Next Article in Journal
Investigation on Mechanism of Tetracycline Removal from Wastewater by Sinusoidal Alternating Electro-Fenton Technique
Next Article in Special Issue
Competitive Improvement through Integrated Management of Sales and Operations
Previous Article in Journal
Use of Triangulation in Comparing the Blockchain Knowledge Structure between China and South Korea: Scientometric Network, Topic Modeling, and Prediction Technique

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

Department of Organization Engineering, Business Administration and Statistics, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28006 Madrid, Spain
Faculty of Engineering, Corporación Universitaria Comfacauca-Unicomfacauca, Popayán 190001, Colombia
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Jianxiong Zhang
Sustainability 2022, 14(4), 2327;
Received: 18 January 2022 / Revised: 8 February 2022 / Accepted: 16 February 2022 / Published: 18 February 2022


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.
Keywords: project management; national culture; international projects; team management; Latin America project management; national culture; international projects; team management; 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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) 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 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.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.R.-R.; investigation, R.R.-R. and V.E.P.-A.; writing—original draft preparation, R.R.-R.; writing—review and editing, I.O.-M. and V.E.P.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.


The authors are very grateful for the excellent reception to the presentation of this research at the 25th International Congress on Project Management and Engineering.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Survey

Previous Questions:
Age Gender Nationality
Rate from 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree) the following statements TWICE: first, what you OBSERVE (Obs.), and second, what you WOULD DESIRE (Des.)
DimensionStatement 12345678910
IndulgenceIn general, students have an optimistic and positive view of their university and consider that it is possible to have fun thereObs.
Both professors and other students willingly accept questions in class and the atmosphere is very participative and relaxed.Obs.
The university offers a wide range of cultural and sports activities. Many students and professors participate in this offer.Obs.
The university is a niche of freedom of expression and tolerance in all its facets. Obs.
IndividualismThe feeling of individual competitiveness among students is intense; the university does not encourage teamwork.Obs.
There is no collective sense of identity (class or promotion): for example, students do not care whether the results of their class are good or bad.Obs.
There are very few platforms or resources for sharing information. Each student is only concerned with his or her studiesObs.
Students do not ask for help or help those who do not belong to their direct group of friends.Obs.
MasculinityWhile they are studying, for students the career is more important than family or friends.Obs.
The university offers hardly any resources for less advantaged students. Neither students nor professors care about themObs.
Professors are not interested in the personal situation or other concerns of their students.Obs.
Students believe that getting good grades is more important for their future than learning and having a good college experience.Obs.
Uncertainty avoidanceThe evaluation system gives little freedom to the student to organize his study plan as he/she wishes: the evaluation is continuous (many small tests) and there are few voluntary activities.Obs.
Students know exactly how they will be assessed: tests from other years or very precise information about the tests are available.Obs.
Students have a lot of freedom to choose different subjects (1), or, on the contrary, almost all students must take the same subjects (10).Obs.
Bureaucracy is a big problem for professors and also takes up a lot of students’ time.Obs.
Long-term orientationIn most subjects, a large part of the syllabus is devoted to contents on current affairs or future in engineering/science/business, as well as to the student’s professional future.Obs.
The university is generally self-critical and looks to others in its environment to introduce changes.Obs.
Complementary subjects or activities, such as volunteering, internships, language courses, are important and can be validated in order to train good professionals and good citizens for the future.Obs.
When it comes to preparing for assignments and exams, students plan from day one and work steadily.Obs.
Power distanceThere are very few and ineffective mechanisms for students to express their opinion and influence university decisions.Obs.
The treatment of the professor is rather distant. He is considered an authority and is rarely questioned.Obs.
Departments are not very transparent and not very open: it is difficult for students to know what activities and projects the professors are involved in.Obs.
The departments have a hierarchical structure and very few young people and students work in them.Obs.
Note: This completely anonymous survey seeks to see how students perceive their university as an organization of which they are a part, and in turn how they would wish this organization to be. Please answer the questions carefully and honestly.


