, ranging
from 0 = no display of respective behavior to 100 = full display of respective leadership behavior
26
Anglo-Saxon and Germanic
respondents display similar
characteristics in terms of
transformational leadership
characteristics
Leadership behavior in projects: Regions “Other”
Transformational leadership behavior as prevalent leadership behavior in the referred project environments
Leadership index
75
70
transactional
transformational
65
60
55
50
45
40
East Europe
Mediterranean
China / Far East
Latin America
Africa (Sub
Sahara)
Arab/Islamic World
Latin America scores highest in transformational leadership behavior
Africa with second highest transformational leadership score displays the highest value in terms of
transactional leadership
Mediterranean region and East Europe have the smallest values on both leadership styles
N = 121; values were computed by the index of items indicating leadership behavior, ranging from 0 = no display of respective behavior to 100 = full display of
respective leadership behavior
27
Leadership behavior according to project success
Values of transformational / transactional leadership according to project success clusters
70
transactional
transformational
Projects which were perceived as highly
successful also have the highest scores in
both transformational and transactional
leadership
Leadership index
65
60
The proportion of transformational to
transactional leadership is about constant in
the medium and high success clusters
55
50
The cluster of low project success has a
comparably lower share of transformational
leadership behavior
45
40
low
medium
high
Project success
N = 449; values were computed according to underlines on pp 26-27; the weighted top quarter of respondents rating project success represents the high project
success cluster; weighted lowest quarter equals low project success cluster, remaining respondents constitute the medium success cluster.
28
Index of individual competence in project management
Transformational leadership behavior as dominant leadership behavior in projects
Perceived Leadership
behavior:
Transformational
Project
experience
70,5
Individual Competence in
Project
Management
Perceived Leadership
behavior:
Transactional
61,7
All-country
average: 62,0
60,6
Other
Japan
Anglo-Saxon
58,8
58,6
Scandinavian
Germanic
Responses from Japan represent highest value for the Individual Competence Index
Remaining countries display approximately same values, with Scandinavian and Germanic countries being
slightly under average
N = 449; leadership values were computed according to underlines on pp 26-27; project experience value was computed converting the relative project
experience (in yrs) to a scale from 0-100. All tree items were equally weighted in final index.
29
Comparison of index individual competence: Regions “Other”
70,5
60,7
61,7
60,6
58,8
58,6
All-Country
Average: 62,0
68,6
68,3
Total
Other
Japan
Anglo-Saxon Scandinavian
61,9
61,2
58,9
56,3
Arab/Islamic
World
Africa (Sub
Sahara)
Latin America China / Far East Mediterranean
East Europe
Africa Sub Sahara and Latin America score highest among the regions contained in “Other”
Mediterranean countries score the lowest on individual competence index compared to all regions
N = 121; Index computed according to underline on p 29.
30
Germ anic
Experience of working in project environments
Weighted average of project work experience (in years)
– Regional cluster comparison
Years spent working in projects (in %)
9 ,8
11,8
10,0
1 to 3
12 ,9
10,1
9,7
9,6
8,6
4 to 6
7 to 10
> 10
5 8 ,7
To
ta
l
O
th
er
Ja
pa
n
A
ng
lo
-S
ax
on
N = 449
S
ca
nd
in
av
ia
n
G
er
m
an
i
c
18 ,5
With more than 10 years of working in projects, the majority of respondents is highly experienced.
Across Country-Regions, the average project experience of respondents was evenly distributed, thus indicating
the remaining answers to be made with comparable experience in PM.
Respondents from Japan had a slightly more project-experience on average, which might be a hint to the prior
sticking out in the two leadership dimensions.
31
Frequency and distribution of project certifications
Type of project certification (in %)
Certification across regional clusters (in %)
29,0
None
26,2
IPMA
25,1
PMI
15,8
Other
11,1
Prince2
4,1
APM
2,3
N = 449
MPM
0,8
CPM
0,5
APMC
Germanic
Scandinavian
Anglo-Saxon
Japan
Other
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Prince 2 is behind IPMA and PMI Certificates the most common respondent’s certificate in the sample
32
Summary of findings on individual competences
Results indicate a prevalence of transformational leadership across all countries.
This is in line with findings of research indicating charismatic leadership as an universally accepted
leadership characteristic.
Task orientation in terms of transactional leadership behavior is found to be of importance. Given the project
environment, this is in line with the propositions shown by the matrix introduced on p.15.
