Lean leadership across different national cultures: a comparative study

Figures & data

Table 1. Literature-based comparison of national-level cultural values to individual-level work values and behaviours.

National level		Individual level
Hofstede’s dimensions^a	Schwartz’s cultural values	Schwartz’s basic human values		Lean values^b	Lean behaviours^c
High power distance	Hierarchy	Power	Self-enhancement	1. Achievement-orientation 2. High-quality Performance  3. Self-reflection	Task-oriented Behaviours: initiating structure sharing factual information with employees offering timely problem-solving support correcting and task monitoring nurturing team members’ skills
Masculinity	Mastery	Achievements
Individualism	Autonomy (intellectual and affective)	Stimulation Self-direction	Openness to Change	4. Continuous Improvement  5. Courage  6. Creativity  7. Innovation  8. Freedom of choice  9. Open minded 10. Constructive feedback	Change-oriented Behaviours: learning from mistakes fostering intellectual stimulation soliciting employees’ ideas
Low power distance	Egalitarianism	Universalism	Self-Transcendence	11. Honesty 12. Participation/Teamwork 13. Responsibility 14. Helpfulness 15. Equality 16. Trust in people 17. Integrity 18. Customer focus 19. Justice 20. Information sharing 21. Employee potential	Relations-oriented Behaviours: being considerate showing respect and appreciation rewarding self-management skills demonstrating humility active listening and admitting mistakes engaging employees
Femininity	Harmony	Benevolence
Collectivism	Embeddedness	Tradition Conformity Security	Conservation	22. Humility 23. Persistence 24. Respect for People

^aPapers supporting the parallels between Hofstede and Schwartz’s models: Kaasa (2021), Fog (2021), Dobewall and Rudnev (2014), Maleki and de Jong (2014), Nardon and Steers (2009), Basabe and Ross (2005), and Schwartz (2004). Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance, Confucian dynamism, and indulgence/restraint dimensions are blended in the other Schwartz’s dimensions. ^bRetrieved from: Van Dun and Wilderom (2016, 2021) and Van Dun, Hicks and Wilderom, 2017. Underlined values are from Brown and Treviño (2009). ^cRetrieved from Baer and Frese (2003), Behrendt et al. (2017), Camuffo and Gerli (2018), Camuffo and Micelli (1997), De Treville and Antonakis (2006), Lam et al. (2015), Poksinska et al. (2013), Robinson and Schroeder (2009), Spear and Bowen (1999), Staats et al. (2011), and Van Dun et al. (2017).

Table A1. Values Q-sort forced distribution.

Table 2. Hofstede et al.’s (2010) dimensions: Brazil versus the Netherlands.

Dimensions	Brazil	The Netherlands
Power distance	69 (High)	38 (Low)
Individualism vs collectivism	38 (Collectivism)	80 (Individualism)
Masculinity vs femininity	49 (Masculinity)	14 (Femininity)
Uncertainty avoidance	76 (High)	53 (Medium)
Confucian dynamism (or long-term vs short-term Orientation	44 (Long-term orientation)	67 (Short-term orientation)
Indulgence vs restraint	59 (Indulgence)	68 (Indulgence)

Note: values are average and score out of 100.

Table 3. Context of the focal effective lean middle managers.

Industry					n per method		Lean tool adoption	Operational performance improvement
Brazilian managers	Department	Gender	Direct reports	Lean maturity (experience with lean in months)	Interview	Survey	Mean (std. dev.)	Mean (std. dev.)
1. IT services	Product development	Male	45	12	4	15	2.68 (0.69)	3.66 (0.72)
2. IT services	Product management	Male	35	24	4	15	2.58 (1.04)	3.41 (0.80)
3. Manufacturing	Production	Male	90	120	3	10	2.18 (0.78)	3.54 (0.54)
4. Manufacturing	Production engineering	Male	6	60	2	4	2.96 (0.44)	3.70 (0.96)
5. Manufacturing	Product management	Male	154	60	4	5	3.03 (0.50)	4.00 (0.85)
6. University	Human resources	Female	3	18	4	4	2.07 (0.57)	3.44 (0.41)
7. University	Human resources	Female	3	24	4	4	1.89 (0.75)	3.08 (0.08)
Sub total					25	57
Dutch managers^a
8. Trucks	Production	Male	22.50	120	3	3
9. Coffee	Production	Male	125	>24	1	1
10. Energy	Call centre	Male	165	18	3	12
11. Energy	Call centre	Male	200	15	4	11
12. Energy	Call centre	Male	110	9	3	8
13. Energy	Human resources	Female	22	8	4	8
Sub total					18	43
Total					43	100

^aAdapted from Van Dun, Hicks, and Wilderom (2017, 178). Note. Lean tool adoption and operational performance improvement had not been measured in the Dutch sample.

