Exploring the Influence of Culture in the Present and Future of Multicultural Organizations: Comparing the Case of Spain and Latin America

Abstract

The present is bringing about significant change in many aspects of our lives, and this impact has also reached project management. Working with multicultural and virtual teams makes it necessary to review how these teams are managed in order to achieve the expected success of a project. A survey has been designed based on the six cultural dimensions proposed by Hofstede. It was completed by engineering students from Spain and Latin American countries, and defines behaviors associated with each cultural dimension and was personalized for a university context, in which the participants were living. Apart from perceived behaviors, the survey also measures desired ones. Therefore, its analysis makes it possible to detect both the existing differences between students in the countries analyzed, as well as the differences between the current situation and the desired situation perceived by participants. The latter information is relevant for anticipating possible changes in the behavior of teams in multicultural organizations. The results lead us to reflect on the aspects that can help to strengthen teamwork and its management when dealing with multicultural projects, especially those involving professionals from Spain and Latin America.

1. Introduction

National culture manifests itself, according to Hofstede, through the behavior of people in specific circumstances, which determines their values. These values are passed from generation to generation, but are also influenced by external factors, and therefore, are changing, although with everything related to culture, in a slow way [1].

The existence of different behaviors according to national culture has taken on an important role in organizations due to globalization and the international expansion of projects. These phenomena have led to more culturally diverse project teams and the need to pay attention to cultural differences so that teams can better manage conflicts when they appear [2].

The objective of this work is to identify the differences between students from Colombia, Ecuador, and Spain, associated with each of the behaviors of Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions, in order to detect those aspects that need to be taken care of in the management of multicultural teams between these countries of such close collaboration. These differences will be evaluated not only from a perceived (current) point of view, but also from a desired (future) one. This prospective analysis offers many clues for detecting possible changes in the behavior of tomorrow’s teams (formed by these current students) and to be ready to mitigate potential conflicts in the organization.

The research questions (RQs) that will help to achieve this objective are as follows:

RQ1: Do Ecuador and Colombia share a similar culture?

RQ2: Do Ecuador and Colombia have a different culture than Spain?

RQ3: Do Ecuador, Colombia, and Spain desire to minimize cultural differences?

Therefore, the scope of this research starts with an extensive review of the literature on cross-cultural studies and their influence on project management, and then compares the values obtained by Hofstede’s previous studies with those achieved on this occasion with students belonging to three universities in Colombia, Ecuador, and Spain.

Quantitative analysis of the results allows us to define some guidelines to reduce conflicts between multicultural teams.

Literature Review

The influence of culture on management activities has been of particular interest, as it is a determining factor in people management. Thus, studies have been conducted on the influence of national culture on leadership [3,4], communication management [5,6,7], and risk management [8,9,10]. Some studies have highlighted the influence of national culture on project management, even questioning whether project guidelines developed by the main project management associations, such as PMI [11], IPMA [12], PAMJ [13], or OGC UK [14] with Western origins can be valid in other southern cultures such as Africa [15].

In a more general way, Meyer’s study [16] addresses the importance of national cultural behaviors for the management of international projects. However, if there is one study about national culture that has been widely recognized in project management, it is that of sociologist Geert Hofstede (1928–2020) and his six cultural dimensions [17]. These dimensions were supported by previous findings in other studies, such as those of Edward T. Hall [18], or Fons Trompenaars [19].

Over and above age and gender, individual perceptions can vary considerably with cultural differences [20]. Today, organizations recruit from a large talent pool, building multi-cultural project teams which makes it ever more necessary to understand cultural differences and what they imply to achieve project success [21]. Many of the factors that have been identified to contribute to project failure are strongly linked with culture, such as the use of inappropriate project team structures [22], the ability to maintain stakeholder’s commitment through confidence and interest [23], a lack of project team integration [24], cultural knowledge [25], and ineffective communication [26].

