Leadership profiles for 65 countries

cpx · People Architecture · originally published 27 May 2026 · revised September 2026: redrawn diagrams, fifteen additional countries, expanded Russia section

In 2015 Business Insider published a now-classic set of diagrams from British linguist Richard D. Lewis, drawn from his book Cross-Cultural Communication: A Visual Approach. Lewis mapped how leadership looks in 50 countries: pyramids, circles, family trees, scattered nodes. The diagrams on this page are my own redrawings of each country’s pattern from his captions, in a single consistent style, rather than reproductions of his artwork. Below I have taken that material and forced it into something more useful for a global IT shop: a three-layer logical architecture and a country table, so you can locate a stakeholder, a vendor or a team in seconds. This revision adds two things. Russia now gets the full treatment, with four diagrams of my own drawn from chapter 40 of Lewis’s When Cultures Collide. And section 3 covers the fourteen countries and regions that appear in that book but never received a diagram; each gets an original diagram of mine in the same visual spirit, tagged with the same archetypes.

1. The logical architecture

The framework has three layers. Read top to bottom when you encounter a new culture, bottom to top when you are debugging one you already work in.

Collapsing the countries onto these layers yields eight archetypes.

A quick PPM-lens read of the table:

2. Country-by-country

Sixty-five countries and regions in alphabetical order. Each has a diagram of its leadership pattern, an archetype tag, and a working note for the global-delivery context. The shorter notes paraphrase Lewis’s one-line characterisations from the diagram set; the longer readings condense the Leadership and Status section of the relevant chapter in When Cultures Collide (3rd edition, 2006), so treat their political specifics as dated and their cultural substrate as the part worth keeping. Bulgaria is my own reading. Russia and the United States get the full treatment, with further analytical diagrams.

Arab countries A7 Ruler-centric (king, sheikh, clergy)

Lewis covers the Arab world in one chapter with country notes. On leadership, the ruler is at the pinnacle of power: a king in Jordan or Morocco, a leading sheikh in the Gulf States, a dictator in Libya and pre-2003 Iraq. Age matters and elders receive great respect; women have much lower status. In Iraq, power sat with Saddam Hussein’s Sunni clique, and he expected the Shia clergy to become a key element of future leadership. For the Gulf: the chain of authority above your business counterpart is short, personal and family-based, and the person you meet may be able to decide quickly precisely because they answer to one figure rather than to a process. Saudi Arabia and the UAE follow the same sheikh-and-family pattern, with a large expatriate managerial layer executing beneath it.

Argentina A2 Family / Nepotistic

Nepotism is common, and staff are steered by a range of persuasive methods, from paternalism to outright coercion.

Australia A4 Egalitarian

Managers are most effective when they sit in the ring with the mates. Humour, cynicism and the occasional curse buy more authority than a title.

Austria A1 Autocratic

Leadership is autocratic; workers show exaggerated respect to seniors and are uncomfortable when their voices are sought.

Bangladesh A1 Autocratic / Patron

Democratic in form, mostly despotic in the past, and still inclined by tradition toward hierarchical leadership in government, village and family. Religious leaders also rule autocratically. In business the patron or manager makes most decisions. The process takes the form of wordy debate, but the most powerful figure normally has his way; educated women are also accepted as strong leaders. Practically: the debate is real and worth joining, but it is a consultation, not a vote.

Belarus A1 Autocratic

Old-fashioned autocratic; high power distance, consensus rarely sought, female leaders rare.

Belgium (Flemish and Walloon) A3 Consensus / A1 Autocratic

Flemish bosses are relaxed and consensual; in Walloon Belgium, all final decisions rest with the boss. One country, two archetypes, worth remembering before assigning a Belgian PM.

Brazil A6 Charismatic

Autocratic on paper, encouraging and cheerful in person. The personality, not the title, carries the team.