Table 4. Q-sorted values of the effective lean managers, Brazilian vs. Dutch sample.

	Brazilian (n = 25)		Dutch (n = 18)^a
Values (cluster)	Mean (std. dev.)	Values (cluster)	Mean (std. dev.)
1. Trust in people (ST)	7.12 (1.88)	1. Continuous improvement (OtC)	6.78 (1.52)
2. Continuous improvement (OtC)	6.96 (1.18)	2. Responsibility (ST)	6.78 (1.44)
3. Participation/teamwork (ST)	6.92 (2.00)	3. Honesty (ST)	6.50 (1.76)
4. Respect for people (CON)	6.88 (1.68)	4. Respect for people (CON)	6.39 (2.35)
5. Honesty (ST)	6.52 (1.94)	5. Integrity (ST)	6.28 (1.60)
6. Responsibility (ST)	6.36 (1.38)	6. Participation/teamwork (ST)	6.28 (2.30)
7. Customer focus (ST)	6.28 (2.22)	7. Achievement-orientation (SE)	6.28 (2.93)
8. Integrity (ST)	5.76 (2.44)	8. Trust in people (ST)	6.22 (1.86)
9. High-quality performance (SE)	5.24 (2.45)	9. Customer focus (ST)	5.89 (2.17)
10. Achievement-orientation (SE)	5.16 (1.97)	10. High-quality performance (SE)	5.67 (2.14)

Note. ST: Self-transcendence; SE: Self-enhancement; OtC: Openness to Change; CON: Conservation. ^aAdapted from Van Dun, Hicks, and Wilderom (2017, 179).

Table 5. Perceived behaviours and values of the effective lean managers.

	Brazilian		Dutch					Low lean maturity		High lean maturity
Values	Mean	Std. dev.	Mean	Std. dev.	t/Z	df	p	Mean/Median	Std. dev.	Mean/Median	Std. dev.	t/Z	df	p
Self-transcendence	5.60	0.42	5.38	0.48	−1.55	41	0.129	5.54	0.47	5.54	0.41	−0.013	41	0.990
Self-enhancement	4.40	1.44	5.70	1.32	3.03	41	0.004	5.09	1.49	4.62	1.62	0.94	41	0.355
Openness to change	4.20	0.63	4.35	0.56	0.80	41	0.431	4.20	0.64	4.40	0.52	−0.95	41	0.347
Conservation	5.24	1.05	4.43	1.20	−2.36	41	0.023	5.00	1.23	4.33	1.05	−0.373	41	0.724
Behaviours	Mean/Median	Std. dev.	Mean/Median	Std. dev.	t/Z	df	p	Mean/Median	Std. dev.	Mean/Median	Std. dev.	t/Z	df	p
Task-oriented	5.75	0.62	5.00	0.86	−4.29	98	0.000	5.20	0.77	5.89	0.79	−3.73	98	0.000
Relations-oriented	6.00	0.81	5.50	0.83	−2.22	98	0.026	5.62	0.85	5.70	0.79	−0.42	98	0.678
Change-oriented	5.77	0.66	4.97	0.61	6.24	98	0.000	5.32	0.72	5.78	0.74	−2.68	98	0.009

Note: Depending on the normality of the data, we report here the results of independent samples t-tests or Mann–Whitney U tests. The behaviours were scored on a 7-point Likert scale; the values were ranked on a 9-point scale.

Table 6. Illustrative quotes comparing Brazilian and Dutch sample.

