Empathetic Leadership and Cultural Consciousness in Leading: Lessons from Iceland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland

During our cooperation in different international projects with partners from other Scandinavian and Nordic-Baltic countries, I have tested various leading styles with the goal of ensuring the personal balance and work enthusiasm in the group. The paper analyses in practical terms and at the meta-level, the cooperation and leadership model we developed working with university teachers from six different Nordic and Baltic countries (Estonia, Iceland, Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland). I review the cooperation format, its pluses and minuses. This is done through the prism of Collectivism and Individualism. Building on the data analysis described above, suggest as a new approach, Emphatic Leadership and Culture- competent Leading. Empathetic Leadership and Culture-competent Leading is the notion I introduce to describe the model where cultural awareness, personality-related aspects, and principles of democracy and inclusion are entailed relating to the empathetic understanding of the co-workers, including their cultural preference styles. This is a qualitative piece of work that builds on experience analysis. The methodology is ethnographic research using description and theoretical analysis. the methods of participant observation and action research. Semi-structured questionnaires were administered to the participants as semi-structured individual and group interviews at the end of the first round of project periods (three different projects completed). The work period analyzed includes our five different group-leading periods (2017–2024), one of which partly coincided with the Pandemic period (2020–2022). The ongoing project period (three projects) was analyzed through interviews.

Introduction

This is a qualitative piece of work, formulated as a case study comprising of analyses and comparisons of work and leadership models in smaller seven different international cultural projects during the period of five years (2017–2024). In the article below, I analyze international cooperation and leadership in the different project groups during the period. The focus is on the cultural differences in the team, more specifically–the Collective and Individualist work and cooperation models followed by different members of the group.

I also suggest a possible model for overcoming possible cultural differences and maintaining a positive atmosphere in the team–empathetic leadership and culture-competent leading.

In both cases–I describe our experience, sum up the results, and give some advice on what worked well and what did not concern Collectivism/Individualism, as well as emphatic leadership, in the seven different projects I have chosen to be the empirical database for observation and analysis of this case study.

In section 1, I give the theoretical introduction, and section 2 introduces the work processes in the teamwork I led that I analyze–first at the practical level, second–at the meta-level through the prism of Individualism and Collectivism, and Empathetic, Culture-competent Leading.

International Cooperation in Teams: General, Culture-Specific, and Individual Differences of Participants

The knowledge that cultures in which people grow up or stay (or both) influence their values, attitudes, and beliefs to some extent has been accepted for a long. Globalization and remote offices or “my home is where my laptop is,” digital nomads` lifestyles have, of course, created multiple new layers to building one’s identity, adding, deleting, or mixing one’s values and beliefs. But something of the home, growing-up environment, school system, friends’ circle, online life, and education with media and social media still influence how people see the world, some processes, and phenomena in it, even in the ever-growing diversity.

General principles followed in a modern international office are, of course, similar to international corporate culture. In extensive research on organization cultures (cf. Whitfield, 2024, Vadi, 2001), the influence of one’s organization and workplace on people’s attitudes and behavioral patterns at work has been demonstrated.

At the same time, when we step further from the office style and work mode and get closer to the discussions themselves, we notice cultural differences in work styles and meeting styles. The logic and the approach, whether thinking solo or “going with the crowd,” are supported–all this can be rather different in different contexts.

Even more of the practical implications of differences in organization cultures and cultural traditions one meets daily are brought out in the practical business trainings and meetings.

However, not all cultures have comparative analyses between each other. For example, to our knowledge, there has not been any recorded scientific research on Estonian and Swedish business styles and communication patterns yet. However, a lot of good research has been carried out on Swedish and Finnish business styles (Lämsä, 2010). Although Estonian and Finnish business styles also have their idiosyncrasies, there are some similarities in both Estonian and Finnish styles, as rather Fenno-Ugric behavioral styles, together that contrast the Swedish one. Notably, one of these is the meeting culture. The other one, I suggest, is the situations, behavioral norms and principles that can be related to the Collectivist/Individualist world perception.

Thus, analyses of the Finnish and Swedish work styles (Lämsä, 2010) and their differences tend to point to similar trends to our research. So does, e.g., Realo’s et al. (2002) research on Estonians concerning collectivism-individualism or Maaja Vadi’s and Pulk’s (2020) research on group-think or individual decision-making. All these pieces of research help us to consciously observe and notice certain phenomena. Mainly–the Fenno-Ugric style seems to be more direct, laconic, up to the point, and avoiding small-talk.

There are as yet not too many resources of information on the Nordic and Baltic cultural preferences and organization culture/business style behaviors that interest us, which is why I hope to add our observations to the emerging pool of knowledge.

As a caveat, one should add that even while knowing the somewhat stereotypical traits generally attributed to one or another culture, an open mind to whether or not to attribute these capacities automatically to some phenomena in communication culture should be maintained. Behavioral patterns may change fast in our globalized world.

Furthermore, more than the cultural patterns, character and personality traits (Goleman, 2013), as well as individual style-based behavioral patterns and traits, give, of course, tonality in any cooperation and teamwork. There are also different other factors that influence our behavior and communication (Reeve, 2009; Schutzet al., 2007) as well as working style–be it family issues, personal life curve moods and everyday events, etc.

Despite being aware of these important ingredients in the behavioral “mix” of our repertoires, however, let’s still focus in this paper on the intricate patterns relating to cultural style related office style and cultural style of participants, with a view on Individualism and Collectivism. Let’s sum up our experience and decide on which patterns occurred during the seven years of cooperation with representatives of our six different countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Finland, Iceland) in the different setups of our cooperation teams.

Paradigms of Leadership

In leadership theories and practice, some more traditional models only focus on efficiency, and merely quantity-related result-focused leadership has been enriched with more flexible leading styles and approaches. In terms of the theory of leadership, the earlier paradigms have been known. The relevant leading paradigm is the “Ethical” paradigm. The Ethical paradigm is defined as a value-based, creative, and supportiveone.

Empathetic Leadership

It is here that I would like to introduce the concept of emphatic leadership. We suggest that it goes even one step further from the ethical leadership mode. The empathetic leadership paradigm, we suggest, could be the name of the new egalitarian and playful leading style where the processes have evolved up to now. It is the result of the natural development of going from the authoritarian and monological leading styles to the more inclusive and democratic ones. This is the atmosphere one can see in Creative Tanks and IT companies, creative and academic societies, citizen-led organizations and enterprises, etc., and as usual, it is developing from here to other walks of life.

In this new paradigm, it is no longer just profit and official management goals, but–importantly-to a big extent, the individuality of participants is considered to be important in allowing workers to achieve their work happiness and balance.

The modern, ethical paradigm of leadership also emphasizes soft values, bears in mind the principles of sustainable development, and–as already mentioned-puts the person in the center. In ethical management, a great deal of the leader’s effort is actually dedicated to understanding their people, giving them tasks that are attuned to the employees’ preferences and talents in their work areas and beyond. Green and sustainable solutions, a community-centered mindset, and common creation are evolving as further values the work can be described to be adhering to.

Definitely, being ethical and putting the leader’s empathetic leadership capacity for ethical and soft-value-based solutions in the middle, emphatic leadership goes even a step further than the ethical leadership model described hitherto. As the name says, the empathetical leadership model adds to the ethical one also emotional and empathetic understanding, and several more layers of soft values.

I propose thus that a good leader can focus more not only on the general values striven after in ethical leadership. Furthermore, one can consider the “whole person:” the personality of the person, the important skills and values in their life. It may well be their hobbies and other skills that they may use or not use also at a concrete workplace e.g., why not use a wonderful IT guru to surprise a company by launching a new product with a piece he plays on a piano–if he’s got some secret talent, etc.? It is my firm belief that the more the personal characteristics, skills, talents, and interests of an employee are considered, the more appreciated they feel, and–generally, the better they deliver.

Although in many modern quality leadership institutions and companies across the world, such a leadership principle is already followed, it is still a number of “traditional” institutions where the older styles are practiced. It is a weird paradox that some people still have to suffer in strictly “old-school” institutions, under “excel-style” bosses, while somewhere in the World, the new norm is so different. But this is the rule of the modern World–diversity. Striving for better and more person-focused leadership ourselves, I decided to share our experience in finding a way in the modern, personality-respecting work culture.

Leading Styles for International Cooperation

Thus, when starting with our projects, we had several options for how to go about leading them. Trying to bear in mind either side’s preferences and values seemed prudent.

A clear vision of goals and deadlines, as well as information being shared equally to everyone is always a good leading style to start with.

In Sweden, there tend to be rather hierarchical systems as for bureaucracy. Sometimes this characteristics is attributed to the fact that their current procedures have grown out of their centuries-old clerical and local government systems. In their origin, they are centuries old and sometimes derelict today.

It may also be confusing, as the everyday communication style in offices is very relaxed and individual-based. It may leave you an opinion that everything is clear and discussed. And you have no idea your conversation is reported further somewhere in the hierarchy, who actually make decisions based on the here-say of what you thought was a cordial conversation with a friend.

In Estonia, there are clear hierarchies and if you speak business to your boss, it’s rather clear how the powerlines go. Also, work and individual comments are strictly kept apart. It is considered excessively bad style if someone shares further any personal information entrusted to them. This may come from the previous totalitarian style experiences.

In Estonia, sometimes, Matrix leading is preferred. It means that hierarchies are not fully clear. People can have different positions and levels of rank in parallel offices (let’s say a teacher for one subject group can be department head for another subject group). Sometimes, the leaders just contact the persons whom a section of a task concerns, and it is oftentimes the competence rather than just the official work position that decides who can perform the task. Ensuing from the above, the “everyone is informed” principle is not always followed.

Once the principles of work are known, deadlines decided and work processes transparent, one has to decide on how much autonomy to give the team members. In this respect, Estonia and Sweden seem to differ. In Estonia, also in this respect (autonomy) sometimes, rather Matrix leading is preferred. This means that sometimes, the leaders just contact the persons with whom a section of a task concerns. Again, the “everyone is informed” principle is not always followed. I see this as the “product” goes before the “process”. “Work” is seen to be so holy, that it has to have the efficiency it could not have when moving through too many levels of decision makers. Also here, the Soviet legacy may play in–“no more nomenklatura, we decide ourselves!”, was quite a well-known slogan in the transition stages of leaving the olden days behind us.

Also, in terms of leading and management–the styles can be different in both cultural contexts, of course–but it intuitively seems that the Estonian style seems to be more trust-based and independent, with rather the result at the end of the process needing to be presented. In Sweden, it tends to be more usual to have micromanagement of some kind–be it “reporting” or meetings–but instead of the Estonian-style “you work something out from scratch”, the workflow is constantly stopped by the need to inform someone or coordinate about something.

In our work it became important to rather make sure that the information was shared equally and to all. At the same time, I tried to keep open the individual approach, and different opinions. What is important to avoid in good leading is group-think atmosphere (Vadi & Pulk, 2020), where people start influencing each other with Dogmas or ideologies that (World Values Survey, 2023) may lack factual ground–so we tried to harness this as well.

Instead, we were aiming at an environment where all participants were able to shape the work process and goals and where we considered most important to be free of ideologies and any “guidance” from outside. It was the best knowledge and understanding of our team members and their experience as university teachers that was the guiding light for the process.

What Else to Remember: Individuality and Group Spirit

The individual differences of people, their character types, and preferred behaviors may have a much stronger impetus for the outcome of a business endeavor or international meeting than the stereotypical cultural traits induced and believed to be there traditionally. It is a great skill for a good leader to be able to keep the balance so that everyone’s individuality is respected and the group spirit is maintained at the same time. It is exactly here that the “empathetic” leading style mentioned above comes to play a role.

So, what was the pattern like in our case? This is the question I am going to give an answer to in the next chapters.

Methodology

Methods and Analysis

The overwhelming methodological framework of this piece of writing is qualitative research: Ethnography. As a method, we use participant observation, description, and action research. I will first describe the meetings and their structure, then go on with the patterns we have noticed in work styles and beneficial leading strategies. Finally, we will sum up the work with some generalizations and points for analysis. The qualitative part was matched with a written questionnaire we administered to the group two months after the end of the two interim projects (2019–2022). All participants answered, and the results of this written questionnaire–quotes from the participants–will be used as illustrations to explain our qualitative research results.

Materials for Analysis–General Description of the Meetings

The Contents and Structure of the Transnational Meetings

To better understand the subject of our research – international cooperation and the leading style–let us also explain the constituents of the cooperation.

The international projects we are conducting together aim at:

1. Creating net or paper-based learning materials in the area of our main specialization (independent work at home office).
2. Meeting with colleagues and discussing: Methods of teaching Institutional arrangements, work climate, leadership styles Analyzing one’s own personal and academic growth
3. Organizing and participating in a teacher training seminar and visiting a different Nordic or Baltic University each time. Bonus possibility: Present one’s own research or passion topic in the seminar for teachers we have in each country (open to the general audience). The organizer of the meeting in that country is also responsible for planning and organizing the cultural program for the participants – an opportunity to test and develop one’s organizational skills.

Project Results

Each project we undertake has a real, tangible product that is used both for project members and for the wider audience. The most usual project product is a learning material (e.g., a web-based course; a book) for students or teachers or an online materials pool (e.g., a web page with links to articles on teaching and learning) for teachers.

Intangible Results

In some earlier research, I have stressed that it is–in my view–essential for us teachers and everyone who works with leading and coaching people to be empathetic and supportive. This also means one must be psychologically and mentally well-balanced.

Quoted sources include e.g., Brophy (2004), who says that teacher’s belief in their “efficiency as a teacher” is important. According to Brophy (2004), this “efficiency as a teacher” (p. 391–393) includes the strength and ability to envision a broad picture of the purpose of one’s goals. I fully support this view, as inspiration and modeling are vital constituents of teaching or leading. This can only be achieved when we believe in ourselves and have a clear, broader vision and general goal.

Dörnyei (2001) points to an important aspect in a study where the students believed “the teacher’s own behavior to be the single most important motivational tool” (p. 31). It is easy to believe, as students are most adept at sensing the teacher’s tone and mood. A good teacher can set the tone, raise motivation, keep up the spirits, and lead the group through the learning process. Teachers can be the inspiration and role models, inspiring one to choose one’s future field of study and life goals.

As most of the participants in our cooperation are teachers, discussions along these lines became especially important for participants throughout our projects. Our discussions around one’s professional role, goals, and possibilities for development have been highly valued also in participant feedback on the projects. In a small circle of like-minded professionals, trust is built. As our colleagues also represent the different stages of the academic career and age, people in different stages of the career and in different age groups can exchange thoughts and support each other. The experience of a longer career is in dialogue with the enthusiasm of the young university teachers at the beginning of their teaching profession–a valuable focus to analyze in any profession. Also, in the written feedback to projects, many participants wrote in their answers in the questionnaires that the informal part of discussions, as well as the discussions on teaching in different administrative units in different countries, was the most valuable part of the project work altogether.

Individualism and Collectivism in Leadership During and after the Corona period

So why and how do the categories of individualism and collectivism relate to the topic of empathetic and well-functioning leading in group-and teamwork?

First, empathetic leadership also includes the understanding of broader cultural characteristics, tendencies, and traditions. As countries in the world, in general, have been seen as rather different from each other concerning both their individuality and other values ( https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSNewsShow.jsp?ID=467), the cultural diversity also concerning these aspects must be valued if we wish to respect the mental well-being of the group we lead. Individualism and Collectivism were, of course, present throughout the projects, be it during real-life meetings or lock-down periods’ individual work with just some online meetings and more guidance through e-mails and independent work.

Also, after Corona times, we hear more and more about the mental health of people. After returning to workplaces, schools and universities have also become part of this new discourse. It is a well-known cultural fact that the Swedish people prefer the so-called “consensus culture,” i.e., collective thinking, discussing, and reaching a decision (sometimes, in essence, being “who talks more, wins”). In Estonia, individual opinion and respecting one’s private sphere, including the right to make one’s own decisions independently and without being influenced by others, is considered an essential human right. In Soviet society, there was a collective social distaste towards groupthink, influencing, ideology, and too long or many group events, including meetings and reporting to others about processes that were not yet ready. The differences in this strike the eye already at some first meetings between the cultures.

Thus, if you want to be a good leader in a “mixed group,” where you have representatives of both cultures, you must be sure to have some meetings (to meet the Scandinavian side’s wishes). At the same time, they must not be too lengthy or too often to respect the Fenno-Ugric people’s need for space and independence.

If you allow for that, people can feel free and independent, although–voluntarily–members of a group, work can progress, and people stay happy without being stressed.

In our small questionnaire, which I administered to our work group after the end of the project, the feedback received included that people were grateful for having our small team to discuss issues with. At the same time, in the focus group interviews we had, they also brought out that they were happy that they could decide on their time on their own, and once clear deadlines and sub-tasks had been identified, we did not spend too much time on micromanaging, meetings, etc.

However, it was brought out that “in those dark Corona times,” the existence of our international team gave people in the team some “hope and light,” as one participant put it.

Also, the strategies for leading the group seem to have been suitable for the situation. We tried to keep the communication rather low intensity to enable everyone to process the difficult times in their own space. At the same time, as always throughout our cooperation, we followed a very clear structure, keeping the deadlines, posting the results of tasks, contacting our support personnel (layout, design, illustrations, IT, book-keeping and university coordinator, printing house)–who all responded quickly and efficiently, making following the initial project plan easy and enjoyable.

What Went Well

What definitely succeeded was the main goal of the project: the product of work in the textbook we wrote jointly. And if the result is there, in time, and better than expected – of course, the team can feel happy.

We are thus much indebted to our dear participants who wholeheartedly put their effort into writing the texts and sending in illustrations for our book, materials for our website, and articles for the article collection. Some of them also assisted with editing the texts as native speakers (our Swedish team); our Estonian coordinator kindly always supported in discussions on how to progress, how to solve the difficulties arising from lock-down, and kindly even arrived to work in a locked-down huge old university building to find a stamp, walk to another locked down university building in the old town, get the stamp from the Dean’s office. I also feel that the leadership-participant communication went smoothly and was clear at all times. This is also what both the semi-structured interviews and questionnaires have indicated in their analyses and responses.

Results

Empowering People

As the project’s direct and indirect goals described above show, our cooperation was meant not only to achieve certain “products.” The results also include different cooperation endeavors, starting from official events (seminars, transnational meetings, site inspection) to discussions and analyses of our work and profession.

The way our goals have been built up definitely also implies a need to harness different soft values (tolerance, empathy, listening skills, skills of giving advice) to implement the goals concerning professional development, learning from others, sharing experiences, etc.

Similarly to a good teacher in the teaching situation, a good project leader can achieve much better results by being empathetic and considerate. Empowering people and believing in their strengths, as well as showing this, are equally important–both for maintaining individual and group motivation.

A considerable amount of tact, tolerance, and patience is also needed to achieve a good, high-quality, creative product that will satisfy the needs of the international audience as a textbook for both language and culture.

Thus, in leading the project, we tried to have two kinds of goals: Explicit and known to all group members: The general description of the project Deadlines Semi-goals and intermediate dates Implicit and mainly the task for the group leader and manager: Keeping the group motivated Trying to meet most people’s needs Appreciating their personality, communication, and working style

Meta-level Analysis of Project Results

In earlier research (Mullamaa, 2023), we analyzed our work group in terms of the following: Adherence to deadlines Participation in meetings Agreement or change instigation at meetings Agreement or change instigation in e-mail exchange Presenting of work on time

More about the specifics of the behaviour of the team under each of these categories can be found in the respective article.

However, an important conclusion for the Collectivism-Individualism aspect we focus on in this further development of the topic is the clear division into two separate blocks.

Throughout our 6–8 years of cooperation, the following trends have been identified: The “Nordic block ” – Finland, Iceland, and Estonia–rather tends to speak less, agree quickly on the deadlines and portions to work on, and then wind up the official part: deadlines are agreed upon, and work is divided. Let’s “go home and do it.” I suggest the rather laconic, result-and product-focused style, which in our sample is represented by Latvia, Finland, Estonia, and Iceland, can be called product-oriented organizational culture and communication style. The “Discussion block” – Lithuania and Sweden–have rather enjoyed longer discussions, bringing new ideas and changes to the process after the goals and foci have already been sealed (which is not traditional, nor usually accepted, in the Nordic block’s organization culture). This means that more discussion and negotiations, communication, and work style, in our sample represented by Sweden and Lithuania, can be labeled as, in contrast, process-oriented organizational culture and communication style.

Both communication styles and organizational cultures have their benefits.

Process-Oriented Style

1. It is quite natural that, especially at the beginning of the work process or a joint project, a brave and unhindered brainstorming and idea-exchange stage is more than welcome. New ideas make the original idea more “layered,” can add important foci, and inspire with multiple essential aspects that may not have been envisioned earlier.
2. It is also important to let participants owe their ideas let them contribute to the idea, process and product that is created together–it is basic democracy, but it is also sharing, participating democracy, and equal contribution in a joint matter–which is good for every individual personally, but also for the team spirit, and last, but not least–also for leading the group, group coherence and positivity.

Product Oriented Style

The main and most obvious plus is keeping the project “doable.” No unnecessary talk, no unnecessary extras–let’s focus on what is the most viable and realistic within the given time, energy, and resources framework, “Less talk, more work” (Estonian saying). A lot of the original goals might already have been accomplished if one would do it instead of talking about it. Unrealistic ideas waste time and energy. They take away the focus on the already existing plan. One should rather focus on how to streamline, focus, optimize, and rationalize the existing blueprint.

To generalize the results, typically, Estonia, Latvia, and Finland tend to cover the agenda point by point; additions or negotiations are rare, but if they happen, they are quick and goal-oriented. Solutions are found, and the matter is declared solved. For Sweden, Lithuania, and Iceland, meetings are often rather a place to discuss matters further, change earlier goals, or postpone deadlines.

Both the more product-oriented organizational style and process-oriented one have their clear bonuses, many similar to (or identical to) the ones raised in the analysis of the previous section above. Of course, the initial stages of a project are better for presenting ideas that include more changes. In the middle stages of the process, when everyone is already focused on the piece of work handed out to them, ideas to change the whole process are not too eagerly welcomed. However, with good and manageable changes, the product quality can be uplifted, and better results can be achieved than by merely sticking to the original plan.

It is easily detectable that the product-focused style coincides with the descriptions of individualist culture, and the process-oriented style coincides with the collective culture tendencies and adherences.

But how do we solve the possible difficulties and reach harmony in a team that includes representatives of both cultures?

Empathetic Leading Style and Culture Competent Leading for Uniting the Individualist and Collective Culture Focused Actors

To wind up on a meta-level, we can conclude that leading international cultural projects may also benefit from understanding the individualist-collective notions at the theoretical level, as well as respecting people’s behavior and communication styles based on these.

It has been, in my view, a subject unduly cast aside, as one wants to be “politically correct” and stress that “we are all exactly the same” in the Nordic. But actually, this may happen at the cost of pushing some cultures’ natural instincts and behavior patterns aside. Truly empathetically understanding their preferences can create a much better common understanding and work mentality–thus also results–in a group.

Advice for Similar Cultural Projects in Cooperation for Uncertain Times

Although the Corona period was, at least in our context, rather slow and independent, some general principles that are known for major crisis situations could be followed. What we tried to observe was keeping the communication clear and concise. The information on the progression of work was very clear. In retrospect, this was what brought the project success.

Thus, the first piece of advice to give to everyone in a crisis situation is: Don’t overwhelm the team with information, Stick to your original plan, Don’t make any unnecessary changes, and don’t change deadlines or tasks, Keep firmly focused on your goals, Accept and help if contacted privately, Be soft and kind with the leadership style, Try not to get stressed when some people start coming with extensive special requests (or at least don’t show it), Focus on what has already been achieved, “Seal the deal”–once your product is ready, there will be no more fuss. It is ready, and it is done. There is no need to stress the group with extra ideas or developments–this can be done in some next project.

Mental agility and support through being a group member and participating in international cooperation are more important than one might realize at first glance. Thus, the principles of both ethical and emphatic team leading became important.

As we know already from Maslow’s pyramid and Bloom’s taxonomy, the feeling of belonging, as well as doing something for society and doing something for your profession, gives human beings this silver lining in being. The project framework enabled the team to feel their role as a teacher, as well as even the representatives of their country in this otherwise difficult lock-down situation.

Conclusion

As we have seen above, the experience of working with seven different cultures and organizations in the framework of different projects over several years has given us a good opportunity to better understand their work and organization cultures.

In the article above, we have taken a look at our international teacher cooperation projects. Supported by Nordplus, our Nordic and Baltic partner universities have joined us in working out joint learning materials for students, creating an online methodology and teaching related data-base for teachers (work in progress), doing research, and giving out a collection of articles on teaching our subject, as well as teaching and methodology in general.

In addition to the immediate products of joint cooperation between Iceland, Estonia, Sweden, and Latvia (in earlier projects also Lithuania and Finland), the discussions and analyses of our profession, institutional and culture-based communication, and the teaching principles at large–form an important part of this semi-digital international cooperation and teacher development model.

We have found the principles of cooperation to be useful at both these levels:

1. The practical one–leading to joint production of learning materials, digital data pools, booklets, and online resources.
2. The cooperation and further development one–from joint international learning seminars to joint international meetings, which allow participants to ponder upon and develop the perspectives of their personal and professional roles, as well as experience both work and academic culture as well as the society and culture in our common Nordic-Baltic area.

Although the number of participants is relatively small to make sweeping generalizations, and also differences in personality level definitely have a role to play, some observations we have shared above have enabled us to trace patterns of behavior and cultural/organizational culture style throughout four years we have been leading the projects plus the three years we have been members of the projects.

As pointed out in the Results chapter, clear groups could be identified that can be divided into Product-based and Process-based, respectively. Both communication and organizational culture styles have their advantages and disadvantages and help to enrich cooperation. Process-oriented solutions allow us to bring more variety into communication; they enable us to add new foci or tasks, thus making the result bigger and more interesting. Product-based solutions enable us to focus on the goal, keep the deadline, and reach the goals set without complicating the process.

These solutions and adherences clearly correspond to the Collectivist-Individualist scale typologies, and I suggest–can thus be born in mind when leading team-work with people from these two cultural areas (the Nordic-Fenno-Ugric area: Estonia, Finland, Iceland, and Latvia for the Individualist; the Nordic-Scandinavian-Baltic: Sweden, Lithuania for the Collectivist preference group).

Good leadership, especially in difficult times, entails allowing for both–so that the group members would feel valued and respected. At the same time, a clear structure, adherence to deadlines and interim goals, as well as maintaining an optimistic and positive outlook are essential. If possible, monetary or material help–even if relatively symbolic–can mean a lot for people and raise their motivation both for the project and also for work-life in general.

Communication, sending out progress reports often, and a clear overview of how far we have come with the project and what is still to be done can be a good way of keeping the team abreast of the developments and thinking along with the project. A good team leader should also respect people’s individual differences, strengths, and wishes. Listen to everyone–both in lists of e-mails but also in private emails (e.g., during lockdown), and be as supportive as possible. I believe this can help create a strong team that everyone wants to be a member of and contribute to.

The new notions of leadership I suggest, Empathetic Leadership and Culture-Competent Leadership, can be used as theoretical concepts to lean on in leading processes like these in cultural cooperation projects. In our particular context, the concepts of Individualism and Collectivism proved especially useful within this framework. Still, in other cultural contexts, other relevant notions can be applied in the Empathetic Leadership and Culture-Competent Leadership frame.