Bulgaria A8 Hybrid / Personal-Network

Lewis did not include Bulgaria in his diagram set. The reading below is my own, applying the same framework, and, fair warning, written by someone with a Sofia mailing address, so push back accordingly. His book does have a Bulgaria chapter; his own paragraph on leadership is quoted in gist at the end.

Post-1989 Bulgarian leadership runs on two parallel circuits, and almost every cross-cultural mistake foreigners make in Sofia comes from confusing them.

Circuit 1: legacy / state-adjacent. A single figure at the top, exaggerated deference in the room, an instinctive top-down command pattern carried over from the socialist period. But the official channel rarely produces the result on its own. Almost every consequential decision is shaped beforehand through връзки (vrăzki, personal connections: family, former classmates, the neighbour who served in the same unit). Russia’s system-bypass pattern (A8) is the closest analogue, but with a Balkan twist: the bypass is less cynical and more familial, more “let me call my cousin” than “let me find the right envelope”.

Circuit 2: Sofia IT, outsourcing and multinationals. Grown since the early 2000s on foreign capital and a strong technical-university pipeline. Inside this circuit leadership looks closer to A4/A5: flat, meritocratic, decisive, often led by managers in their 30s who have worked in or for Western European firms. The same Bulgarian who acts deferentially toward a 60-year-old director in a municipal procurement meeting will, three hours later, run a tight stand-up with three colleagues and a German PO over Teams, in fluent English, with no visible deference at all.

A few practical notes for anyone running a programme across both circuits:

In one sentence: Bulgarian leadership is what you get when a hierarchical, kinship-rooted culture has run for thirty-five years on an institutional substrate that does not quite work, so people learned to lead, and to be led, through the network instead. The IT generation has overlaid a second, parallel mode on top; the underlying circuit is still there when you scratch the surface.

Lewis’s own reading (When Cultures Collide, ch. 33). He notes that Bulgaria has few social barriers because it never had a hereditary nobility, so a wide range of people can aspire to lead; that national pessimism and self-doubt have held back the emergence of outstanding leaders; that the future Bulgarian manager is likely to be less autocratic than Serbian or Greek executives; and that Bulgarian employees are docile compared with Serbs, Croats or Romanians. Patience, he adds, will be required of you. I would only add that “docile” in Circuit 1 and “quietly unconvinced” in Circuit 2 look identical from across the table.

Canada A4 Egalitarian

Subdued in comparison with their American counterparts; staff expect truthful, trusting and egalitarian behaviour.

Chile A8 Transitional (autocratic to participative)

Traditionally autocratic in the South American manner, but further down the road to democracy than most of the region. Reaction to the Pinochet era encourages Chileans to speak up in both politics and business, so the modern Chilean executive is not easy to lead, and attitudes toward authority vary widely from person to person. Expect a mix of deferential and outspoken behaviour within the same team, and calibrate individually rather than by nationality.

China A3 Consensus (with state overlay)

Consensus is generally highly valued; in state-controlled firms a leadership group decides policy. Do not confuse this with Japanese ringi: the upward signature trail is shorter and the senior cadre much more visible.

Colombia A8 Hybrid (strong but consultative)

Wealth is an important and growing status factor, though its origins are often doubtful; professors, doctors and church figures are respected, and the country’s literary and artistic tradition confers real prestige. Decades of civil conflict have left Colombians unsure what kind of leader they need: some want a dictator, others a flexible negotiator. In business most want someone midway between strong and weak, able to decide and carry it through but not to impose without consultation, with analytical skill and vision plus the ability to see another point of view. That is a reasonably precise description of a good programme director, which makes Colombia an unusually good cultural fit for structured delivery.

Croatia A8 Hybrid / Status-seeking meritocracy

Leadership historically came from Habsburg imperial or Catholic Church officials, then from Communist Party officials during 45 years of Yugoslavia. Some former communist figures still linger in power, but tourism and the market economy are producing an entrepreneurial managerial class that embraces Western principles. Meritocracy is on the rise, while respect for status and hierarchical rank remains strong. Croatians respect money, power and influence; they get qualified first and then use education for material ends, and the trappings of status (clothes, homes, cars) are eagerly sought. Practically: credentials open the door, visible success keeps it open, and the older hierarchy is still the one that signs.