Coded behaviours	Brazilian quotes and behavioural sub codes (in bold)	Dutch quotes and behavioural sub codes (in bold)
Task-oriented	Sharing feedback and information: Boss, #2: ‘He also shares feedback and information with employees […] so that we all know what is happening.’	Monitoring operations: Focal manager, #8: ‘When I just started my job, we had all these shelves stuffed with materials. I thought to myself: “this cannot be correct”. So, you start talking to them, observe, check the dust on the shelves. “How often do you use this?” “Well, I don’t know” “But what is the purpose?” This is how I start the conversation.’
	Organizing work activities to improve effectiveness: Boss, #2: ‘He took the responsibility over the problem, which he saw as a challenge and kept the control, but at the same time he kept employees also involved and let them contribute to the solution.’	Resolving issues: Focal manager, #10: ‘We received an email that we would loose 10,000 clients to another department. That news started to spread among employees. I then visited the three teams that would be affected by this, joined their weekly meeting and explained the reasons why.’
		Collecting and disseminating information: Focal manager, #12: ‘Collecting information, then taking a step back to observe what is going on and then sharing this with the team. Trying to transfer the awareness development to other people.’
Relations-oriented	Listening to ideas of employees: Boss, #2: ‘He is always open for suggestions and new ideas for better quality and collaboration.’	Publicly recognising contributions and accomplishments: Focal manager, #9: ‘When you see that the lines are running smoothly, you see the team leaders give their team compliments, when the team works well, and it even leads to results! That is when I say, “See, this is the evidence. We can do it!”.’
	Providing support and encouragement: Subordinate, #4: ‘He gives his people the option to develop different skills and let them become open minded about their work […] he wants you to brainstorm and really wants to talk to his people.’	Publicly recognising contributions and accomplishments: Focal manager, #10: ‘Yesterday, I also sent an email to everyone to tell them “guys, I am proud of the way this went”. Because it truly goes well!’
		Publicly recognising contributions and accomplishments: Focal manager, #12: ‘Last Friday I also, rather spontaneously, broke our company policy by calling a gathering, with the seniors, to share the story I just told you and open a bottle of Champagne. (…) Celebrating successes is key.’
Change-oriented	Encouraging viewing things from different perspectives: Subordinate, #4: ‘He encourages his employees to be more open-minded and see their work from different perspectives’	Building coalition of stakeholders to get change approved: Subordinate, #10: ‘He first discussed it in the management meeting and then also involved us asking: “Guys, this is what we are going to do. What do you think? Does anyone have any ideas? And, eh, are we in?”.’
	Leading by example and modelling exemplary behaviour: Boss, #3: ‘He teaches, leads, and develops the people who work with him. […] He is one of the role models […] He is a very calm guy which gives him success in terms of workplace transformation. (…) He is a very flexible guy, and he led some projects in the past very technical about installations […] During very difficult times he is calm […] and he led the guys of the product development, and he had a very good influence.’	Building coalition of stakeholders to get change approved: Focal manager, #11: ‘I see the seniors and team leaders as a kind of tandem: I strongly involved them, in various sessions. I asked them to think along, like: “How can we improve our customer satisfaction?”.’
	Expressing confidence team can attain objectives: Boss, #3: ‘for lean manufacturing you need to look for the implementation […] and try to change the culture all the time […] So the change management of this kind of manager I think it is the most important one can have. (…) They needed to believe again that change is possible for everybody, also for managers. They need to see that it is possible, the real physical change.’	Leading by example and modelling exemplary behaviour: Boss, #13: ‘She is not afraid to, yes, provide feedback! And I also see her role modelling the things we want to see.’

Table 7. Summary of the findings: Overlap and differences between the values and behaviours of Brazilian and Dutch effective lean middle managers.

	Brazilian	Dutch
Values
Q-sort (Table 4)	Mainly self-transcendence and openness-to-change values	Mainly self-transcendence and openness-to-change values
t/Z tests (Table 5)	Similar degree of self-transcendence and openness-to-change values; significantly lower self-enhancement and higher conservation values compared to Dutch sample	Similar degree of self-transcendence and openness-to-change values; significantly higher self-enhancement and lower conservation values compared to Brazilian sample
Interviews	Respondents spontaneously added ‘macro managing (remain calm and in control)’	Respondents spontaneously added ‘candour (be open and vulnerable)’
Behaviours
Survey (Table 5)	High mean scores on task-, relations-, and change-oriented behaviours	High mean scores on task-, relations-, and change-oriented behaviours
t/Z tests (Table 5)	Significantly higher scores on all three behavioural categories compared to Dutch sample	Significantly lower scores on all three behavioural categories compared to Brazilian sample
Interviews (Table 6)	Respondents gave examples of all three behavioural categories	Respondents gave examples of all three behavioural categories
Impact of lean maturity
Values (Table 5)	No differences	No differences
Behaviours (Table 5)	More task- and change-oriented behaviours among mature lean managers	More task- and change-oriented behaviours among mature lean managers

Kaasa, A. 2021. “Merging Hofstede, Schwartz, and Inglehart into a Single System.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 52 (4): 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221211011244

 Google Scholar

Fog, A. 2021. “A Test of the Reproducibility of the Clustering of Cultural Variables.” Cross-Cultural Research 55 (1): 29–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397120956948