  1. Hofstede, G.; Hofstede, G.J.; Minkov, M. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zwikael, O.; Pathak, R.D.; Ling, F.Y.Y.; Titov, S.; Husain, Z.; Sharma, B.; Tay, C.Y.; Samson, D. Variation in project management practices across borders. Prod. Plan. Control 2021, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. House, R.J.; Hanges, P.J.; Ruiz, Q.; Antonio, S. Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE. In Project Globe Report; Advances in Global Leadership: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  4. Müller, R.; Turner, J.R. Leadership competency profiles of successful project managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 437–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Müller, R.; Turner, J.R. Cultural Differences in Project Owner-Manager Communication; Project Management Institute Conference Proceedings: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  6. Peltokorpi, V.; Vaara, E. Language policies and practices in wholly owned foreign subsidiaries: A recontextualization perspective. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2012, 43, 808–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rees-Caldwell, K.; Pinnington, A.H. National culture differences in project management: Comparing British and Arab project managers’ perceptions of different planning areas. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 212–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liu, J.; Meng, F.; Fellows, R. An exploratory study of understanding project risk management from the perspective of national culture. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 564–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rodríguez-Rivero, R.; Ortiz-Marcos, I.; Ballesteros-Sánchez, L.; Romero, J. The opportunity to improve psychological competences of project managers in international businesses. Psychol. Market. 2018, 35, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rodríguez-Rivero, R.; Ortiz-Marcos, I.; Ballesteros-Sánchez, L.; Martínez-Beneitez, X. Identifying risks for better project management between two different cultures: The Chinese and the Spanish. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. A Guide to the Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). Available online: (accessed on 1 January 2022).
  12. International Project Management Association (IPMA). Individual Competence Baseline for Project Management (ICB V.4); IPMA: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  13. Project Management Association of Japan (PMAJ). A Guidebook of Program & Project Management for Enterprise Innovation (International Edition), 3rd ed.; PMAJ: Tokyo, Japan, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  14. Office of Government Commerce. Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2, 5th ed.; The Stationery Office: London, UK, 2009.
  15. Muriithi, N.; Crawford, L. Approaches to project management in Africa: Implications for international development projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2003, 21, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Meyer, E. The Culture Map; Public Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bredillet, C.; Yatim, F.; Ruiz, P. Project management deployment: The role of cultural factors. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  18. Hall, E.T. Beyond Culture; Garden City: New York, NY, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  19. Trompenaars, F. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business; Nicholas Brealey: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  20. Nisbett, R.E.; Miyamoto, Y. The influence of culture: Holistic versus analytic perception. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2005, 9, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chipulu, M.; Ojiako, U.; Gardiner, P.; Williams, T.; Mota, C.; Maguire, S.; Shou, Y.; Stamati, T.; Marshall, A. Exploring the impact of cultural values on project performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2014, 34, 364–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  22. Hobday, M. The project-based organisation: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Res. Policy 2000, 29, 871–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chen, C.C.; Law, C.; Yang, S.C. Managing ERP implementation failure: A project management perspective. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2009, 56, 157–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  24. Scott-Young, C.; Samson, D. Project success and project team management: Evidence from capital projects in the process industries. J. Oper. Manag. 2008, 26, 749–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Motwani, J.; Mirchandani, D.; Madan, M.; Gunasekaran, A. Successful implementation of ERP projects: Evidence from two case studies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2002, 75, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jugdev, K.; Müller, R. A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success. Proj. Manag. J. 2005, 36, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Miller, D.M.; Fields, R.; Kumar, A.; Ortiz, R. Leadership and organizational vision in managing a multiethnic and multicultural project team. J. Manag. Eng. 2000, 16, 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ramburuth, P.; Mccormick, J. Learning diversity in higher education: A comparative study of Asian international and Australian students. High. Educ. 2001, 42, 333–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cagliano, R.; Caniato, F.; Golini, R.; Longoni, A.; Micelotta, A. The impact of country culture on the adoption of new forms of work organization. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2011, 31, 297–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  30. Wiengarten, F.; Fynes, B.; Pagell, M.; De Burca, S. Exploring the impact of national culture on investments in manufacturing practices and performance: An empirical multi-country study. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2011, 31, 554–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Harris, P.R. European leadership in cultural synergy. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2004, 16, 358–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hofstede, G. Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 1984, 1, 81–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Taras, V.; Kirkman, B.L.; Steel, P. Examining the impact of culture’s consequences: A three-decade, multi-level, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 405–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  34. Chakrabarty, S. The influence of national culture and institutional voids on family ownership of large firms: A country level empirical study. J. Int. Manag. 