Project experience of respondents is evenly distributed with an average of nearly 10 years of project
experience, with the region Japan having the slightly greater overall project experience
Japan shows the highest score for both leadership behavior assessments
About a third of respondents across all regional clusters stated to have no PM-related certification, which
shows the potential for project management as professional skill
Germanic Cluster with the greatest percentage of respondents without PM-related certification
Types of certifications vary across regional clusters, with a strong emphasis on PMI-related certificates in Japan
which could be biased due to respondents sample
Sources:
Trompenaars / Hampden-Turner 1997
Hofstede 2001
House et al 2004
33
1
Objectives and Procedures of the Survey
2
Data Set and Environmental/Cultural Characteristics
3
Individual Competences
4
Organizational Competences
5
Project Success / Outcomes
6
Context Factors
7
Conclusion
8
Comparative Analysis of the Regional Cluster “Germanic”
34
Three areas of organizational competences are regarded
The regarded organizational competences consist of six categories representing hard and soft
factors
2/6
Context factors: Culture | Industry & Project Type | Work conditions
Individual
Competences
3
5
Project
Success
Organizational Competences:
Organizational Commitment
Senior management support
Working atmosphere (trust)
Resources
Organizational Support (PMO)
Standardization
4
X
35
= project related capabilities
= contextual factors
= respective section of
presentation
= influence
X
Organizational competence comprises 6 categories (1/2)
Soft factors are represented by organizational commitment, senior management
support and trust:
Organizational commitment represents the employee’s psychological
attachment to the organization which indicates positive organizational
characteristics.
Research indicates that senior management support as „leadership on the high
level” has a significant positive influence on project success. (Source)
A trustful working atmosphere is vital for coping with uncertainty which is
prevalent in project environments.
Organizational
Competence Index*
*Consisting of six
equally weighted
components with each
component being
converted to a scale
from 0 = strongly
disagree to 100 =
strongly agree
Hard factors
36
Organizational competence comprises 6 categories (2/2)
Soft factors
Hard factors are represented by organizational resources, organizational support
and standardization:
Organizational resources indicate the overall organizations ability to support
projects with sufficient financial resources and in terms of human resources and
special skilled workers.
PMOs as permanent organizational entity support the project throughout the
project’s life cycle, thus serving as binding element between permanent and
temporary organization with the potential to transmit project knowledge to the
organizational knowledge base.
Successful implemented standardization allows a consistent high quality
during project realization.
37
Organizational
Competence Index*
*Consisting of six
equally weighted
components with each
component being
converted to a scale
from 0 = strongly
disagree to 100 =
strongly agree
Index of organizational competence
Organizational
Commitment
Working Atmosphere
Resources
Organizational Support
60,6
Index of Organizational
Competence in Project
Management
Senior Management
Support
All-Country
Average: 58,8
60,8
Standardization
58,8
58,1
58,3
57,7
Total
Other
Japan
Anglo-Saxon
Scandinavian
Germanic
Japan as individual country shows the greatest value in terms of the overall organizational competence index,
while the regions “Other” exceed also Japan in overall organizational competence.
N = 449; index computed according to description on pp 36/37
38
Index of organizational competence: Regions “Other”
60,8
70,7
All-Country
Average: 58,8
58,8
58,1
58,3
57,7
61,1
60,3
57,9
56,1
57,1
Total
Arab/Islam ic
World
60,6
Africa (Sub
Sahara)
Latin Am erica
China / Far East
Mediterranean
East Europe
Other
Japan
Anglo-Saxon
Scandinavian
N = 121; index computed according to
description on pp 36/37
Africa Sub Sahara scores highest among this group, while Latin America countries have lowest score on the
organizational competence index among the regions “Other”
Regions Africa, China and Japan score above average concerning overall organizational competence
39
Germanic
Regional Comparison of Soft Factors
Working atmosphere as strongest soft factor across all regions
Percentage quotation according to
region
Germanic
80
70
Working atmosphere scores highest across all
60
Other
50
regions.
Scandinavian
Working atmosphere is equally distributed in the
40
Germanic, Scandinavian regions and Japan, while
Anglo-Saxon and “Other” regions are scoring slightly
lower.
Japan
In contrast to the remaining factors and regions,
Anglo-Saxon
Japan
Organizational Commitment
Senior Management Support
Working Atmosphere
scores
comparably
organizational commitment.
N = 449; 100 = highest possible value
40
low
in
terms
of
Regional Comparison of Soft Factors: Regions “Other”
Mixed results for region “Other” in terms of soft factors
Percentage quotation according to
region
East Europe
80
70
Arab/Islamic
60
Mediterranean
Working atmosphere highest for regional cluster
50
Africa and quite as high in the Mediterranean
40
country cluster; scoring lowest in East Europe.