 Google Scholar

Dobewall, H., and M. Rudnev. 2014. “Common and Unique Features of Schwartz’s and Inglehart’s Value Theories at the Country and Individual Levels.” Cross-Cultural Research 48 (1): 45–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397113493584

 Google Scholar

Maleki, A., and M. De Jong. 2014. “A Proposal for Clustering the Dimensions of National Culture.” Cross-Cultural Research 48 (2): 107–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397113510268

 Google Scholar

Nardon, L., and R. M. Steers. 2009. "The Culture Jungle: Divergence and Convergence in Models of National Culture." In Cambridge Handbook of Culture, Organizations, and Work, edited by Bhagat, R. S. and R. M. Steers, 3–22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Google Scholar

Basabe, N., and M. Ross. 2005. “Cultural Dimensions and Social Behavior Correlates: Individualism-Collectivism and Power Distance.” International Review of Social Psychology 18 (1): 189–225.

 Google Scholar

Schwartz, S. H. 2004. "Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world." In Comparing Cultures: Dimensions of Culture in a Comparative Perspective, International Studies in Sociology and Social Anthropology, edited by Vinken, H., J. Soeters, and P. Ester, 43–73. Leiden: Brill.

 Google Scholar

Van Dun, D. H., and C. P. M. Wilderom. 2016. “Lean-Team Effectiveness through Leader Values and Members’ Informing.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 36 (11): 1530–1550. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-06-2015-0338

 Google Scholar

Van Dun, D. H., and C. P. M. Wilderom. 2021. “Improving High Lean Team Performance through Aligned Behaviour-Value Patterns and Coactive Vicarious Learning-by-Doing.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 41 (13): 65–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-11-2020-0809

 Google Scholar

Van Dun, D. H., J. N. Hicks, and C. P. M. Wilderom. 2017. “Values and Behaviors of Effective Lean Managers: Mixed-Methods Exploratory Research.” European Management Journal 35 (2): 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.05.001

 Google Scholar

Brown, M. E., and L. K. Treviño. 2009. “Leader–follower Values Congruence: Are Socialized Charismatic Leaders Better Able to Achieve It?.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94 (2): 478–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014069.

 Google Scholar

Baer, M., and M. Frese. 2003. “Innovation is Not Enough: climates for Initiative and Psychological Safety, Process Innovations, and Firm Performance.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 24 (1): 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.179.

 Google Scholar

Behrendt, P., S. Matz, and A. S. Göritz. 2017. “An Integrative Model of Leadership Behavior.” The Leadership Quarterly 28 (1): 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.08.002

 Google Scholar

Camuffo, A., and F. Gerli. 2018. “Modeling Management Behaviors in Lean Production Environments.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 38 (2): 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-12-2015-0760

 Google Scholar

Camuffo, A., and S. Micelli. 1997. "Mediterranean Lean Production Supervisors, Teamwork and New Forms of Work Organization in Three European Car Makers." Journal of Management & Governance 1 (1): 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009957500014.

 Google Scholar

De Treville, S., and J. Antonakis. 2006. “Could Lean Production Job Design Be Intrinsically Motivating? Contextual, Configurational, and Levels-of-Analysis Issues.” Journal of Operations Management 24 (2): 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2005.04.001.

 Google Scholar

Lam, M., M. O'Donnell, and D. Robertson. 2015. “Achieving Employee Commitment for Continuous Improvement Initiatives.” International Journal of Operations and Production Management 35 (2): 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03–0134.

 Google Scholar

Poksinska, B., D. Swartling, and E. Drotz. 2013. “The Daily Work of Lean Leaders: Lessons from Manufacturing and Healthcare.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 24 (7-8): 886–898. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.791098

 Google Scholar

Robinson, A. G., and D. M. Schroeder. 2009. “The Role of Front-Line Ideas in Lean Performance Improvement.” Quality Management Journal 16 (4): 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2009.11918248.

 Google Scholar

Spear, S. J., and H. K. Bowen. 1999. “Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System.” Harvard Business Review 77 (5): 96–106.

 Google Scholar

Staats, B. R., D. J. Brunner, and David M. Upton. 2011. “Lean Principles, Learning, and Knowledge Work: Evidence from a Software Services Provider.” Journal of Operations Management 29 (5): 376–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.11.005.

 Google Scholar

Hofstede, G., A. V. Garibaldi de Hilal, S. Malvezzi, B. Tanure, and H. Vinken. 2010. “Comparing Regional Cultures within a Country: Lessons from Brazil.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 41 (3): 336–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022109359696

 Google Scholar