Previous research suggests that culture can affect projects and highlights different aspects. One of these is that cultural differences can increase team heterogeneity, having better performance than homogenous teams [27]. Another one is the importance of effective learning and development in project team members considering that, when these are from different cultures, they tend to have different preferred learning styles [28]. Finally, other authors pay attention not only to different work models [29], but also to different project leadership styles [30]. In some countries, a directive leadership style is preferred, while in others a collaborative or participatory style is preferred [31].

The importance of cultural factors in project management was recognized by Hofstede himself, who emphasized that project management methodologies could be useful in one culture but not in another [32]. Hofstede’s six dimensions [1] are detailed as follows:

(1)

Power Distance (PD): this shows how accepted hierarchies are in a society. In a project management example, it could be considered as the authority exercised by the project manager to their team.

(2)

Individualism-Collectivism (ID): this represents preferences based on concern for oneself and one’s relatives or for a broader group of people. Individualism in a project team is the preference for individual and self-organized work.

(3)

Masculinity-Feminity (MA): this measures the inclination to compete or to co-operate. In project management, it could be seen as the pursuit of goal accomplishment versus team welfare.

(4)

Uncertainty Avoidance (UA): this expresses discomfort in the presence of uncertainty. In professional environments, it is usually shown through strict codes of conduct and excessive bureaucracy.

(5)

Long-Term Orientation (LT): this demonstrates a preference for long-term planning. It is especially useful for the strategic vision of projects in an organization.

(6)

Indulgence-Restraint (IN): this refers to the freedom to express feelings and enjoy life. In a project, it would have a strong relationship with team management: the communication, trust, and good relationships that are built between team members.

Hofstede’s studies have been carried out since the 1960s, initially beginning with employees of the multinational IBM, and gradually extending to the entire population.

Hofstede’s model of culture has been successfully applied in research on a wide range of organizational and national issues. To name some of them: leadership, teamwork, justice, communication, ethics, satisfaction, commitment, foreign market entry modes, international trade, and individual, company, and national performance [33]. Moreover, his original cultural indices have been used in thousands of studies in different cultures and sectors [34,35,36,37,38,39].

Regarding education, multiple investigations compare Hofstede’s results with those obtained by students from different countries [38,40].

Even when other cultural frameworks have been published, such as Schwartz [41,42], GLOBE [3,19], and the World Values Survey [43,44], Hofstede’s work on multicultural context has been much more cited than others [45].

Hofstede’s model has drawn criticisms. For example, McSweeney [46], questioned Hofstede’s framing of culture as “national” and criticized his methodological assumptions, questioning the framework and findings. Winch et al. [47] tested and rejected hypotheses implied by Hofstede [48] on the effect of cultural dimensions on differences in organizational structure between the French and British.

The main limitations highlighted by researchers are [49]: (1) about the generalizability of his findings [46,50]; and (2) the evidence of cultural changes around the world [51,52,53].

After 25 years since Hofstede’s culture model was published [48], researchers [45] performed a deep analysis of the impact of this model, beginning to discuss limitations and making recommendations for researchers who use it.

The GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) research program expanded the Hofstede model. Hofstede [54] performed a re-analysis of his previous dimensions under the light of the GLOBE results. He affirms that finally, conclusions resemble the original Hofstede model. On the other hand, Ref. [55] criticized this re-analysis of GLOBE data, affirming that it is inappropriate and produces incomprehensible results.

Nakata and Sivakumar [56] researched the multicultural impact on international business studies using Hofstede’s framework, and proposed a method to design better multi-country samples aimed at determining the effects of national culture on various business phenomena. Taras et al. [49] also propose a different approach to the methodology, recommending meta-analysis. They consider that meta-analysis offers an updated set of national cultural scores along the dimensions of Hofstede’s cultural framework, and that this would be helpful in longitudinal studies concerning the interplay between culture and other phenomena.

Recent research [57] affirms that their results invalidate Hofstede´s UA and MAS-FEM theories, and encourages researchers and consultants to reconsider the use of Hofstede’s UA and MAS–FEM.

Nevertheless, even after analyzing the pros and cons detected in Hofstede’s research, no one can dispute that Hofstede´s framework remains influential in research, and a number of studies have found high influence at different levels [45]. Researchers affirm that a key strength of Hofstede’s work has been its ability to adapt and remain progressive [58].