Organizational
Africa (Sub Sahara)
commitment
shows
great
China / Far East
disparities; being highest in Arab and Africa
regional cluster and weakest in China.
Latin America
Senior management support is highest – also on
an all regions comparison - in Africa.
Organizational Commitment
Senior Management Support
Working Atmosphere
N = 121; 100 = highest possible value
41
Regional Comparison of Hard Factors
Standardization as similar assessed hard factor across all regions
Percentage quotation according to
region
Germanic
Standardization is approximately on the same level
70
across all countries.
60
Sufficient resources score lower but are about as
50
Other
Scandinavian
evenly distributed across the regions except the
Germanic Region
40
Across all countries only most respondents per country
cluster state to have a PMO in their company except
Japan
Anglo-Saxon
respondents from Japan. Respondents from Germanic
countries state slightly more often to have a PMO
Ressources
Organizational Support
Standardization
compared to Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon cluster.
N = 449; 100 = highest possible value
42
Regional Comparison of Hard Factors: Regions “Other”
Standardization as similar assessed hard factor across all regions
Percentage quotation according to
region
East Europe
80
Standardization is highest in Region Africa while
70
Arab/Islamic
being approximately on the same lower level in Arab /
60
Mediterranean
50
Latin America and China clusters and slightly lower in
East Europe and Mediterranean cluster.
40
30
Sufficient resources vary widely across regions
“Other” with highest score in China and lowest in
Africa
China/Far East
Latin America
Latin America / Mediterranean clusters.
Respondents in the country cluster Africa state most
often to have a PMO in their company while Latin
Ressources
Organizational Support
Standardization
America scores lowest in this respect.
N = 121; 100 = highest possible value
43
Organizational Competences: Standardization
Importance and utilization of standards varies
Importance
disagree
Standards are important in our company
36
32
Utilization
56
22
The standards fulfill the
requirements of our project work
right diagram: answers for scale 1&2 and 4&5 were summed
up, scale point=3 was neglected
left diagram: Indicated in %
69
13
Standardized project management methods
were used in my last completed project
An organizational entity
exist which supports projects
68
12
Project management standards in use are adapted to
the specific needs of our company
Lessons learned are part of the standardized project
management methods
72
9
Standards are important for
projects in our company
I am satisfied with the application
of project standards
Arithmetic mean according to region
agree
55
15
Germanic
Scandinavian
Anglo-Saxon
Japan
Other
44
29
49
34
2,0
N = 449
3,0
1 = strongly disagree
4,0
5,0
5 = strongly agree
While standards in general and in projects are stated as important for respondents, only roughly half of the respondents also
state their satisfaction with the application of project management standards
44
Organizational Competences: Standardization regions “Other”
Importance and utilization of standards vary across regions
Arithmetic mean according to region
Importance
Standards are important in our company
Standards are important for
projects in our company
I am satisfied with the application
of project standards
Utilization
Project management standards in use are adapted to the specific
needs of our company
Standardized project management methods
were used in my last completed project
The standards fulfill the
requirements of our project work
East Europe
Mediterranean
China / Far East
Latin America
Sub Sahara
Arab/Islamic World
Lessons learned are part of the standardized project management
methods
An organizational entity
exist which supports projects
2,0
N = 121
3,0
1 = strongly disagree
4,0
5,0
5 = strongly agree
Country cluster of Latin America varies strongest regarding perceived importance of standards and aptness of project management
standards and the actual application of these project management standards.
45
Standardization in terms of project success in regions “Other”
Importance and utilization of standards in the respondent’s companies
Arithmetic mean according to project
success
Importance
Standards are important in our company
Spread between high and low
project success
0,35
Standards are important for
projects in our company
0,22
I am satisfied with the application
of the standards in our projects
0,46
Utilization
The project management standards in use are adapted
to the specific needs of our company
0,49
Standardized project management methods
were used in my last completed project
0,83
The standards fulfill the
requirements of our project work
0,45
Lessons learned are part of the standardized project
management methods
high
medium
low
An organizational entity
exist which supports projects
2,0
N = 449
3,0
1 = strongly disagree
4,0
0,57
0,17
5,0
5 = strongly agree
Respondents stating a relatively high success of their last project rated importance and utilization of project management
standards consistently higher than respondents with less successful project ratings which indicates the importance of standards in
project management.