Czech Republic A4 Egalitarian

Czechs resent imposed power; egalitarianism and democratic institutions are instinctively desired.

Denmark A4 Egalitarian

Top managers can apply considerable pressure, but the atmosphere stays congenial. Horizontal communication is the norm.

Egypt A7 Ideological / Military

Dictators, the Islamic establishment and the military jostle for influence. Business leaders draw on experience and try, not always successfully, to avoid politics.

Estonia A5 Meritocratic

Highly individualistic. Each person prefers to lead rather than be led. Status comes from achievement, decisiveness and energy.

Finland A5 Meritocratic

Decisive at crunch time. Finnish leaders do not hesitate to stand shoulder to shoulder with staff and help out in a crisis.

France A6 Charismatic (Executive-centric)

Authority centres on the chief executive. Managers see themselves as valued leaders in society, and expect to be treated accordingly.

Germany A5 Meritocratic (Systematic)

Strive to create a perfect system. Long hours, obey the rules, insist on fair play. The most predictable archetype to plan against, and the least forgiving of process gaps.

Greece A1 Autocratic

In the world of business, management is autocratic.

Hong Kong A6 Entrepreneurial (family-firm)

Lewis gives Hong Kong no separate leadership diagram, but the chapter is clear about the underlying pattern: Chinese and Confucian at the base, with family-owned firms and a single-minded purpose to make money. Hong Kongers negotiate briskly and factually to get quick results, show impatience, want facts without preamble or padding, and may interrupt if you are slow. The tempo is American; people live from deal to deal, with little red tape and few inhibitions. As a counterpart it is the fastest-moving culture in the Asian set and the least tolerant of a slow, ceremonial governance rhythm.

Hungary A8 Hybrid / Cynical

An absence of military and political triumphs has produced a cynical attitude to any kind of leadership. Expect dry humour and quiet non-compliance instead of open disagreement.

India A2 Family / Nepotistic

Nepotism is rife in traditional Indian companies; family members hold key positions and work in close unison. Highly relevant for engagement with HCL, Wipro and TCS: relationship-led status reporting almost always outperforms tool-led.

Indonesia A8 Hybrid (Delegated)

Managers tend to be indifferent to the business process; leadership is often entrusted to a resident Chinese professional class.

Iran A7 Religious

Spiritual leadership is dominant. Government leaders must be fully qualified theologians, selected by experts.

Ireland A6 Charismatic

Leaders are charismatic, educated, and known for their ability to persuade and arbitrate.

Israel A5 Meritocratic

Lacking an aristocracy, society values achievement and dynamism in its leaders. Expect direct, almost impatient, conversation.

Italy A2 Family / Aristocratic

Comfortable in a hierarchy led by persons of noble birth or from traditionally eminent families. The org chart and the family tree overlap more than the HR system shows.

Japan A3 Consensus (Ringi)

Ideas originate on the factory floor; suggestions move up by collecting signatures across workers and middle managers (ringi). The slowest culture to decide, the fastest to execute.

Kazakhstan A1 Autocratic / Hierarchical (tribal-paternal)

The Kazakh leadership model is autocratic and hierarchical, at home, in business and in politics. Islam is less pervasive than in neighbouring republics and is balanced by governmental pragmatism, especially toward foreigners in the oil industry. Managers address staff in a vigorous, expressive style drawing on a rich literary language, and paternalism encourages obedience and compliance. Meetings are intensely hierarchical (seating by rank, most senior farthest from the door), interpreters are usually needed, and you must never openly contradict a senior team member; disagreement is signalled indirectly. Feigned anger and intransigence are tactics rather than feelings. Deals take more than one visit, but a given word is generally kept.