2. Methodology

Adler [59] identified three types of cross-cultural management research. They are (i) unicultural (organizational management within a single country) research, (ii) comparative (organizational management in several countries and delineated comparisons between them) research, and (iii) intercultural (interactions among organizational members from different countries) research.

This study uses the third type of research proposed by Adler, working with undergraduate industrial engineering students from three countries: Colombia, Ecuador, and Spain.

2.1. Sample Features

The characteristics of the sample, formed by a total of 334 students (143 Colombians, 98 Ecuadorians, and 93 Spaniards), are shown graphically in Figure 1, indicating the gender of the participants for each of the countries.

In terms of age, the group between 21 and 23 years of age dominates, with practically half of the sample (48.8%) falling into this category. The sample between 24 and 26 years was the next largest group, encompassing 28.44% of the participants. Those over 27 represented 11.97% of the sample, while finally, those under 20 represented 10.78%.

Regarding the gender of the participants (Figure 1), given that these are STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) studies, there is a clear male dominance, with only 31.5% of the sample being female in Colombia, 20.4% in Ecuador, and 37.6% in Spain. The percentages obtained are in line with the values offered by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which places the figure at 25.8% globally for undergraduate studies [60]. This confirms that these types of studies have a marked male profile, as denounced by authors such as Botella [61].

The fact that participants were all students minimizes the variance in terms of age, education, and other potential confounds [39]. This has been defended by previous researchers, affirming that homogeneity in the sample improves results [62,63].

2.2. Validity of the Survey

The survey was conducted via Google Forms, and consisted of a brief first part to characterize the sample, and a second part in which the participants were asked to give their opinion twice on each of the statements made, the first time showing what they perceive, and the second time showing what they wish would happen (see Appendix A). This opinion was measured on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 meant strongly disagree and 10 meant strongly agree. In total, there were 24 statements, 4 for each of Hofstede’s dimensions, and each of the 24 being evaluated twice, as indicated. Thus, PD1 to PD4 correspond to the four statements assessing the Power Distance dimension; ID1 to ID4 the Individualism-Collectivism dimension; MA1 to MA4 the Masculinity-Femininity dimension; UA1 to IA4 the Uncertainty Avoidance dimension; LT1 to LT4 the Long-Term Orientation dimension; and IN1 to IN4 the Indulgence-Restraint dimension. All of these variables were assessed twice, as perceived or desired (coding in this study added a P or D, respectively, at the end of each variable).

The contrast between what was observed and what was desired was inspired by previous work by van Oudenhoven [40], who also worked with students, analyzing their opinion on certain statements based on Hofstede’s dimensions (he only worked with the first four dimensions because they were the only ones that existed at that time), showing first what was observed and then what was desired. In this research, the statements, also based on the Hofstede’s dimensions, have been designed by the authors based on their experience in multicultural studies.

The correlation analysis carried out on the results shows that the six clusters were well-designed and correctly represented each of the perceived dimensions, with statistically significant positive correlations in all of them, except in the case of the uncertainty avoidance dimension. The strength and validity of the cluster design can be seen in

Table 1. Correlations within the clusters.