46
PMBOK as most used project management standard
A range of project management standards is used in respondent’s companies
Percentage quotation according to region
PMBOK
43,0
• Company-Own
• None
• Software-based
• ISO-Standards
• Other Standards:
• APMBOK, CMMI,
10,9
14,0
ICB 3.0
East Europe
Mediterranean
China / Far East
Latin America
Sub Sahara
Arab/Islamic World
Prince 2
IPMA, ICB 2.0
39,0
Germanic
Scandinavian
Anglo-Saxon
Japan
Other
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
100,0
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
100,0
N = 449
A range of project management standards exist; while various PM-Standards are subsumed by “Other”, many can be expected to be
congruent to a great part with the established standards of PMBOK, ICB, and Prince 2; several differences in the degree of
utilization exist on regional comparison.
47
Comprehensiveness of standards in use
What do the stated Project Management standards in use comprise?
Percentage quotation according to region
82,5
• Investment
Processes
71,6
Methods
Gates
• General Rules
• Roles &
Responsibilities
• Training
• WBS Coding
System
Templates
67,0
East Europe
Mediterranean
China / Far East
Latin America
Sub Sahara
Arab/Islamic World
Germanic
Scandinavian
Anglo-Saxon
Japan
Terminologies
51,4
Software
39,8
4,1
Other
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
100,0
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
N = 449
The majority of used standards cover processes, methods, and templates relevant to PM. Many standards also comprise the
overall terminology, in order to establish a common understanding and administer the use of software.
48
100,0
Summary of findings on organizational competences
Hard and soft-factors concerning organizational competences were widely ranging in extent across regional
clusters.
Africa (Sub Sahara) shows highest overall scores in the overall organizational competence index.
Japan with second greatest value in terms of the overall organizational competence index.
Working atmosphere as strongest scoring soft factor across all regions.
Sufficient resources scores weakest in the Germanic region.
Standardization seems to be equally developed, albeit different standards are preferred on a regional
comparison.
Many companies already use company own standards (subsumed in “other”), which are adapted from the
common standards of PMI/IPMA
Satisfaction with application of standards in projects is significantly below perceived importance, thus showing
further potential for improvement.
49
1
Objectives and Procedures of the Survey
2
Data Set and Environmental Characteristics
3
Individual Competences
4
Organizational Competences
5
Project Success / Outcomes
6
Context Factors
7
Conclusion
8
Comparative Analysis of the Regional Cluster “Germanic”
50
Project success as comprehensive variable
Project success is measured in terms of the Iron triangle as well as stakeholder satisfaction
2/6
Context factors: Culture | Industry & Project Type | Work conditions
5
3
Individual
Competences
Project Success:
“Iron triangle”
Stakeholder satisfaction
…with project outcome
…with project process
4
Organizational
Competences
X
51
= project related capabilities
= contextual factors
= respective section of
presentation
= influence
Project success is measured with several dimensions
Project success is measured in terms of the Iron triangle as well as stakeholder satisfaction
“Hard” indicators of project success were measured in terms of the “iron triangle” with time, cost and quality
of outcome.
In addition, the satisfaction of project participants and the projects external stakeholders was interrogated.
In order to extensively capture project success dimensions, satisfaction was not only measured in terms of
project outcome but also project realization and used project management.
Different scores on a regional comparison might be due to fundamental differences in the perception of
satisfaction - this might caused by cultural differences.
52
Perception of project success measures – regional comparison
The different aspects of project success were assessed with answers regarding the iron triangle, satisfaction
and changes made
disagree
Overall, the project was a great success
67
20
All in all, the relevant efficiency measures were
achieved
66
16
63
22
The project was completed on time
The project had only minor changes
68
14
The project was completed within budget
Arithmetic mean according to region
agree
Germanic
Scandinavian
Anglo-Saxon
Japan
Other
33
43
2,5
right diagram: answers for scale 1&2 and 4&5 were summed
up, scale point=3 was neglected
left diagram: Indicated in %
3,0
1 = strongly disagree
3,5
4,0
5 = strongly agree
N = 449
Minor changes in a project are not necessarily an indicator for the effectiveness of project management as this can also be an
indicator for the flexibility of an organization to respond to external changes.
53
4,5
Project success dimensions according to project stakeholders
Respondents perception of stakeholder satisfaction with project results and overall project process
Satisfaction with
project results
How do you rate the
satisfaction of …
unsatisfied
Satisfaction with
project process
satisfied
unsatisfied
Project manager
8
Sponsors
9
71
Clients
9
71
16
Project members
9
71
15
Subcontractors (e.g. supplier)
8
satisfied
63
13
75
50
Difference of results
and process
0,33
55
13
14
0,27
0,38
50
0,34
55
40
0,22
N = 449; answers for scale 1&2 and 4&5 were summed up,
scale point=3 was neglected
Differences in the perceived satisfaction with project results and process were starkest in terms of clients, while the least differences
were stated in terms of project manager and project’s subcontractors.