Korea A2 Family (Chaebol)

Chaebols are family-owned. Nepotism is rampant; sons, brothers and nephews all hold key positions.

Latvia A5 Meritocratic

Individualistic, everyone wants to be a manager, but firm, confident, knowledgeable leadership earns respect.

Lithuania A8 Hybrid / Transitional

Older managers retain Soviet bureaucratic habits; the younger generation is developing a more dynamic style under Nordic influence.

Malaysia A2 Inherited status / Paternal

People born into high positions are expected to demonstrate leadership. A good leader is religiously devout, sincere, humble and tactful. Status is inherited rather than earned and is confirmed by leadership and a caring attitude; Malays are comfortable in a hierarchy where they have a definite role. They are modest, rarely ask for promotion and expect a caring senior to grant it when the time is ripe. For a PM this cuts both ways: silence about career is not lack of ambition, and a manager who does not look after people loses legitimacy quickly. Note that the Chinese and Indian business communities in Malaysia run on their own patterns.

Mexico A2 Family / Paternal

The leader is a family man and a good Catholic; subordinates obey without question.

Netherlands A3 Consensus

Merit, competence, achievement, but consensus is mandatory, with many key players in any decision. This is the polder model in one diagram.

New Zealand A4 Egalitarian

Respect authority, provided the manager is calm, egalitarian and reasoning.

Norway A5 Meritocratic (Accessible)

The boss is very much in the centre of things, and staff have access most of the time.

Pakistan A7 Ideological / Military

Hierarchical, but constrained by the military and increasingly by Islamic leaders.

Philippines A2 Family / Connections

Leadership is based on family name, age and connections. Subordinates are generally obedient and avoid dissent, and paternalism is common; employees may ask superiors for help with personal matters, and older people are expected to advise the young. Managers must give clear instructions to make progress, and the military has sometimes been involved in political leadership. Status comes from family name, connections and education, and despite the Filipino love of democracy, senior and even middle-ranking people can be hypersensitive to imagined slights. Practically: instructions must be explicit, and public correction of anyone with rank is a mistake you will pay for later.

Poland A5 Meritocratic

Romantic values endure, but meritocracy now dominates advancement.

Portugal A2 Family

Business and political leaders come from the leading families; staff are generally obedient and deferential.

Romania A1 Autocratic / Paternal (Italian pattern)

A land of peasant masses ruled for centuries by lords, clan leaders and autocrats. In the post-Ceausescu period, Lewis finds modern leadership styles held back because government was still run by former communist leaders under new labels, and business leaders remain exposed to the political apparatus. Romanian managers are developing a style he compares to Italian managers: autocratic but paternalistic, and using emotion as a management tool. Expect warmth and drama in the same meeting, and expect the decision to be made at the top regardless of how the discussion went.

Russia A8 Hybrid (System-Bypass)

Official channels founder on bureaucracy and apathy. Using key people and personal alliances, the system is bypassed and the result achieved anyway.

The diagram caption above is all Lewis gives Russia in the visual set. The reading below expands it with chapter 40 of When Cultures Collide, plus his note on Russian as a “language of management”. Lewis wrote most of this in the early 2000s, so treat it as a profile of the cultural substrate, not a commentary on the last few years.

The A8 tag on Russia is easy to misread as “chaotic”. It is not. Lewis’s point is that the bypass is a fully developed second operating system, older than the Soviet Union and far more reliable than the official one. Two forces shaped it, and neither was ever under any government’s control: the sheer size of the land and the harshness of the climate. Indefensible steppe and a short, frantic growing season taught scattered communities to band together for survival and to treat outsiders as a threat. On top of that geography, Lewis traces centuries of governance that exploited the same communities: the Orthodox Church, the Czars and then the Soviets, with a secret police in place since Ivan the Terrible, not since the KGB.