2009, 15, 32–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Newburry, W.; Yakova, N. Standardization preferences: A function of national culture work interdependence and local embeddedness. J. Int. Bus Stud. 2006, 37, 44–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ng, T.W.H.; Sorensen, K.L.; Yim, F.H.K. Does the job satisfaction–job performance relationship vary across cultures? J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 2009, 40, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kim, Y.; Kim, S.-Y. The Influence of Cultural Values on Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: Application of Hofstede’s Dimensions to Korean Public Relations Practitioners. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 91, 485–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gouveia, V.V.; Clemente, M.; Espinosa, P. The Horizontal and Vertical Attributes of Individualism and Collectivism in a Spanish Population. J. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 143, 43–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kacen, J.J.; Lee, J. The Influence of Culture on Consumer Impulsive Buying Behavior. J. Consum. 2002, 12, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. van Oudenhoven, J.P. Do organizations reflect national cultures? A 10-nation study. Int. J. Intercul. Relat. 2001, 25, 89–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Schwartz, S.H. Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications; Kim, U., Triandis, H.C., Kagitçibasi, C., Choi, S.C., Yoon, G., Eds.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994; pp. 85–119. [Google Scholar]
  42. Schwartz, S.H. A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comp. Sociol. 2006, 5, 137–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  43. Inglehart, R. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  44. Inglehart, R. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kirkman, B.L.; Lowe, K.B.; Gibson, C.B. A quarter century of Culture’s Consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. J. Int. Bus Stud. 2006, 37, 285–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. McSweeney, B. Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith—A failure of analysis. Hum. Relat. 2002, 55, 89–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Winch, G.; Millar, C.; Clifton, N. Culture and organization: The case of Transmanche-Link. Br. J. Manag. 1997, 8, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hofstede, G.H. Culture’s Consequences; SAGE: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  49. Taras, V.; Steel, P.; Kirkman, B. Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions. J. World Bus. 2012, 47, 329–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  50. Voronov, M.; Singer, J.A. The myth of individualism–collectivism: A critical review. J. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 142, 461–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Inglehart, R.; Baker, W.E. Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2020, 65, 19–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  52. Ralston, D.A.; Holt, D.H.; Terpstra, R.H.; Kai-Cheng, Y. The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: A study of the United States, Russia, Japan and China. J. Int. Bus Stud. 1997, 28, 177–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Beugelsdijk, S.; Maseland, R.; Van Hoorn, A. Are Scores on Hofstede’s Dimensions of National Culture Stable over Time? A Cohort Analysis. Glob. Strategy J. Glob. Strat. J. 2015, 5, 223–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hofstede, G. What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’ minds. J. Int. Bus Stud. 2006, 37, 882–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  55. Javidan, M.; House, R.J.; Dorfman, P.W.; Hanges, P.J.; de Luque, M.S. Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: A comparative review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2006, 37, 897–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nakata, C.; Sivakumar, K. Instituting the Marketing Concept in a Multinational Setting: The Role of National Culture. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2001, 29, 255–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Minkov, M.; Kaasa, A. A test of Hofstede’s model of culture following his own approach. Cross Cult. Strat. Manag. 2021, 28, 384–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Minkov, M.; Hofstede, G. The evolution of Hofstede’s doctrine. Cross Cult. Manag. Int. J. 2011, 18, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Adler, N.J. Cross-cultural management research: The ostrich and the trend. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1983, 8, 226–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. UNESCO. Cracking the Code: Girls’ 715 and Women’s Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM); UNESCO: Paris, France, 2017; ISBN 978-92-3-100233-5. [Google Scholar]
  61. Botella, C.; Rueda, S.; López-Iñesta, E.; Marzal, P. Gender Diversity in STEM Disciplines: A Multiple Factor Problem. Entropy 2010, 21, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  62. Schwartz, S.H. National Culture as Value Orientations: Consequences of Value Differences and Cultural Distance. In Handbook of the Economics Art and Culture; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  63. Hofstede, G. National Culture Dimensions. 2013. Available online: (accessed on 18 January 2021).
  64. Hofstede Insights Compare Countries. Available online: (accessed on 18 January 2021).
  65. Magano, J.; Silva, C.S.; Figueiredo, C.; Vitoria, A.; Nogueira, T.; Dinis, M.A. Generation Z: Fitting Project Management Soft Skills Competencies—A Mixed-Method Approach. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Karakas, F.; Manisaligil, A.; Sarigollu, E. Management learning at speed of life: Designing reflective, creative, and collaborative spaces for millennials. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2015, 13, 237–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Figure 1. The nationalities and sex of the sample.
Figure 1. The nationalities and sex of the sample.
Sustainability 14 02327 g001
Figure 2. Country comparisons of perceived values with Hofstede dimensions.
Figure 2. Country comparisons of perceived values with Hofstede dimensions.
Sustainability 14 02327 g002
Figure 3. Country comparisons of perceived vs. desired values.
Figure 3. Country comparisons of perceived vs. desired values.
Sustainability 14 02327 g003
Table 1. Correlations within the clusters.
Table 1. Correlations within the clusters.