54
Summary of main findings on project success
Project success measures varied starkest across regions in the case of Japan and “Other”.
Respondents from Japan display highest scores on general project success and in-time completion of projects,
while budget compliance and minor changes were below average.
In general, project participants found to be less satisfied with the project process than with the overall outcome.
This difference is the greatest in the case of clients.
Subcontractors are the least satisfied with both project process and outcome according to respondents’
perception.
55
1
Objectives and Procedures of the Survey
2
Data Set and Environmental Characteristics
3
Individual Competences
4
Organizational Competences
5
Project Success / Outcomes
6
Context Factors
7
Conclusion
8
Comparative Analysis of the Regional Cluster “Germanic”
56
Context Factors
Context factors in this chapter are regarded in terms of several aspects of work conditions
2/6
Context factors: Culture | Industry & Project Type | Work conditions
Individual
Competences
3
Project
Success
Organizational
Competences
4
X
57
= project related capabilities
= contextual factors
= respective section of
presentation
= influence
X
Context Factors draw upon several characteristics
Information on context factors is raised for several reasons
Personal characteristics enclose respondent’s gender and years spent in the respective organization.
Respondent’s implicit cultural understanding were subject to chapter 2.
Project embeddedness was interrogated in order to show possible differences on an international level.
Overall organizational structure was asked in order to check if the referenced project was in line with the
usual organizing of projects.
Environmental characteristics were asked to see if regional differences in the perception of environmental
conditions exist.
58
Respondent’s and company’s characteristics
Respondent’s years spent in referenced company
35%
Total revenue of the company
< 1 to 3
17%
17%
9,6
0-5 (mil. €)
31%
6-20 (mil. €)
6,0
4 to 6
7 to 10
21-50 (mil. €)
> 10
3,8
51-100 (mil. €)
6,0
101-500 (mil. €)
6,0
Proportion of male / female respondents
501-1.000 (mil. €)
20%
15%
1.001 (mil. €) and more
no answer
65%
no answer
male
female
59
3,3
21,2
44,1
Organizational embeddedness of projects (1/2)
General embeddedness of projects in organization
Percentage quotation according to region
Pure project
organization
14,1
6,3
27,3
52,2
N = 449, indicated in %
East Europe
Mediterranean
China / Far East
Latin America
Sub Sahara
Arab/Islamic World
Germanic
Scandinavian
Anglo-Saxon
Japan
Other
Pure matrix
organization
Staff organization
(outside the line
organization)
Mixed
organization
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
Projects in respondents’ organizations are mainly embedded as mixed organization, whereas other forms of organizing vary across
countries.
60
Organizational embeddedness of projects (2/2)
Embeddedness of the described project in organization
Percentage quotation according to region
Pure project
organization
20,9
8,8
32,7
37,6
N = 449, indicated in %
East Europe
Mediterranean
China / Far East
Latin America
Sub Sahara
Arab/Islamic World
Germanic
Scandinavian
Anglo-Saxon
Japan
Other
Pure matrix
organization
Staff organization
(outside the line
organization)
Mixed
organization
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0 0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
Projects which had to be evaluated were similarly embedded as all projects in the organization, with a slightly higher distribution
among project and mixed organizations.
61
80,0
Conditions of working with regard to perceived project success
Working conditions in projects according to project success show no clear pattern
disagree
Arithmetic mean
according to project success
agree
High time pressure
11
69
High degree of
complexity concerning content
11
67
High degree of complexity concerning
interdisciplinary participants
16
High degree of task novelty
16
High risk and uncertainty
The project was conducted
by an international project team
33
45
right diagram: answers for scale 1&2 and 4&5 were summed
up, scale point=3 was neglected
left diagram: Indicated in %
-0,14
0,01
57
-0,12
53
25
Short spatial distances existed
between project members
Spread between high and
low project success
0,17
53
-0,38
37
0,38
high
medium
low
46
2,0
N = 449
3,0
1 = strongly disagree
4,0
-0,21
5,0
5 = strongly agree
In General, projects assessed as having low success show slightly higher time pressure and complexity than more successful
projects. Only the perceived risk and uncertainty is generally stronger in less successful projects. The same applies for spatial
distances which seemed to be greater in less successful projects.