His Figure 40.1 draws the resulting chain, and it reads like a threat model of why the official channel fails:

That last row is the entire leadership diagram. The habits that outsiders label “Soviet” (apathy, suspicion of foreigners, pessimism, petty corruption, withdrawal) were, in Lewis’s reading, visible centuries before Lenin. Communism did not create the bypass; it inherited it and made it indispensable.

Two faces, one person. Lewis is emphatic that the collective, cautious, stone-faced public Russian and the warm, emotional, generous private Russian are the same human being, and that the second face appears once the person concludes they are not being taken in yet again. He describes the Eastern and Western elements in the Russian makeup as producing something that looks almost schizophrenic to a foreigner, with the advice not to be fazed, because the other face always returns. Interestingly, he finds more common ground between Russians and Americans than either would expect: both distrust aristocrats, both prefer bluntness to smooth European eloquence, and both think of themselves as having a mission in the world.

What this did to management. The Soviet manager did not practise leadership or motivation as disciplines; Lewis cites Nigel Holden’s observation that these topics simply did not matter under socialist planning. Results were produced by threats and coercion, and his Figure 5.25 shows the loop in three words: coercion produces compliance, compliance produces fudged results. Every Russian over roughly forty grew up inside that loop, and it explains the single most useful sentence in the chapter for anyone running a programme: anything you introduce as an official directive or regulation will be distrusted, while the same content offered as a personal recommendation will be embraced.

At the table. Lewis’s negotiation notes are the most operationally concrete part of the chapter. Condensed for a delivery context:

Practical notes for the PPM lens. Read the rows below against the Bulgarian entry above; the family resemblance is real, but the Russian version is more disciplined, more theatrical and far more suspicious.

In one sentence: Russian leadership is what centuries of vast distances, brutal winters and predatory government produce when a warm, emotional, collective people concludes that the only reliable authority is the person in front of them, so the formal system exists to be complied with in public and bypassed in private, and the manager who understands that stops sending memos and starts building alliances.

(This is also the reason Russia and Bulgaria sit in the same A8 cell despite feeling very different in the room: both run a personal circuit underneath a formal one. The difference is that the Bulgarian bypass is familial and rueful, while the Russian one is strategic, chess-like and, when it works, oddly joyful.)

Scotland A4 Egalitarian

Clan questions aside, power distance is low and leadership is very democratic.

Serbia A1 Autocratic

The man in power can get away with a lot. One of Lewis’s bluntest characterisations.

Singapore A1/A5 Hierarchical meritocracy (Lee Kuan Yew model)

The current leadership model, Lewis says, is very similar to Lee Kuan Yew’s: disciplined, planned, hierarchical and honest. Singaporean Asians are comfortable in hierarchical structures, but value is also placed on good teamwork, especially among the younger generation. Contrast with Hong Kong is instructive: Singapore speaks with one voice, plans long term and regulates strictly; Hong Kong lives deal to deal. As a delivery hub Singapore is one of the easiest places to run a governance-heavy programme, because the culture already believes in the process.

Slovakia A1 Autocratic

Autocratic over consensual; few are anxious to embrace responsibility.

Slovenia A8 Hybrid / Pragmatic

Characterised more by pragmatism than idealism or rhetoric.

South Africa A2 Clan / Lineage (traditional), A4/A5 in corporate life

Lewis treats South Africa in three parts. His Figure 15.3 on Black South African leadership draws a tribe at the centre that fixes customary law, sets moral standards, provides emotional security and a network, defines responsibility and expects members sent to the city to support the village. Authority traditionally sits with genealogically senior men, and clans link through intermarriage and shared identity. Integration into the world economy has weakened that influence, producing new urban elites and an exploited urban proletariat. For a delivery lens: the Johannesburg or Cape Town office will run on Anglo corporate norms, but obligations to family and community are real, and time off for them is not negotiable in the way a Northern European would expect.

Spain A6 Charismatic

Autocratic and charismatic; work from intuition more than logic; take pride in personal influence over staff.