PD1P10.195 **0.348 **0.332 **0.159 **0.167 **0.201 **0.0920.121 *0.254 **0.333 **0.188 **0.355 **−0.0850.275 **0.274 **−0.220 **−0.249 **−0.173 **−0.226 **−0.281 **−0.149 **−0.114 *−0.228 **
PD2P 10.433 **0.304 **0.208 **0.190 **0.242 **0.180 **0.164 **0.384 **0.522 **0.240 **0.258 **0.0090.223 **0.239 **−0.210 **−0.156 **−0.144 **−0.04−0.146 **−0.265 **−0.03−0.184 **
PD3P 10.521 **0.257 **0.166 **0.252 **0.224 **0.141 **0.434 **0.506 **0.241 **0.425 **−0.010.383 **0.346 **−0.263 **−0.247 **−0.266 **−0.130 *−0.263 **−0.334 **−0.202 **−0.260 **
PD4P 10.180 **0.128 *0.241 **0.283 **0.060.288 **0.306 **0.196 **0.269 **−0.0890.196 **0.283 **0.09−0.08−0.07−0.01−0.04−0.124 *−0.118 *−0.112 *
ID1P 10.297 **0.377 **0.303 **0.162 **0.192 **0.180 **0.197 **0.123 *0.0360.0690.122 *0.0370.044−0.0250.0550.044−0.0200.032
ID2P 10.303 **0.229 **0.137 *0.267 **0.209 **0.1060.148 **0.0550.161 **0.178 **0.1030.141 *0.0750.0670.097−0.030.0670.011
ID3P 10.263 **0.114 *0.323 **0.210 **0.0350.256 **−0.0540.0870.199 **0.0620.0840.0510.109 *0.055−0.090.0030.065
ID4P 10.111 *0.259 **0.124 *0.202 **0.168 **−0.0480.114 *0.202 **0.0790.1010.174 **0.116 *0.140 *0.122 *−0.020.067
MA1P 10.154 **0.218 **.221 **0.212 **0.142 **0.167 **0.146 **0.006−0.045−0.0750.057−0.152 **−0.129 *−0.08−0.122 *
MA2P 10.566 **0.187 **0.331 **0.0180.273 **0.276 **−0.090−0.128 *−0.105−0.032−0.214 **−0.199 **−0.05−0.268 **
MA3P 10.221 **0.443 **0.0510.344 **0.321 **−0.402 **−0.319 **−0.338 **−0.202 **−0.381 **−0.410 **−0.157 **−0.406 **
MA4P 10.233 **0.0420.0160.123 *−0.130 *−0.198 **−0.130 *−0.135 *−0.127 *−0.135 *−0.09−0.155 **
UA1P 10.0100.341 **0.287 **−0.261 **−0.236 **−0.272 **−0.109 *−0.326 **−0.310 **−0.153 **−0.244 **
UA2P 10.0340.0550.118 *0.0930.0100.191 **0.0080.115 *0.117 *−0.004
UA3P 10.231 **−0.124 *−0.074−0.191 **−0.099−0.209 **−0.180 **−0.07−0.176 **
UA4P 1−0.0200.0600.025−0.048−0.181 **−0.230 **−0.05−0.120 *
LT1P 10.689 **0.568 **0.509 **0.556 **0.564 **0.330 **0.477 **
LT2P 10.598 **0.542 **0.551 **0.488 **0.335 **0.523 **
LT3P 10.445 **0.573 **0.478 **0.298 **0.439 **
LT4P 10.522 **0.487 **0.317 **0.421 **
IN1P 10.583 **0.490 **0.671 **
IN2P 10.410 **0.552 **
IN3P 10.403 **
IN4P 1
Note: ** statistically significant at the 0.01 (bilateral) level; * statistically significant at the 0.05 (bilateral) level.
Table 2. Descriptive analysis of the perceived and desired values for all three countries.
Table 2. Descriptive analysis of the perceived and desired values for all three countries.
Perceived DimensionCountryNMeanStandard DeviationSig.Desired DimensionMeanStandard DeviationSig.
PDColombia1436.0151.8690.000 *PD4.8322.5400.000 *
IDColombia1435.7371.9510.002 *ID4.6712.7310.000 *
MAColombia1435.8961.9100.000 *MA4.5852.2420.000 *
UAColombia1435.9261.6670.000 *UA5.3721.8510.007 *
LTColombia1436.9861.7210.000 *LT8.6311.3260.011
INColombia1437.6851.4510.000 *IN8.8821.1430.886
Note: * significative differences with a p-value < 0.01.
Table 3. Descriptive analysis of the perceived and desired values for each sex.
Table 3. Descriptive analysis of the perceived and desired values for each sex.
Perceived DimensionSexNMeanStandard DeviationSig.Desired DimensionMeanStandard DeviationSig.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Back to TopTop