62
Differences in working conditions in projects according to region
Working conditions in projects according to region
Arithmetic mean according to region
High time pressure
High degree of
complexity concerning content
East Europe
Mediterranean
China / Far East
Latin America
Sub Sahara
Arab/Islamic World
High degree of complexity concerning
interdisciplinary participants
High degree of task novelty
High risk and uncertainty
Germanic
Scandinavian
Anglo-Saxon
Japan
Other
Short spatial distances existed
between project members
The project was conducted
by an international project team
2,0
N = 449
3,0
4,0
1 = strongly disagree
5,0
5 = strongly agree
2,0
3,0
1 = strongly disagree
4,0
5,0
5 = strongly agree
In general, the working conditions seem to be strongest in the Latin America region . Greater differences in regard to variations of
aspects exist especially in regions contained in region cluster “Other”.
63
Environmental and organizational conditions of project work
Characterization of company’s environment on a regional comparison
Company
environment
Arithmetic mean according to region
very dynamic, changing rapidly
very risky, one false step can mean
the firm's undoing
very stressful, exacting, hostile, hard
to keep afloat
Company and
environment changes
Organizational structure
East Europe
Mediterranean
China / Far East
Latin America
Sub Sahara
Arab/Islamic World
Germanic
Scandinavian
Anglo-Saxon
Japan
Other
Market segments
Customer or clients
Personnel
Divestments
Acquisitions
1
N = 449
2
3
4
5
1
2
5 = strongly agree 1 = strongly disagree
1 = strongly disagree
3
4
5 = strongly agree
Respondents’ assessment of firm environment is similar across regions in terms of its dynamic and available resources, while
greater differences exist in the perception of a negative connotation of this environment.
64
5
Summary of main findings on context factors
Mixed organizations are prevalent forms of organizing in the sample.
Male respondents represented the majority across all regions.
Internal working conditions in projects such as time pressure, complexity and novelty do not seem to have a
great impact on project success.
Risk and uncertainty built an exception to these findings as they seem slightly correlating with project
success.
Across all regions, the company’s environment was perceived as highly dynamic.
The negative perception of the company’s environment in terms of risk varies across regions, whereby
regional clusters of Scandinavia and Anglo-Saxon have the lowest negative perception.
65
Organisational
Competence
individual
Competence
Results of correlation analysis of competence factors across regions
Germanic
Scandinavian
AngloSaxon
Japan
East
Europe
Mediterranean
China
Africa
Arab
Project Experience
{
{
z
{
{
z
{
z
{
Transactional Leadership
z
zz
z
{
zzz
{
zzz
z
zzz
Transformational Leadership
zz
z
zz
zzz
zzz
{
zzz
z
zzz
Organizational Commitment
zz
{
zz
z
{
zzz
zz
zz
z
Working Atmosphere
zz
zzz
zzz
zzz
zzz
zzz
zz
zzz
zzz
Ressources
{
{
z
zz
zzz
{
zz
zz
zzz
Senior Management Support
{
{
z
{
zzz
zzz
zz
zzz
zzz
Organizational Support
{
{
{
{
zzz
zz
z
{
{
zz
z
zz
{
zzz
zzz
zz
z
zzz
Standard Standardization
N = 449; Correlation analysis of single constructs with project success:correlation <0,2= ○;
0,2 – 0,29=●; 0,3 – 0,49=●●; >0,5=●●●
66
1
Objectives and Procedures of the Survey
2
Data Set and Environmental Characteristics
3
Individual Competences
4
Organizational Competences
5
Project Success / Outcomes
6
Context Factors
7
Conclusion
8
Comparative Analysis of the Regional Cluster “Germanic”
67
General findings of the survey
The importance of projects was acknowledged by all respondents from a range of industries and countries .
Preferences of working conditions such as trustful environment and standardization vary strongly across
country regions.
Transformational leadership as people-oriented leadership style is the prevalent leadership behavior in
project settings across all countries.
The majority of respondents holds a certification in project management.
The importance of standardization is stated across all countries.
A gap exists between the satisfaction with standards in PM and the actual application of these standards in
projects.
Japan scored most indicators of project success higher on the overall country region comparison.
External project environment was most positively assessed by Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian respondents;
the remaining factors were assessed with no clear patterns to be apparent.
Regional differences exist in PM while the importance of projects is acknowledged everywhere.
Potential for improvements have in particular found in the application of PM standards.
68
General recommendations can be deducted from the survey
Companies doing projects successfully are aware of the importance of project management.
In line with the findings of the study, the following recommendations can be made:
Companies must become aware of the importance of project management.
A standardized project management method should be established.
Standardized project management must be adapted to the specific needs of the company.
Lessons learned should be part of this standardized project management.
Project managers should in particular be trained in leadership skills.