	PD1P	PD2P	PD3P	PD4P	ID1P	ID2P	ID3P	ID4P	MA1P	MA2P	MA3P	MA4P	UA1P	UA2P	UA3P	UA4P	LT1P	LT2P	LT3P	LT4P	IN1P	IN2P	IN3P	IN4P
PD1P	1	0.195 **	0.348 **	0.332 **	0.159 **	0.167 **	0.201 **	0.092	0.121 *	0.254 **	0.333 **	0.188 **	0.355 **	−0.085	0.275 **	0.274 **	−0.220 **	−0.249 **	−0.173 **	−0.226 **	−0.281 **	−0.149 **	−0.114 *	−0.228 **
PD2P		1	0.433 **	0.304 **	0.208 **	0.190 **	0.242 **	0.180 **	0.164 **	0.384 **	0.522 **	0.240 **	0.258 **	0.009	0.223 **	0.239 **	−0.210 **	−0.156 **	−0.144 **	−0.04	−0.146 **	−0.265 **	−0.03	−0.184 **
PD3P			1	0.521 **	0.257 **	0.166 **	0.252 **	0.224 **	0.141 **	0.434 **	0.506 **	0.241 **	0.425 **	−0.01	0.383 **	0.346 **	−0.263 **	−0.247 **	−0.266 **	−0.130 *	−0.263 **	−0.334 **	−0.202 **	−0.260 **
PD4P				1	0.180 **	0.128 *	0.241 **	0.283 **	0.06	0.288 **	0.306 **	0.196 **	0.269 **	−0.089	0.196 **	0.283 **	0.09	−0.08	−0.07	−0.01	−0.04	−0.124 *	−0.118 *	−0.112 *
ID1P					1	0.297 **	0.377 **	0.303 **	0.162 **	0.192 **	0.180 **	0.197 **	0.123 *	0.036	0.069	0.122 *	0.037	0.044	−0.025	0.055	0.044	−0.02	0	0.032
ID2P						1	0.303 **	0.229 **	0.137 *	0.267 **	0.209 **	0.106	0.148 **	0.055	0.161 **	0.178 **	0.103	0.141 *	0.075	0.067	0.097	−0.03	0.067	0.011
ID3P							1	0.263 **	0.114 *	0.323 **	0.210 **	0.035	0.256 **	−0.054	0.087	0.199 **	0.062	0.084	0.051	0.109 *	0.055	−0.09	0.003	0.065
ID4P								1	0.111 *	0.259 **	0.124 *	0.202 **	0.168 **	−0.048	0.114 *	0.202 **	0.079	0.101	0.174 **	0.116 *	0.140 *	0.122 *	−0.02	0.067
MA1P									1	0.154 **	0.218 **	.221 **	0.212 **	0.142 **	0.167 **	0.146 **	0.006	−0.045	−0.075	0.057	−0.152 **	−0.129 *	−0.08	−0.122 *
MA2P										1	0.566 **	0.187 **	0.331 **	0.018	0.273 **	0.276 **	−0.090	−0.128 *	−0.105	−0.032	−0.214 **	−0.199 **	−0.05	−0.268 **
MA3P											1	0.221 **	0.443 **	0.051	0.344 **	0.321 **	−0.402 **	−0.319 **	−0.338 **	−0.202 **	−0.381 **	−0.410 **	−0.157 **	−0.406 **
MA4P												1	0.233 **	0.042	0.016	0.123 *	−0.130 *	−0.198 **	−0.130 *	−0.135 *	−0.127 *	−0.135 *	−0.09	−0.155 **
UA1P													1	0.010	0.341 **	0.287 **	−0.261 **	−0.236 **	−0.272 **	−0.109 *	−0.326 **	−0.310 **	−0.153 **	−0.244 **
UA2P														1	0.034	0.055	0.118 *	0.093	0.010	0.191 **	0.008	0.115 *	0.117 *	−0.004
UA3P															1	0.231 **	−0.124 *	−0.074	−0.191 **	−0.099	−0.209 **	−0.180 **	−0.07	−0.176 **
UA4P																1	−0.020	0.060	0.025	−0.048	−0.181 **	−0.230 **	−0.05	−0.120 *
LT1P																	1	0.689 **	0.568 **	0.509 **	0.556 **	0.564 **	0.330 **	0.477 **
LT2P																		1	0.598 **	0.542 **	0.551 **	0.488 **	0.335 **	0.523 **
LT3P																			1	0.445 **	0.573 **	0.478 **	0.298 **	0.439 **
LT4P																				1	0.522 **	0.487 **	0.317 **	0.421 **
IN1P																					1	0.583 **	0.490 **	0.671 **
IN2P																						1	0.410 **	0.552 **
IN3P																							1	0.403 **
IN4P																								1

Note: ** statistically significant at the 0.01 (bilateral) level; * statistically significant at the 0.05 (bilateral) level.

.