Sub-Saharan Africa A2 Clan / Lineage

Societies traditionally based on clans and lineages, though that influence is weakening under economic change.

Sweden A4 Egalitarian (Decentralised)

Decentralised and democratic. Better-informed employees perform better, at the cost of delayed decisions.

Switzerland A4 Egalitarian (Checks and Balances)

Deep-rooted distrust of government; the system resembles the American array of checks and balances. Useful framing for any HQ governance discussion in Rümlang.

Thailand A7 Religious / Monarchic

The King’s power emanates from the people: Head of State, of the armed forces, and upholder of Buddhism and all other religions.

Turkey A6 Charismatic (Ataturk Model)

Ataturk is the model: brave, firm, decisive, innovative, humane, commonsensical.

Ukraine A1 Autocratic

Autocracy, political manipulation, a tendency toward corruption, and a preference for males. (Lewis’s 2015 framing clearly pre-dates the last decade of upheaval.)

United Kingdom A6 Charismatic (Diplomatic)

Diplomatic, tactful, laid-back, reasonable, willing to compromise, and ruthless when necessary.

United States A6 Charismatic (Career-driven)

Assertive, aggressive, goal- and action-oriented, optimistic, ready for change. Capable of teamwork, but the first interest is furthering one’s own career.

The caption is Lewis’s diagram-set summary. The reading below draws on his leadership chapter and the United States chapter of When Cultures Collide (3rd edition, 2006). As with Russia, treat it as a description of the substrate rather than of the current news cycle.

The A6 tag can mislead in the opposite direction from Russia’s A8. “Charismatic” suggests a French or Spanish executive whose personality holds the organisation together. Lewis’s American manager is charismatic in a narrower sense: the personality is a vehicle for the individual’s own trajectory, and the organisation is the current stage for it. He traces the pattern to the frontier. Unlimited land rewarded whoever moved first; wilderness demanded self-reliance; the absence of an aristocracy meant talent and initiative, not birth, got ahead; and a country founded by throwing off a king kept a lasting distrust of supreme authority. The values that followed (speed, risk, optimism, acting in one’s own interest, status by achievement, a preference for the future over the past) are exactly the traits in the caption.

Status and motivation. With no tradition of aristocracy, and an active aversion to one, money became the yardstick of progress, and Lewis notes that intellectuality and refinement count for less as leadership qualities than they do in Europe. Because status rests almost entirely on achievement and wealth, age and seniority matter less: American managers are often young, female or both, and chief executives are handed authority and expected to use it, keeping it only for as long as the results hold. Motivation has none of the labyrinthine quality it has in European or Asian firms; it is monetary (bonuses, performance pay, profit-sharing, stock options) plus, for the young, the challenge of getting ahead itself. The one non-monetary need he flags is unusual: unlike Europeans or Asians, Americans want constant feedback, encouragement and praise from the senior executive.

Individualism inside procedure. This is the part that catches Europeans out. The rampant individualism of American society is, in business, rigidly controlled by strict procedures. Executives may decide alone, especially abroad, but within the corporate framework; the young are constantly supervised because they need continual appraisal; seniors pop in and out of offices sharing information and inspiration, where a German senior would monitor without hovering; memos and written directives are everywhere; and shareholder pressure makes quarterly reporting and rolling forecasts non-negotiable. Hiring is fast and firing is fast, often without compensation and with little stigma on either side. Lewis’s summary of the sentiment in the room: if the figures are right you can deal with the Devil, and if there is no profit a transaction with a friend is hardly worthwhile.

At the table. Lewis calls American businesspeople the toughest in the world and, in many respects, the easiest to deal with, because the philosophy is uncomplicated: make as much money as possible as quickly as possible, through hard work, speed, opportunism and the power of money itself. His meeting behaviours, condensed for a delivery context:

Practical notes for the PPM lens. Lewis’s own advice is aimed at Northern Europeans, whom he considers well placed: Americans receive straightforward managers warmly and are irritated by what they see as the devious manners of Latins and Asians. The rows below fold his empathy and motivation notes into delivery terms.

One more observation from the chapter that PMs feel daily: American English is, in Lewis’s phrase, irrevocably tough, clever and tending toward the exaggerated, where British English hides the same content under understatement. “You gotta be kidding” and “that is an interesting idea” are the same disagreement. When an American colleague says a vendor is going to get hurt, they mean the arrangement is not advantageous; when a British colleague says the team will have to do its homework, they may mean they are ready to walk away. “Go for broke” and “stake everything on one venture” describe the same decision, and a European who hears only the second will misjudge the risk appetite of the person saying the first.

In one sentence: American leadership is what the frontier produces when it is moved indoors, so the individual still acts fast, alone and in their own interest, but now inside a box of procedure, forecasts and feedback that exists to keep that energy pointed at the quarter; deal with the person as an equal, hold your position, and read the contract.

(The pairing with Russia is instructive. Lewis finds the two more alike than either expects: both distrust aristocrats, both prefer bluntness to European polish, both believe they have a mission. The difference is where trust lives. The Russian trusts the person and bypasses the system; the American trusts the contract and the forecast, and treats the person as this quarter’s counterpart.)

Uzbekistan A1 Autocratic (state-dominated)

A long-lived dictatorship that, in Lewis’s words, hardly encourages freewheeling or innovative leadership at any level. A younger generation of managers is nevertheless emerging with familiarity with American management style, and Uzbeks learn quickly and are known for opportunism. For programme work, the state is the real counterpart even when a private company is on the contract, and personal agility inside a rigid structure is the skill to look for in local leads.

Venezuela A1 Strongman / Nepotistic

Wealth counts most, though status is also accorded to the very civilised: artists, writers, teachers, doctors and engineers. Leadership has traditionally centred on a strong dictator or president. Nepotism is common, and staff are managed through persuasion ranging from benign paternalism to outright exploitation and coercion. Lewis’s Argentina caption applies almost word for word.

Vietnam A7 Ideological (Socialist)

Leaders must have a good war record and adhere to socialist thinking. Southern managers are more Westernised.

Wales A4 Egalitarian (Communal)

Music, choirs and rugby are binding factors; the smallness of most Welsh enterprises strips out pomposity and excessive charisma.

3. Takeaways for global IT and PPM

A handful of patterns that show up repeatedly once you have classified your stakeholder and vendor footprint against the tables above.

The framework is a starting heuristic, not a verdict on any individual. Every Indian PM is not a nepotism case; every German is not a Prussian process-bot; every Italian is not waiting for the family patriarch to sign. But knowing the archetype that the culture still leans on tells you what defaults you are fighting against, or what defaults you can lean into, when you are trying to move a programme across borders.

Sources and attribution

• Country characterisations in section 2: Richard D. Lewis, Cross-Cultural Communication: A Visual Approach, Richard Lewis Communications, as summarised in the Business Insider article below. His original diagrams are not reproduced here; every diagram on this page is an original drawing of mine based on his written descriptions, released for reuse with attribution.
• Country readings from the book: Richard D. Lewis, When Cultures Collide: Leading Across Cultures, 3rd edition, Nicholas Brealey International, 2006. Chapters 5 (languages of management), 6 (leadership), 12 (United States), 33 (Bulgaria), 40 (Russia) and the country chapters for South Africa, Croatia, Romania, Central Asia, the Arab countries, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Chile, Venezuela and Colombia. Paraphrased; the Russia analysis diagrams follow his Figures 40.1 and 5.25 in content; the United States ones follow his leadership chapter.
• Original article: Kathleen Elkins, “These charts reveal how to lead people in 50 countries”, Business Insider, 8 June 2015.
• Lewis’s consultancy: crossculture.com.

Written for commentary and analysis; corrections welcome.