69
1
Objectives and Procedures of the Survey
2
Data Set and Environmental Characteristics
3
Individual Competences
4
Organizational Competences
5
Project Success / Outcomes
6
Context Factors
7
Conclusion
8
Comparative Analysis of the Regional Cluster “Germanic”
70
Regional comparison of general attitudes in project work
Selected statements concerning project work characteristics
No blame culture
Low tolerance for mistakes
Low senior management
support
Senior management support
Low importance of
standardization
High importance of
standardization
High importance of trust as
element of project work
Low importance of trust
Centralism
Decentralism
Centralism
Gender
inequality
Gender equality
Germany
Switzerland
Austria
Other
Total
Switzerland scores highest on the importance of no blame culture, encouragement and trust, while Gender equality is
comparably lower scored.
71
Leadership behavior in projects – Germanic region comparison
Transformational leadership behavior as prevalent leadership behavior in the referred project environments
70
transactional
transformational
65
In line with all other regions,
transformational leadership is also on
this level of comparison the more
prevalent form of leading in contrast
to transactional leadership.
60
55
Austria shows highest scores in terms
of transformational leadership.
50
The amount of transactional
leadership traits in Switzerland is
relatively small.
45
40
Germany
Austria
Switzerland
Other
Total
N = 124
N = 19
N = 19
N = 297
N = 449
72
Index Individual Competence in Project Management
Transformational leadership behavior as dominant leadership behavior in the referred project environments
Perceived Leadership
Behavior:
Transformational
Project
Experience
Individual Competence
in Project
Management
Perceived Leadership
Behavior:
Transactional
All-Country
Average: 60,7
69,4
58,7
61,5
60,7
Other
Total
56,8
Germany
Austria
Switzerland
Responses from Austria represent highest value for the Individual Competence Index
Germany and Switzerland are both below the average score regarding the overall index of individual
competences in project management
73
Experience of working in project environments - Germanic regions
Weighted average of project work experience (in years) Region comparison
Years spent working in projects
< 1 to 3
10%
11,5
4 to 6
13%
11,9
9,5
9,5
9,7
Other
Total
7 to 10
> 10
58%
19%
Germany
Austria
Switzerland
With more than 10 years of working in projects, the majority of respondents is highly experienced.
Across the regions compared, the average project experience of respondents was evenly distributed, thus
indicating the remaining answers to be made with comparable experience in PM.
Respondents from Switzerland and Austria had slightly more project-experience on average, which might be a
hint to the prior sticking out in the two leadership dimensions.
74
Index of Organizational Competence for Germanic regions
Organizational
Commitment
Working Atmosphere
Resources
Organizational Support
Standardization
Organizational Competence in
Project
Management
Senior Management
Support
All-Country
Average: 58,8
60,3
59,5
57,7
58,8
57,3
Germany
Austria
Switzerland
Other
Total
Austria as individual country shows the greatest value in terms of the overall organizational competence index of the
Germanic regions, while Germany and Switzerland are well below average scores.
75
Index of organizational competence: single Items
The six factors constituting organizational competence vary across Germanic regions
Organizational Commitment
Senior Management Support
Working Atmosphere
Resources
Germany
Switzerland
Austria
Other
Total
Organizational Support
Standardization
40
50
60
70
80
N = 449
Austria shows the greatest value in all items except the support of PMO and working atmosphere, whereas the
latter is low scored throughout all Germanic regions.
76
Comparison of soft factors across Germanic regions
Working atmosphere as strongest soft factor across all regions
Percentage quotation according to
region
Germany
80
Working atmosphere scores highest across all
70
regions
60
Total
50
It is equally distributed in the Germanic regions,
Austria
exceeding the average scores on an all region
40
comparison.
In contrast to the remaining factors and regions,
Austria
Other
Switzerland
scores
comparably
organizational commitment.
Organizational Commitment
Senior Management Support
Working Atmosphere
N = 449
77
high
in
terms
of
Comparison of hard factors across Germanic regions
Austria as strongest deviator in Germanic region results
Germany
Standardization
70
50
from
respondents from Austria.
In contrast, organizational support scored lowest on a
60
Total
Percentage quotation according to
region
was
scored
highest
Germanic region comparison.
Austria
All
40
Germanic
regions
state
lower
resources
compared to the remaining regions.
Other
Switzerland
Participants from all countries of the Germanic region
Ressources
Organizational Support
Standardization
N = 449
78
state to a relatively higher amount to have a PMO in their
company compared to all regions regarded.