2.3. Data Analysis

The analysis of the data obtained was carried out using the IBM SPSS statistical program. This program was used not only for descriptive analysis of the results but also for an analysis of variance (ANOVA). This analysis was carried out once normality tests had been performed to ensure the reliability of the analysis. The ANOVA analysis uses the F distribution as the most widely used distribution for hypothesis testing when comparing more than two groups; in this case, the groups are the three countries. Thus, the analysis compares the means of the three groups under the null hypothesis that they are all equal, with a confidence interval of 95%.

3. Results and Discussion

When presenting and discussing the results, first, the results obtained from the perception of the current situation will be shown in comparison with the values obtained by Hofstede [64]. Next, a comparison will be made between the perceived values versus the desired values.

3.1. Comparison with Previous Studies

To compare the values obtained in this study with those previously obtained by Hofstede [64], we used the mean of the values perceived by the students (see

Table 2. Descriptive analysis of the perceived and desired values for all three countries.

Perceived Dimension	Country	N	Mean	Standard Deviation	Sig.	Desired Dimension	Mean	Standard Deviation	Sig.
PD	Colombia	143	6.015	1.869	0.000 *	PD	4.832	2.540	0.000 *
	Ecuador	98	6.683	1.727			4.625	2.467
	Spain	93	7.314	1.544			3.309	1.445
	Total	334	6.573	1.819			4.347	2.351
ID	Colombia	143	5.737	1.951	0.002 *	ID	4.671	2.731	0.000 *
	Ecuador	98	5.897	1.695			4.739	2.629
	Spain	93	5.005	1.907			2.733	1.270
	Total	334	5.580	1.896			4.151	2.534
MA	Colombia	143	5.896	1.910	0.000 *	MA	4.585	2.242	0.000 *
	Ecuador	98	5.765	1.832			4.426	2.252
	Spain	93	7.279	1.424			3.110	1.391
	Total	334	6.243	1.874			4.127	2.136
UA	Colombia	143	5.926	1.667	0.000 *	UA	5.372	1.851	0.007 *
	Ecuador	98	6.522	1.484			5.535	1.657
	Spain	93	7.263	1.165			4.838	1.023
	Total	334	6.473	1.583			5.271	1.621
LT	Colombia	143	6.986	1.721	0.000 *	LT	8.631	1.326	0.011
	Ecuador	98	7.209	1.674			8.658	1.272
	Spain	93	3.163	1.369			8.174	1.185
	Total	334	5.987	2.385			8.511	1.286
IN	Colombia	143	7.685	1.451	0.000 *	IN	8.882	1.143	0.886
	Ecuador	98	7.931	1.457			8.831	1.433
	Spain	93	4.790	1.404			8.811	0.765
	Total	334	6.951	1.969			8.848	1.148

Note: * significative differences with a p-value < 0.01.

) multiplied by 10 in order to convert it to the same scale used by Hofstede.

Figure 2 shows the values perceived in this study in bars (and with the values in black numbers) and the Hofstede values in lines (and with the corresponding values for each country expressed in the country’s color). In the case of the last two dimensions, long-term orientation (LT) and indulgence (IN), the data from Ecuador were not available in Hofstede studies, and therefore have not been included.

3.2. Comparison of Perceived vs. Desired Values

An ANOVA analysis was performed to identify in which dimensions the hypothesis of equality between all groups was not fulfilled, and thus show significant differences between the three studied countries. The ANOVA shows that when analyzing perceived values, there were statistically significant differences for all dimensions, and in the case of desired values, there were only significant differences for the first four Hofstede dimensions, and desired values obtained for long-term orientation (LT) and indulgence (IN) across the three countries can be considered as equal. These results are presented in Table 2.

Looking at Figure 3, it is also possible to observe this within the desired values (represented by lines and with the corresponding values for each country expressed in the country’s color).

Table 3. Descriptive analysis of the perceived and desired values for each sex.

Perceived Dimension	Sex	N	Mean	Standard Deviation	Sig.	Desired Dimension	Mean	Standard Deviation	Sig.
PD	Men	234	6.565	1.834	0.900	PD	4.442	2.409	0.259
	Women	100	6.592	1.791			4.125	2.202
	Total	334	6.573	1.819			4.347	2.351
ID	Men	234	5.518	1.880	0.356	ID	4.322	2.585	0.060
	Women	100	5.727	1.935			3.752	2.374
	Total	334	5.580	1.896			4.151	2.534
MA	Men	234	6.149	1.792	0.163	MA	4.268	2.120	0.066
	Women	100	6.462	2.045			3.800	2.146
	Total	334	6.243	1.874			4.127	2.136
UA	Men	234	6.440	1.569	0.553	UA	5.285	1.626	0.816
	Women	100	6.552	1.621			5.240	1.617
	Total	334	6.473	1.583			5.271	1.621
LT	Men	234	6.217	2.285	0.007	LT	8.504	1.368	0.867
	Women	100	5.447	2.535			8.530	1.076
	Total	334	5.987	2.385			8.511	1.286
IN	Men	234	7.153	1.925	0.004	IN	8.845	1.171	0.943
	Women	100	6.477	2.000			8.855	1.098
	Total	334	6.951	1.969			8.848	1.148

shows the ANOVA analysis of two groups, men and women. There are no statistically significant differences between the two groups, neither in the perceived values, nor in the desired values, being in some cases very similar, as in the case of the perception of power distance, or the desired dimensions of uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and indulgence.

Therefore, according to this study, it can be established that cultural dimensions, both perceived and desired, are not affected by gender.

4. Discussion

4.1. Comparison with Previous Studies

A cross-cultural analysis of the values perceived by the three countries reveals that, according to the sample, Colombia and Ecuador share a great deal in their perception of each of the dimensions, with Spain being the country that differs the most. Nevertheless, they do not differ too much except in two dimensions, long-term orientation and indulgence. This is very interesting, because for long-term orientation, there is a reversal of what Hofstede [64] indicated, and in indulgence the data are very close to what Hofstede reported [65]. Hofstede [64] presented Colombia as a society that enjoys life and Spain in the middle range, thus showing a great difference that is consolidated in this study. In the case of long-term orientation, it is interesting to discover how the Colombian sample is perceived as very long-term oriented, as opposed to the Spanish sample which is perceived as short-term oriented, but closer to Hofstede’s values [64]. This may be because the Colombian sample are engineering students, which is a difficult degree that requires a great deal of preparation in previous courses. Thus, they likely perceive themselves as more long-term oriented than other members of society, who, according to Hofstede [64], have very short-term orientation.

Analyzing country by country, in the case of Colombia, a great difference can be seen compared with Hofstede’s study [64] in the case of individualism (13 for Hofstede and 57 in this study) and long-term orientation (13 for Hofstede and 70 in this study). In other words, the sample in this study was perceived as more individualistic and more long-term oriented than what Hofstede [64] established. In the case of Ecuador, there is also a great difference in the individualism dimension, with the sample being much more individualistic (59) than the values collected by Hofstede [61] (8), while the other dimensions analyzed remain similar. In the case of Spain, the most notable difference was found in masculinity, which Hofstede [61] set at 42; that is, a society without a marked competitive character, and in contrast, our sample displayed a value of 73 with a marked competitive character.

With these exceptions, it could be said that the values obtained are similar to those established by Hofstede [64]. The few differences found and previously mentioned may be because the sample has a profile of higher education and technical careers, which may have made them more individualistic and focused on their studies instead of friends or neighbors, as in the case of Colombia and Ecuador, or more organized and planners, as in the case of Colombia, and more competitive, as in the case of Spain.

The discrepancy between perceived and desired values in the three countries, but especially in the case of Spain, suggests a change in habits and relationships inside and outside the workplace. In the professional sphere, this desire to be less hierarchical, more collectivist, and more collaborative will affect project management internally and externally, especially in the areas of resource management, stakeholder management, and communication management, and will probably lead to placing greater importance on soft skills in project management. Magano et al. [65] already highlighted the potential of Generation Z for soft skills in project management in recent research.

As already indicated in the methodology, the sample was mostly male, something very common in the STEM world. For this reason, the study also aimed to analyze whether there are differences between what is perceived and what is desired between men and women. The sample was also engineering students which makes it a unique analysis, not used before to compare with.

4.2. Comparison Perceived vs. Desired Values

Considering the results in Figure 3, we highlight that there was total agreement between Ecuador and Colombia, differing markedly from Spain, especially in the first dimensions of distance to power (PD), individualism (ID), and masculinity (MA). It is noteworthy that the Spanish sample was the one with the greatest difference in its values between what was perceived and what was desired across all dimensions. This could mean a drastic change in the management of teams in coming years, when these students are developing their professional activity. These current students, belonging to so-called Generation Z (born from 1997), are committed to greater horizontality in labor relations, fostering a sense of teamwork and opting for co-operative work, and giving more importance to learning by doing, even if it means taking the risk of doing it badly. This had already been detected in previous studies on millennials (the generation before Generation Z), who were already looking for more design-based learning and collaborative methods [66]. The Spanish sample also wants to think more in the long-term and enjoy life more, which would be closer to a better work-life balance.

As in the previous work of van Oudenhoven [40], there is a clear consensus on the preference for a lower desired power distance (PD), as well as individualism (ID), masculinity (MA), and uncertainty avoidance (UA), which were the four dimensions he studied. This is especially noticeable in the case of Spain. It should be noted that van Oudenhoven’s analysis [40] was in 10 North-Western countries (Europe, USA, and Canada), so his results would be in line with those obtained in this study for Spain (also included in the van Oudenhoven study [40]) and less markedly for Latin American countries, except for power distance (PD).

5. Conclusions

This research demonstrates the similarities between Latin American cultures, in this case, represented by Colombia and Ecuador, and even more pronounced than in Hofstede’s studies [66]. These similarities between Colombia and Ecuador are accentuated in the case of the desired dimensions. It also highlights how some of the most notable discrepancies perceived between Latin American and Spanish cultures (long-term orientation and indulgence) converge in the desired values. This could imply a trend towards the homogenization of cultural values, which could be the result of globalization. Despite this possible future convergence, cultural differences may not only generate conflicts within teams but also make some project management practices more appropriate for some cultures than for others, as Zwikael et al. [2] or Muriithi and Crawford [15] previously announced.

This study demonstrates the similarity of the Latin cultures studied, but despite this, it shows a desire for change, which will have to be observed in order to adapt some types of project management to be more co-operative and follow horizontal models, which can also be enjoyed while working.

It is necessary to highlight the current trend, even more accentuated by the COVID-19 pandemic, towards the delocalization of teamwork. In the authors’ opinion, the relationship between team members, even if not face-to-face, will also be exposed to Hofstede’s dimensions, and therefore the results of the present study would still be valid.

This study aims to contribute to the project management literature focusing on cross-cultural issues, despite the limitations of the sample, since, as Hofstede himself has argued many times, two individuals from the same country can have different cultures, but as the number of the sample increases, convergences are perceived that unite them as a group and differentiate them from other countries.

To overcome this limitation and enrich this study, as a future line of research, it is proposed to incorporate both more Latin American countries, to see if they still maintain these similarities, and more European countries, to see if Spain is more similar to Latin cultures due to their common past, or to other more North-Western cultures.

It is also necessary to highlight the influence of digitalization and agile methodologies on teamwork in organizations. The authors consider that despite these transformations, the human factor will always be a value to be taken into account, and therefore it would be very interesting to analyze whether digital transformation also brings with it the attenuation of national cultural factors, or the opposite, as a future line of research.

In the light of these results, we can conclude that Ecuador and Colombia share a similar culture (RQ1), as Hofstede’s studies already showed. Ecuador and Colombia have a different culture compared to Spain (RQ2), although the results obtained bring the values between Ecuador and Colombia, and Spain, closer than those presented by Hofstede, probably due to the homogeneity of the sample. Participants have shown their desire to minimize cultural differences (RQ3), especially in the last three dimensions (UA, LT, & IN).

Knowing how to handle cultural diversity will encourage teams to achieve outstanding results.