Organizational Competences: Standardization
Austria scores consistently higher in terms of utilization of PM standards and methods
Utilization
Importance
disagree
Standards are important in our company
Standards are important for
projects in our company
I am satisfied with the application
of the standards in our projects
The project management standards in use are
adapted to the specific needs of our company
Standardized project management methods
were used in my last completed project
The standards fulfill the
requirements of our project work
Accomplishment of lessons learned are part of
standardized project management methods
An organizational entity
exist which supports projects
right diagram: answers for scale 1&2 and 4&5 were summed up,
scale point=3 was neglected
left diagram: Indicated in %
Arithmetic mean according to region
agree
69
12
64
15
32
37
70
12
59
21
70
12
Germany
Switzerland
Austria
Other
Total
56
16
48
32
2,0
N = 162
3,0
1 = strongly disagree
4,0
5 = strongly agree
Respondents from Germany assess their satisfaction with the application of standards in projects the lowest, while respondents
from Austria rank this point highest.
79
5,0
Standardization across Germanic regions in terms of project success
Clustering responses along project success criteria shows a consistently higher satisfaction with standardization
in successful projects
Utilization
Importance
Arithmetic mean according to project
success
Standards are important in our company
0,48
Standards are important for
projects in our company
I am satisfied with the application
of the standards in our projects
The project management standards in use are
adapted to the specific needs of our company
0,51
0,68
0,63
Standardized project management methods
were used in my last completed project
0,95
0,56
The standards fulfill the
requirements of our project work
0,71
high
medium
low
The accomplishments of lessons learned part of
the standardized project management methods
An organizational entity
exist which supports projects 2,0
N = 162
Spread between high and low
project success
3,0
1 = strongly disagree
4,0
0,31
5,0
5 = strongly agree
Across all project success clusters, the satisfaction with the application of standards to projects was lower than for other
statements, which might be an indicator for potential improvements in application skills.
80
PMBOK as most used PM standard across Germanic regions
PMBOK is the overall most used PM-Guide
Percentage quotation according to
region
43,0
• Company-Own
• None
• Software-based
• ISO-Standards
• Other Standards:
• APMBOK, CMMI,
PMBOK
10,9
ICB 3.0
14,0
IPMA, ICB 2.0
Prince 2
39,0
Germany
Switzerland
Austria
Other
Other
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
N = 162
Austria indicates a high amount of users of Prince 2 while Switzerland is along with the majority of the rest of the regions using
the PMBOK. Respondents from Germany show no clear preference with only PMBOK standing out.
81
Comprehensiveness of standards in use
What do the stated Project Management standards in use comprise?
Percentage quotation according to
region
80,8
• Investment Gates
• General Rules
• Roles &
Responsibilities
• Training
• WBS Coding System
Processes
70,2
Methods
Templates
65,7
Terminologies
50,3
Software
39,0
Germany
Switzerland
Austria
Other
Other
4,0
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
100,0
N = 162; Indicated in %
The majority of used standards cover processes, methods, and templates relevant to PM, while few encompass software. Austria
has a slightly higher focus on Methods, especially in contrast to Switzerland.
82
Perception of different project success measures
Switzerland is overall leading while Germany lays slightly beneath the overall regions in terms of success
indicators.
disagree
Overall, the project was a great success
21
The project was completed within budget
19
All in all, the relevant efficiency measures were
achieved
The project was completed on time
The project had only minor changes
Percentage quotation according to
region
agree
62
66
46
29
15
66
14
Germany
Switzerland
Austria
Other
70
2,5
3,0
1 = strongly disagree
3,5
4,0
5 = strongly agree
N = 162, left diagram: Indicated in %
Switzerland as highest scoring except for the overall perception of success, which is highest ranked by respondents from
Austria.
83
4,5
Partner of the survey
84
Contact
Prof. Dr. Ronald Gleich I Christoph Schneider
I Ana Müller
Reinhard Wagner
Strascheg Institute for Innovation and
Entrepreneurship
GPM Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Projektmanagement e.V.
at the
Frankenstraße 152
EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht i.Gr.
90461 Nürnberg
Chair of PM research
EBS Business School
65375 Oestrich-Winkel
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Phone: + 49 6723 8888-300
Phone: +49 911 433369-0
Fax: + 49 6723 8888-301
Fax: +49 911 433369-99
85
References:
Hofstede, G. Culture's Consequences, Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations.
Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications, 2001
House, R. J. (ed) Culture, leadership, and organizations : the GLOBE study of 62 societies.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 2004
Lord, R.G. & Maher, K.J. Leadership and Information Processing Linking Perceptions and Performance.
Routledge,1993
Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business
(Second Edition) London: Nicholas Brealey, 1997
86
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz