Management Research Paper

The impact of leadership behaviours on leaders’ perceived job performance across cultures: comparing the role of charismatic, directive, participative, and supportive leadership behaviours in the U.S. and four Confucian Asian countries

Seog Joo Hwanga*, Louis N. Quastb, Bruce A. Centerb, Chu-Ting Nicole Chungb, Huh-Jung Hahnb and Joseph Wohkittel b

aCJ America, Los Angeles, CA, USA; bCollege of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA

(Received 14 August 2014; accepted 28 March 2015)

This study empirically examines how different types of leadership behaviour affect perceived job performance of leaders in different cultures, specifically comparing the U. S. and four Confucian Asian countries. Using a large archival database of a multisource feedback instrument assessing leadership behaviours and overall perceived job perfor- mance of managers in these countries, this study analyses the influence of leadership behaviours on perceived job performance. The results suggest that charismatic and directive leadership behaviours are positively related to perceived job performance of leaders in all countries studied, whereas the influence of supportive leadership behaviour is not as strong as charismatic and directive leadership behaviours. Surprisingly, participative leadership behaviour is not associated with perceived job performance of leaders in the countries studied except for Japan. Research implications and limitations are discussed.

Keywords: leadership; cross-cultural; managerial effectiveness; Confucian Asia

Introduction

Globalization in international business is ever increasing with growing trade and globa- lization driving the exchange of people, information, and cultures across national borders (Northouse 2006). However, globalization has created many challenges for Human Resource Development (HRD) professionals. One particular challenge is the need to best serve culturally diverse employees, customers, and competitors (House et al. 2004; Javidan et al. 2006). Thus, organizational leaders need to have a clear understanding of business, political, and cultural situations in other countries. Additionally, these leaders need to understand the perspectives, values, trends, and technologies of other cultures so they can be effective in international business climates (Adler and Bartholomew 1992).

Leadership studies have been dominated by Western researchers, and most of the leadership theories have been developed in the U.S. (Yukl 2012). However, researchers have noted that effective leaders must take into consideration the culture in which they perform (Smith and Peterson 1988) because cultural characteristics such as language, beliefs, values, and religion affect people’s behavioural and attitudinal preferences in leadership (Dorfman et al. 1997; Hofstede 1980; Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010;

*Corresponding author. Email: seogjoohwang@cj.net

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

Human Resource Development International, 2015 Vol. 18, No. 3, 259–277, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2015.1036226

House et al. 2004). To address this important issue, many cross-cultural leadership scholars have conducted research to identify effective leadership styles in various cultures (e.g., Ardichvili 2001; Dorfman et al. 1997; Hofstede 1980; Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010; House et al. 2004; Muczyk and Reimann 1987; Robie et al. 2001; Silverthorne 2001).

Research problem

Despite the advances in cross-cultural leadership research, there is still a significant research gap. Although researchers have attempted to examine leadership in non- Western cultures, few non-Western leadership models have been developed in leadership literature (Dickson, Den Hartog, and Mitchelson 2003). Likewise, although many researchers have recently conducted leadership studies in Confucian Asian countries, many of them have only assessed whether the leadership models developed in Western cultures (e.g., transformational leadership) could also be applied in Confucian Asian cultures (e.g., Gong, Huang, and Farh 2009; Hui et al. 2005; Hur, Van Den Berg, and Wilderom 2011; Jung, Yammarino, and Lee 2009; Shin and Zhou 2003). Since these studies have attempted to test the universality of certain leadership models across cultures, they have made little contribution to developing non-Western leadership models. In addition, very few studies have examined leadership across Confucian Asian countries. Although Confucian Asian countries such as China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea share similar cultural values, each country may vary with regard to effective leadership due to differences in social and historical backgrounds. In sum, there is a dearth of studies examining specific leadership models in non-Western cultures including Confucian Asian countries.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study is to investigate what types of leadership behaviours are related to the perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S. and four Confucian Asian countries: China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. Specifically, we examine the relationship between four types of leadership behaviours – charismatic, directive, partici- pative, and supportive – and the perceived job performance of leaders.

We first provide a literature review of previous cross-cultural leadership research and cultural roots and values of Confucian Asian countries. Next, we provide research hypotheses regarding ideal leadership behaviours for each country based on the literature review. Then, research methods, including data collection and measures, are described. After the research results are summarized, the implications, limitations, and future research areas are discussed.

Theoretical framework and hypotheses

Cross-cultural leadership research

As globalization has been expanding across the nations, researchers have increasingly recognized the importance of the cultural impact in leadership because cultural character- istics such as language, beliefs, values, and religion affect people’s behavioural and attitudinal preferences in leadership (Dorfman et al. 1997; Hofstede 1980; Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010; House et al. 2004). Leaders working in a foreign culture

260 S.J. Hwang et al.

need to understand how the host culture affects people’s behaviour and preferences towards leadership. This understanding helps leaders adopt an optimal leadership style and adjust their leadership behaviours to maximize their performance in the host culture (Gregersen, Morrison, and Black 1998; Javidan et al. 2006). To address this important issue, many scholars have conducted research to identify effective leadership styles in various cultures. Overall, these cross-cultural leadership studies have concluded that there are some leader behaviours that appear to be universally effective across cultures, while other leader behaviours and preferred leadership styles vary considerably from one culture to another.

Muczyk and Reimann (1987), for example, proposed that three leadership behaviours are universally effective: acting with consideration, concern for production, and rewarding others. However, they argue that the effectiveness of participation (i.e., the degree to which employees are involved in work-related decisions) and direction (i.e., the amount of follow-up or directive behaviour regarding the execution of a decision) is contingent on culture. In an empirical study, Dorfman and colleagues (1997) compared the effectiveness of various behaviours exhibited by leaders in Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and the United States. They found that supportive, charismatic, and contingent reward behaviours (i.e., positive feedback and recognition for good performance) of leaders were positively related to subordinate satisfaction and performance in all countries in their study, but the effectiveness of participative and directive behaviours of leaders varied across countries. For example, directive leadership behaviours showed positive effects on satisfaction and commitment of employees in Taiwan and Mexico, while participative leadership beha- viours only showed a positive impact in the United States and South Korea.

Another example of cross-cultural leadership research is a study conducted by Ardichvili (2001). In his study, transformational leadership and cultural values in work- place behaviours were measured in the post-communist and former USSR countries of Russia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. The study attempted to see whether transformational leadership resulted in positive impacts across different cultures. His study found that these four countries differed significantly in their responses to these effective leadership attributes, and that contingent reward and individual consideration explained the largest portion of variance in leader effectiveness in the countries studied.

Although there are several extensive cross-cultural leadership studies (e.g., Geletkanycz 1997; Savicki 1999; Smith and Peterson 1988), the study often considered to be the most extensive within the domain of cross-cultural leadership research is the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project, which examined 62 societal cultures and combined them into 10 cultural clusters (House et al. 2004). Over 10 years, GLOBE researchers collected and analysed data on cultural dimensions and leadership attributes from over 17,000 managers in 62 societal cultures. The results found similarities and differences in effective leadership prototypes among the cultural clusters; in other words, people in different cultures have different ideas about the attributes of effective leaders or leadership (House et al. 2004).

Confucian Asia cluster and its cultural values

As defined by the GLOBE study (House et al. 2004), the Confucian Asia cluster consists of China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. In exploring the cultural context of Confucian Asia, the countries in our sample share a common set of values and fundamental beliefs. The GLOBE study characterized the culture of Confucian Asia as being high on performance orientation and both in-group and institutional

Human Resource Development International 261

collectivism (House et al. 2004). According to Scarborough (1998), the core values of Chinese culture include large power distance, loyalty, collectivism centred on family, high uncertainty avoidance, modesty and humility, fatalism, and particularistic ethics. These common cultural values of Confucian Asian countries are rooted in Confucianism (Gupta, Hanges, and Dorfman 2002; Scarborough 1998). Therefore, to discuss the effective leadership prototypes in Confucian Asia culture, a brief review of Confucianism is warranted.

Confucianism

Kong Fu Ze (551–479 BC), who was renamed ‘Confucius’ by the Jesuit missionaries, was a Chinese civil servant (Hofstede and Bond 1988). As a philosopher and educator, Confucius developed an ideology regarding proper human behaviours and relationships in a society, which became the moral, social, and political principles for many East Asian countries (Wang et al. 2005). One of the key principles of Confucianism is that the stability of society is maintained by unequal relationships (i.e., hierarchy) between members of the society (Hofstede and Bond 1988). Confucianism focuses on wuiun, the five relationships that are proper relationships in a social hierarchy, between (1) ruler and subject, (2) father and son, (3) husband and wife, (4) older brother and younger brother, and (5) friend and friend (Berling 1982; Wang et al. 2005). Individuals in these relation- ships are required to show mutual and complementary obligations; while the junior respects and is obedient to the senior, the senior protects and takes care of the junior (Hofstede and Bond 1988). Using these five relationships, Confucianism emphasizes that a person should conform to his or her proper role in the social hierarchy and act accordingly to maintain harmony in society (Berling 1982; Wang et al. 2005). This inequality between members is the basis of high power distance in Confucian Asia culture.

Confucianism also emphasizes developing one’s skills and the inner character of the person through education. This is represented in Confucianism by focusing on five virtues: ren (human benevolence), yi (righteousness), li (proper rite), zhi (wisdom), and xin (trustworthiness) (Wang et al. 2005). Confucianism argues that conformity to social roles and development of character can be achieved through education and reflection on one’s actions (Berling 1982).

Another Confucian principle is its emphasis on family. From the Confucian perspec- tive, family is a model of all social organizations (Hofstede and Bond 1988). Being a member of a family has stronger meaning than does being an individual. Children should learn to restrain their own interests as an individual in order to maintain the harmony of family (Hofstede and Bond 1988). Family members should care for each other with love and respect, and the needs of all members should be considered together within the family (Wang et al. 2005). This collectivistic concept even extends to the state: the ruler or the king is the father to his people and should look after their needs (Wang et al. 2005).

In sum, Confucianism provides social principles that define proper behaviours of individuals in a social hierarchy. Moreover, Confucianism focuses on maintaining har- mony in society by emphasizing paternalism and kinship (Xing 1995). These Confucian principles provide a basis not only for individual behaviours and relationships but also for many management practices and organizational culture in Confucian Asian countries including high organizational hierarchy, respect for higher positions, loyalty to the company, and emphasis on ceremony (Xing 1995). These practices all have their roots in Confucian principles. In the next section, we review cultural values in Confucian Asian

262 S.J. Hwang et al.

countries, specifically power distance and collectivism, and how these cultural values may influence effective leadership in the countries.

Power distance in the Confucian Asia cluster

Confucian Asia countries are characterized by researchers as being high on performance orientation, power distance, collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede 1980; House et al. 2004; Scarborough 1998). We argue that among the various cultural values, power distance and collectivism are particularly relevant to the issue of leadership because power distance explicitly affects the relationship between superiors and followers. Collectivism is also related to values such as conformity, harmony, and respect for elders and superiors so that it may shape individuals’ relationships with their leaders (House et al. 2004). Power distance refers to ‘the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally’ (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010, 61). Power distance determines how much hierarchical inequality people will accept and consider as proper (Bochner and Hesketh 1994). In a low power distance culture, such as the U.S., inequality is viewed as something that should be minimized, whereas it is considered as the basis of societal order in a high power distance culture such as Korea (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010). Thus, people with high power distance tend to accept hierarchical inequality and control by their superiors (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010), so employees in high power distance cultures tend to respect and obey their leaders (Bochner and Hesketh 1994; Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010).

Individuals in high power distance cultures, therefore, tend to prefer paternalistic leadership whereas individuals in low power distance cultures tend to view participative or consultative leadership as a desired leadership style (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010). They also found that employees in high power distance cultures would describe their bosses as more autocratic and paternalistic than would employees in low power distance cultures. In addition, individuals in high power distance cultures would be more task-oriented and less people-oriented because the role of a manager in a high power distance organization is to initiate structure (e.g., tell people what to do rather than ask for their views) (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010).

Collectivism in the Confucian Asia cluster

Confucian Asian countries also tend to show high collectivism (Hofstede 1980; House et al. 2004; Scarborough 1998). Collectivistic society is where ‘people from birth onward are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s life time con- tinue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty’ (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010, 92). People in collectivistic cultures view themselves as interdependent within the group to which they belong, whereas people in individualistic cultures are viewed as independent and unique (Goncalo and Staw 2006).

Because the individual’s identity is closely connected to the group in collectivistic cultures, an individual tends to promote the group’s goal rather than to pursue his or her own interests (Davidson et al. 1976). Collectivism emphasizes following shared rules to maintain group harmony rather than standing out through personal achievements (Goncalo and Staw 2006). In contrast, people in individualistic cultures tend to view their identity as unique and independent. Because individualism stresses one’s self and one’s unique needs and desires, people in individualistic cultures strive for recognition by

Human Resource Development International 263

achieving beyond the norms of the group (Goncalo and Staw 2006). Thus, uniqueness can be viewed as deviance from the standard in collectivistic cultures, whereas conformity is often considered negatively in individualistic cultures (Kim and Markus 1999). Thus, while people in individualistic cultures tend to resist social pressure and maintain their opinions in the face of opposition, people in collectivistic cultures might consider it rude and inconsiderate not to yield to others (Goncalo and Staw 2006).

Effective leadership behaviours in the U.S.

According to the GLOBE research, the U.S. belongs to the Anglo cluster with other countries such as Canada, England, Australia, Ireland, South Africa (white sample), and New Zealand, all of which were once British colonies (House et al. 2004). The Anglo cluster scores high on values of performance orientation, individualism, humane orienta- tion, and family collectivism, but scores low on power distance (Ashkanasy, Trevor- Roberts, and Earnshaw 2002). The ideal leadership prototype in this cluster is a highly charismatic, participative, and team-oriented leader, and humane-oriented leadership is considered to be important but not as important as the other three (House et al. 2004). Charismatic leadership behaviours include being visionary and inspirational (Ashkanasy, Trevor-Roberts, and Earnshaw 2002). Participative leadership values a subordinate’s active participation with the leader in the decision-making process (Ashkanasy, Trevor- Roberts, and Earnshaw 2002). Since the Anglo cluster shows low power distance and high individualism, people in this cluster place emphasis on autonomy and being able to voice their opinions; thus, it is very important for a leader to allow members to participate when making important decisions (Ashkanasy, Trevor-Roberts, and Earnshaw 2002). Team- oriented leadership includes directive leader behaviours such as organizing, utilizing team structures, and managing and controlling others’ work (House et al. 2004). Humane leadership means being caring and considerate of others. Considering that the emphasis is on team-oriented leadership and humane leadership together, an effective leader in this cluster assigns the work while being considerate of team members (Ashkanasy, Trevor- Roberts, and Earnshaw 2002; House et al. 2004).

In the current study, four types of leadership behaviours – charismatic, directive, participative, and supportive – are used. Cross-cultural leadership researchers have used these leadership behaviours and considered them to be important across cultures; the four types of leadership behaviours are also taught in many leadership training programmes across the globe (Bass and Avolio 1993; Dorfman and Howell 1988; Dorfman et al. 1997; Farh, Podsakoff, and Cheng 1987). In addition, we used and measured the four types of leadership behaviours rather than the six GLOBE leadership dimensions because the GLOBE leadership dimensions included not only behavioural items but also leaders’ personal attributes. This study focuses solely on leader behaviours and their impact on performance. As discussed, the team-oriented leadership dimension used in the GLOBE research is closely related to the directive leadership behaviour. Similarly, the humane leadership dimension is closely linked to the supportive leadership behaviour.

Based on the above discussion, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1a: Charismatic leadership behaviour will have a positive relationship with the perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S.

Hypothesis 1b: Directive leadership behaviour will have a positive relationship with the perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S.

264 S.J. Hwang et al.

Hypothesis 1c: Supportive leadership behaviour will have a positive relationship with the perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S.

Hypothesis 1d: Participative leadership behaviour will have a positive relationship with the perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S.

Effective leadership behaviours in Confucian Asia cluster

The GLOBE researchers noted that people from the Confucian Asia cluster tend to describe effective leaders as individuals who care about their teams and members (i.e., supportive), but make independent decisions without the input of others (i.e., less participative). For example, Trompenaars (1993) found that the Chinese tend to prefer leaders who act more as a ‘father figure’ than as a task driver and prefer that leaders take care of employees in a paternalistic way. Dorfman and colleague (1997) also found supportive leadership beha- viours were effective in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. In addition, it was found that charismatic leadership was universally effective for all 62 countries studied in the GLOBE study (House et al. 2004), which included the six Confucian Asian countries. Team-oriented and human-oriented leadership (House et al. 2004) were also positively related to effective leadership in both the Confucian Asia cluster and the Anglo cluster.

Given the high power distance in Confucian Asian countries, it is not surprising that participative leadership was not viewed as effective in this cluster (House et al. 2004; Dorfman et al. 1997). As previously discussed, people with high power distance tend to accept hierarchical inequality and respect their leaders (Bochner and Hesketh 1994; Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010). Therefore, a leader in the Confucian Asia cluster is regarded as having more power than subordinates and is responsible for taking care of subordinates as opposed to collaborating with them. Furthermore, the leader is trusted to make important decisions without his or her subordinates (Ashkanasy 2002). Thus, subordinates’ participation is less emphasized.

Regarding power distance and participative leadership, it is important to note that Japan has a different culture from the other Confucian Asian countries. Although Japan shares some similar cultural characteristics with the Confucian Asia cluster, Japanese people tend to value participative leadership more than do people in other Confucian countries (Dorfman et al. 1997; Graen 2006). In addition, Japan has moderate power distance and collectivism compared to other countries in the Confucian Asia cluster (Gerstner and Day 1994; House et al. 2004). One of the key reasons is the communal relationships among employees in Japanese organiza- tions. According to Ishida (1986), in Japanese companies, the roles and responsibilities of individuals are vague and narrow, whereas mutual responsibility between employees is broad. Furthermore, Japanese employees tend to value mutual cooperation and are willing to take on tasks outside of their formal roles. This cooperation and mutual responsibility based on communal relationships enable Japanese employees to take more ownership in their work and flexibly respond to changes in external environments (Ishida 1986).

In terms of leadership, this communal relationship between employees can be viewed as shared leadership, which is defined as the distribution of leadership influence among multiple members (Carson, Tesluk, and Marrone 2007). Ishikawa (2012) showed that sharing of leadership among group members in a Japanese organization was positively related to group performance. Since Japanese employees share mutual responsibility for their work, Japanese employees value the equality of group members and their participation in important decisions (Dorfman et al. 1997). As a result, participative leadership behaviour is considered to be effective leadership in Japan.

Human Resource Development International 265

Based on the discussion above, we present the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a: Charismatic leadership behaviour will have a positive relationship with the perceived job performance of leaders in China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea.

Hypothesis 2b: Directive leadership behaviour will have a positive relationship with the perceived job performance of leaders in China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea.

Hypothesis 2c: Supportive leadership behaviour will have a positive relationship with the perceived job performance of leaders in China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea.

Hypothesis 2d:Participative leadership behaviour will have an insignificant relation- ship with the perceived job performance of leaders in China, Singapore, and South Korea.

Hypothesis 2e:Participative leadership behaviour will have a positive relationship with the perceived job performance of leaders in Japan.

Research model

Regarding the selected five constructs, including (a) charismatic leadership behaviour, (b) directive leadership behaviour, (c) supportive leadership behaviour, (d) participative leadership behaviour, and (e) perceived job performance, conceptual frameworks are illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2. These frameworks were derived from earlier theories on effective leadership in different cultural context.

Method

Participants

A total of 22,204 middle-level managers from five countries were included in this study. The specific countries and their sample sizes are the U.S. (n = 18,750), China (n = 913),

Figure 1. Effective leadership in the U.S.

266 S.J. Hwang et al.

Japan (n = 2,104), Singapore (n = 234), and South Korea (n = 202). The mean age for the overall sample was 43.7 years (SD = 11.2). All managers were employed by mid- to large- sized organizations and were participants in a variety of management-development initia- tives using multisource feedback.

The data used in this study were drawn from a large archival database of multisource feedback results. The instrument was administered and processed by Korn Ferry’s Leadership and Talent Consulting global practice group (Formerly PDI Ninth House). Korn Ferry has stripped the data of any personal or organization-specific identifiers, and made the data available to the Hellervik/PDI Endowed Chair in Leadership and Adult Career Development in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Minnesota. One author of this manuscript was and still is employed by Korn Ferry.1 From the database, this study used data collected between 2003 and 2008.

Measures

All study measures used items from The PROFILOR® for Managers, a multisource feedback instrument assessing participants’ managerial behaviours, technical expertise, and overall perceived job performance. A total of 135 items were rated by self, super- visors, peers, and direct reports (PDI Ninth House 2004). Each item was rated on a five- point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) not at all to (5) to a very great extent (Hezlett et al. 2006).The behavioural items included in The PROFILOR® for Managers were selected after careful psychometric testing and are representative of the domain of managerial effectiveness (PDI Ninth House 2004). Data used in this study comprise a convenience sample. This sample was selected for use in this study because of three characteristics: it is large, it is multinational, and the instrument used was designed to capture the domain of effective leadership behaviours.

Only ratings provided by each participant’s supervisor were used in this study. The decision to use only data provided by the supervisors was based on two factors: (a) this rater category yielded the highest internal consistency coefficient and (b) inter-rater reliability coefficients were only moderate, making it difficult to use ratings from multiple

Figure 2. Effective leadership in China, Singapore, Japan, and South Korea.

Human Resource Development International 267

rater categories. The median internal consistency reliability for the instrument is 0.83 for supervisor ratings (Hezlett et al. 2006).

Leadership behaviours

Scales measuring the four types of leadership behaviour – charismatic, directive, partici- pative, and supportive – were created. The original items in The PROFILOR® for Managers were developed without specific consideration of the four types of leadership behaviour examined in this study. Therefore, four distinct scales were created for use in this study representing each of the leadership behaviours: charismatic, directive, partici- pative, and supportive. The procedure used to develop these scales was based on the principles of Q methodology (Stephenson 1953). In the procedure used for this study, a panel of three subject matter experts (SMEs) with advanced degrees and work experience in the fields of HRD and industrial-organization psychology individually assessed the 135 behavioural items in The PROFILOR® for Managers. Each SME was tasked with identifying behaviours representative of the four types of leadership behaviour using explicit definitions provided by previous research (Dorfman et al. 1997). Therefore, the criterion for selection was the SME’s subjective judgment of the extent to which a behavioural item was representative of one of the four types of leadership behaviour as delineated below:

(1) Charismatic: inspiring and developing confidence among followers, setting chal- lenging goals, and encouraging high expectations.

(2) Directive: clarifying performance expectations and assigning tasks. (3) Participative: consulting with, asking for suggestions, and obtaining information

from subordinates for important decisions. (4) Supportive: indicating concern for the welfare of subordinates; showing warmth,

respect, and trust.

The panel then convened and compared their ratings. Items that were unanimously agreed upon by all panel members as being representative of one of the four types of leadership behaviour were included in the scales. Behaviours not unanimously agreed upon were not included in the scales. The behavioural items selected and reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s Alpha) for each scale are listed below.

Charismatic leadership behaviour was measured using five items. The reliability of the scale was α = .80. Items were averaged to form a charismatic leadership behaviour scale. Items include fosters the development of a common vision, inspires people to excel, gives compelling reasons for ideas, sets high personal standards of performance, and links the team’s mission to that of the broader organization.

Directive leadership behaviour was measured using four items. The reliability of the scale was α = .85. Items were averaged to form a directive leadership behaviour scale. Items include conveys clear expectations for assignment, clarifies roles and responsibil- ities with team members, provides clear direction and defines priorities for the team, and identifies specific action steps and accountabilities.

Participative leadership behaviour was measured using four items. The reliability of the scale was α = .79. Items were averaged to form a participative leadership behaviour scale. Items include involves others in shaping plans and decisions that affect them, seeks appropriate input before making decisions, encourages others to express their views – even contrary ones, and listens carefully to input.

268 S.J. Hwang et al.

Supportive leadership behaviour was measured using three items. The reliability of the scale was α = .70. Items were averaged to form a supportive leadership behaviour scale. Items include is accessible to provide assistance and support as necessary, conveys trust in people’s competence to do their jobs, and values the contributions of all team members.

Technical expertise

Technical expertise was measured as a control variable using a scale in The PROFILOR®

for Managers. Technical expertise means the job-related knowledge and skills leaders possess (Collins and Raven 1969). Research has found that technical expertise positively affects subordinate performance and satisfaction, which may link to the performance of leaders (Podsakoff, Todor, and Schuler 1983). Therefore, we controlled for technical expertise because technically competent managers may be more highly rated on perceived job performance than less-competent ones, regardless of their leadership behaviours. The technical expertise scale had been developed and validated through careful psychometric testing by the original developers of The PROFILOR® for Managers (PDI Ninth House 2004). The reliability of the scale was α = .79. Four items were averaged to form a technical expertise scale. Items include knows the job, is regarded as an expert, keeps up- to-date on professional/technical developments, and stays informed about industry prac- tices and new developments.

Perceived job performance

Perceived job performance, an outcome variable in this study, was measured using a scale in The PROFILOR® for Managers. Perceived job performance scale had been developed and validated by the original developers of The PROFILOR® for Managers (PDI Ninth House 2004). The reliability of the scale was α = .87. Five items were averaged to form a perceived job performance scale. Items include accomplishes a great deal, gets the job done, gets work done on time, is an effective manager overall, and produces high-quality work.

Data analysis

A three-step procedure was employed to analyse the data. First, correlations between variables and descriptive statistics of variables including mean and standard deviation were calculated. Second, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed. Since the four leadership behaviour scales were created by the SME panel using the items in The PROFILOR® for Managers based on the definition of each leadership behaviour provided by previous literature (Dorfman et al. 1997), we needed to evaluate and ensure the four leadership behaviour scales were distinct but correlated factors. CFA was carried out using LISREL 8.8. After reviewing the initial CFA results, items that either failed to load on their designated scale or loaded substantially on more than one scale were considered statistically problematic and discarded. After discarding those items, the final CFA model was generated, and scale scores were created by summing the individual behaviours belonging in each scale.

Third, to test the hypotheses in this study, multiple regression analyses were run on the variables using SPSS 20.0. This was done to investigate the relationships between the four types of leader behaviour and perceived job performance while

Human Resource Development International 269

controlling for technical expertise. This process was repeated independently for each of the countries explored in this study. We chose multiple regression analysis over hierarchical regression analysis because we wanted to put all four leadership beha- viour variables into the analysis equation at the same time. Once all the variables were entered in the analysis equation, a hierarchical regression analysis produced identical results as did the multiple regression analysis. We believe a leader shows all four types of leadership behaviours to a certain extent while the strength of each leadership behaviour varies depending on leaders. Therefore, it was not the focus of this study to examine leadership effectiveness with certain sets of leadership beha- viours while excluding some other leadership behaviours through a hierarchical regression analysis.

Results

The four leadership scales were correlated with each other ranging from r = .55 to r = .75 (see Table 1). Each of the four leadership scales showed a higher correlation with perceived job performance than with technical expertise.

Correlations between directive and charismatic leadership scales and perceived job performance were higher than those observed between the participative and supportive leadership scales and perceived job performance.

Table 2 summarizes the results of the CFA performed on the behaviours constituting the four leadership scales and the technical expertise scale. The final CFA model with 20 items produced a good model fit, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .98, GFI = .94. The item loadings are between .60 and .81.

Table 3 shows the results of the multiple regression analyses. For the U.S., we hypothesized that charismatic, directive, and participative leadership behaviours would have positive relationships with the perceived job performance of leaders (1a through 1c). Additionally, we hypothesized that supportive leadership behaviour would have a slightly positive relationship with perceived job performance (1d). As expected, charismatic and directive leadership behaviours were shown to have positive relation- ships with perceived job performance in the U.S. Hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported. Supportive leadership behaviour was shown to have a slightly positive relationship with perceived job performance in the U.S. Thus, hypothesis 1c was supported. However, participative leadership behaviour did not have a significant relationship with perceived job performance. Thus, hypothesis 1d was not supported. This result regarding participative leader behaviour was not consistent with the find- ings of previous cross-cultural leadership studies (e.g., Dorfman et al. 1997; House et al. 2004), which argued that participative leader behaviours would contribute to effective leadership in the U.S.

For Confucian Asian countries, it was hypothesized that charismatic, directive, and supportive leadership behaviours would have positive relationships with the perceived job performance of leaders in all four countries. However, it was expected that participative leadership behaviour would have a positive relationship with the per- ceived performance of leaders in Japan only, and not in China, Singapore, and South Korea. As expected, charismatic and directive leader behaviours were shown to have positive relationships with perceived job performance in all four Confucian Asia countries. Hypotheses 2a and 2b were supported. Supportive leadership behaviour was positively related to perceived job performance in China, Japan, and South Korea. However, the impact of supportive leadership behaviour was insignificant in

270 S.J. Hwang et al.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations among four leadership factors, technical expertise (TE), and perceived job performance (PJP).

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

Charismatic 3.93 .578 1.000 Directive 3.88 .629 .747*** 1.000 Participative 3.91 .589 .682*** .610*** 1.000 Supportive 4.10 .574 .628*** .554*** .720*** 1.000 TE 4.03 .642 .565*** .500*** .421*** .379*** 1.000 PJP 4.19 .612 .722*** .708*** .568*** .546*** .571*** 1.000

Note: *** = p < .001.

Table 2. The results of confirmatory factor analysis on four leadership dimensions and technical expertise.

Item description Directive Supportive Charismatic Participative Expertise

Conveys clear expectations for assignments

0.71 – – – –

Provides clear direction and defines priorities for the team

0.81 – – – –

Clarifies roles and responsibilities with team members

0.77 – – – –

Identifies specific action steps and accountabilities

0.74 – – – –

Conveys trust in people’s competence to do their jobs

– 0.72 – – –

Values the contributions of all team members

– 0.66 – – –

Is accessible to provide assistance/ support as necessary

– 0.60 – – –

Fosters the development of a common vision

– – 0.68 – –

Inspires people to excel – – 0.73 – – Gives compelling reasons for ideas – – 0.67 – – Sets high personal standards of performance

– – 0.61 – –

Links the team’s mission to that of the broader organization

– – 0.66 – –

Involves others in shaping plans and decisions that affect them

– – – 0.73 –

Seeks appropriate input before making decisions

– – – 0.67 –

Encourages others to express their views, even contrary ones

– – – 0.69 –

Listens carefully to input – – – 0.66 – Knows the job – – – – 0.63 Is regarded as an expert – – – – 0.67 Keeps up-to-date on professional/ technical developments

– – – – 0.76

Stays informed about industry practices and new developments

– – – – 0.76

Human Resource Development International 271

Singapore. Thus, hypothesis 2c was only partially supported. The impact of partici- pative leadership behaviour was not significant in China, Singapore, and South Korea. In contrast, as expected, participative leadership behaviour showed a positive relation- ship with perceived job performance in Japan. Thus, hypotheses 2d and 2e were supported.

Discussion

This study was undertaken to examine the extent to which four types of leadership behaviour – charismatic, directive, participative, and supportive – were related to perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S., China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. First, we found that both charismatic leadership behaviour and directive leadership behaviour showed a positive impact on perceived job performance of leaders in all countries in this study. This is consistent with previous cross-cultural studies (e.g., Dorfman et al. 1997; House et al. 2004), noting that charismatic and directive leadership behaviours seem to be universally effective across cultures. Second, supportive leadership behaviour was significantly related to perceived job performance of leaders in all countries studied except Singapore. This result partially supports the findings from prior cross-cultural research regarding the universal effec- tiveness of supportive leadership behaviour. Third, we found that participative leader- ship behaviour was not significantly related to perceived job performance of leaders in China, Singapore, South Korea, and the U.S., whereas it showed a positive impact on perceived job performance of leaders in Japan. A non-significant relationship between participative leadership behaviour and perceived job performance in China, Singapore, and South Korea was expected based on prior research. Previous research also pre- dicted a positive impact of participative leadership behaviour on the leadership effec- tiveness in Japan. The insignificant relationship between participative leader behaviour and perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S. was contrary to previous leadership research.

Theoretical contributions

With regard to theoretical contributions, first, this study is one of only a few studies that have attempted to empirically examine the effectiveness of different leadership behaviours across non-Western countries. Moreover, many previous leadership studies conducted in Confucian Asian countries have only assessed whether a leadership model developed in a Western culture (e.g., transformational leadership) could be applied to Confucian Asia

Table 3. Results of multiple regression analyses.

N R2 Charismatic Directive Participative Supportive Tech Exp

U.S. 18,750 0.623 .308*** .335*** −.002 .101*** .184*** China 913 0.676 .130** .304** .041 .199** .269* Japan 2104 0.665 .303* .205* .149* .027* .306* Singapore 234 0.614 .251* .337** .006 −.003 .234** South Korea 202 0.629 .118* .451** .073 .190* .308**

Note: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001.

272 S.J. Hwang et al.

culture. This study examined which types of leadership behaviour are related to the leadership effectiveness in certain countries (i.e., the country-specific leadership profile). Specifically, we examined four leadership behaviours – charismatic, directive, participa- tive, and supportive – and their influence on the perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S., China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea.

Second, some of the study findings were contrary to previous research. Supportive leadership behaviour was not significantly related to perceived job performance of leaders in Singapore. Participative leadership behaviour was also not significantly related to perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S. The insignificant relationship between participative leadership behaviour and perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S. was very surprising considering the many previous cross-cultural studies showing the effectiveness of participative leadership behaviour in the Anglo cluster and the large sample size of the U.S. (18,750 participants) in this study. How can we explain this finding? One possible speculation regarding the insignificant relationship between parti- cipative leadership behaviour and perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S. might be that although people tend to prefer participative leadership and attribute it to effective leadership (House et al. 2004), in real organizational situations, they may still respect leaders’ authority and accept leaders’ non-participative (i.e., authoritative) behaviours. When the GLOBE researchers (House et al. 2004) examined the cultural values (‘Should Be’) and cultural practices (‘As Is’), the cultural value (‘Should Be’) of power distance was lower than the cultural practice (‘As Is’) of power distance in all cultural clusters examined in the GLOBE research. This might suggest that while people desire the lower level of power distance, the relationships they have with their supervisors are still based on hierarchy (House et al. 2004). Thus, although people tend to relate participative leadership behaviour to effective leadership in the U.S., these workers may work well with, and in fact produce, performance results for leaders who are not very participative. Another possible explanation is that the impact of leadership behaviours (including participative leadership behaviour) could be contingent on other contextual factors, including the industry, the level of the leader’s position, age, or the interactions between different types of leadership behaviours. All such factors deserve additional exploration in future research.

Third, if we take a deeper look at the results, we find interesting differences regarding the effective leadership prototype in each country. While charismatic and directive leadership behaviours had a positive relationship with perceived job perfor- mance of leaders in all of the countries studied, and supportive leadership behaviour showed positive impact in all of the countries except Singapore, the types of leader- ship behaviour that were more important than others varied depending on the country. Among the four types of leadership behaviour, directive leadership behaviour was the most strongly associated with perceived job performance in most of the countries studied. In particular, directive leadership behaviour showed the strongest relationship with the perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S., China, Singapore, and South Korea.

Next to directive leadership behaviour, the leadership behaviour showing a strong relationship to job performance was either charismatic or supportive leadership beha- viour. In the U.S. and Singapore, charismatic leadership behaviour showed the second strongest influence on perceived job performance of leaders. In the U.S., supportive leadership behaviour was the next leadership behaviour in terms of leadership effec- tiveness. In Singapore, the impact of supportive leadership became insignificant. In contrast, in China and South Korea, supportive leadership behaviour showed the

Human Resource Development International 273

second strongest association with perceived job performance, followed by charismatic leadership behaviour. Japan was the only country where charismatic leadership beha- viour showed the strongest association with job performance, followed by directive leadership behaviours. Supportive leadership behaviours had a positive but weaker relationship with the perceived job performance compared to charismatic and directive leadership behaviours in Japan. More importantly, participative leadership behaviour was positively related to perceived job performance leaders only in Japan among the countries studied.

Practical implications

This study provides several implications for practice in the HRD field. First, the findings of this study can provide important direction to HRD practitioners who manage or facilitate leadership development initiatives. Many HRD practitioners in Asian countries design leadership development programmes based on findings from the best available leadership research, which has often been conducted in Western cultures. Even worse, HRD practitioners in many countries may purchase a standard or generic leadership training programme originally designed and developed in other countries (often in the U.S.) and provide it to their local managers with little modification to its content. This study suggests that practitioners may need to customize the training content according to the country-specific leadership profile, so that people can maximize the impact of training by investing more time and effort on those leadership behaviours identified as the most effective in the countries where the managers are to be working.

Additionally, the study findings provide insights for HRD professionals preparing expatriate training programmes. In the global economy, many companies send their managers abroad as expatriates. In these cases, companies often provide training to expatriate candidates before they go abroad to help them adjust to, and perform effectively in, the foreign country. Using the findings of this study, HRD professionals can design and deliver expatriate training programmes specifically aligned with the unique cultural preferences for leadership style in the target countries.

Limitations and future study

There are several limitations in this study. One limitation of this study is that all analyses were performed on the direct supervisor’s ratings of the leadership behaviours of the managers studied, not on ratings completed by the direct reports of these managers. Different categories of raters (e.g., peers, direct reports) may see different aspects of the behaviours exhibited by the managers studied, given the nature of their varying interac- tions with the individual being rated. The direct reports may have different evaluations of the leadership behaviours of the participating managers compared to those of the man- agers’ supervisors, which may alter the relationship between the leadership behaviours and the perceived job performance of leaders. Future study is required to investigate the relationships using the perspectives of different raters.

The second limitation of this study was the use of a cross-sectional design. The cross- sectional design cannot examine the causal relationship between constructs. Thus, we could not test whether a certain style of leadership behaviours increased the perceived job performance of leaders, nor could we test whether improved job performance of leaders positively caused leaders to behave in certain ways. It may be that leaders with high perceived job performance would have more confidence and/or flexibility to invest their

274 S.J. Hwang et al.

time in managing and supporting their followers. To examine the causal relationship between leadership behaviours and leader effectiveness, researchers need to use different research methods such as a longitudinal analysis.

Another limitation is the make-up of the participants in the study. The sample consisted mainly of managers from mid- to large-sized organizations, often multinational corporations, who were frequent users of the services of a private-sector consultancy. It could be problematic to generalize the results to other organizational contexts such as smaller local organizations, entrepreneurial start-up organizations, or non-profit organiza- tions. Such organizations were not represented in this sample. Therefore, future research needs to investigate the cross-cultural leadership issue using samples from various types of organizations in different countries.

Last, there is another direction for future research. Some of the findings of this study were contrary to previous research. For example, participative leadership behaviour was not associated with the perceived job performance of leaders in the U.S. Thus, the effectiveness of participative leadership in the U.S. and other Anglo cluster countries should be examined in future studies since many previous cross-cultural studies have shown the effectiveness of participative leadership behaviour in the Anglo cluster. It may be that people say they want participative leadership but respond most to more directive and non-participative approaches. Studies clearly differentiating between the desired leadership style and actual effective leadership will be necessary. Similarly, supportive leadership behaviour was not positively related to perceived job performance of leaders in Singapore. This finding was contrary to previous research and should be investigated in future studies considering the universal effectiveness of supportive leader behaviour suggested by many cross-cultural leadership studies (e.g., Dorfman et al. 1997; House et al. 2004).

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID Joseph Wohkittel http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2049-7320

Note 1. The University of Minnesota’s Office of Institutional Compliance has determined that in order

to manage any potential conflict of interest, neither this author nor anyone reporting directly to this author may directly perform analyses on these data. In compliance with this directive, the data have been transferred to the college’s Office of Research Consultation Services (ORCS). ORCS was and is retained to maintain, conduct analyses on, and ensure the steadfast propriety of this database.

References Adler, N. J., and S. Bartholomew. 1992. “Managing Globally Competent People.” The Executive 6

(3): 52–65. doi:10.5465/AME.1992.4274189. Ardichvili, A. 2001. “Leadership Styles and Work-Related Values of Managers and Employees of

Manufacturing Enterprises in Post-Communist Countries.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 12 (4): 363–383.

Human Resource Development International 275

Ashkanasy, N. M. 2002. “Leadership in the Asian Century: Lessons from GLOBE.” International Journal of Organisational Behaviour 5 (3): 150–163.

Ashkanasy, N. M., E. Trevor-Roberts, and L. Earnshaw. 2002. “The Anglo Cluster: Legacy of the British Empire.” Journal of World Business 37 (1): 28–39. doi:10.1016/S1090-9516(01)00072-4.

Bass, B. M., and B. J. Avolio. 1993. “Transformational Leadership: A Response to Critiques.” In Leadership Theory and Research, edited by M. M. Chemers and R. Ayman. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Berling, J. A. 1982. “Confucianism.” Asian Religions 2 (1): 5–7. Bochner, S., and B. Hesketh. 1994. “Power Distance, Individualism/Collectivism, and Job-Related

Attitudes in a Culturally Diverse Work Group.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 25: 233–257. doi:10.1177/0022022194252005.

Carson, J. B., P. E. Tesluk, and J. A. Marrone. 2007. “Shared Leadership in Teams: An Investigation of Antecedent Conditions and Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 50: 1217–1234. doi:10.2307/20159921.

Collins, B. E., and B. H. Raven 1969. “Group Structure: Attraction, Coalitions, Communication and Power.” In The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 4, edited by G. Lindzey and E. Aronson. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Davidson, A. R., J. J. Jaccard, H. C. Triandis, M. L. Morales, and R. Diaz-Guerrero. 1976. “Cross- Cultural Model Testing: Toward a Solution of the Etic-Emic Dilemma.” International Journal of Psychology 11: 1–13. doi:10.1080/00207597608247343.

Dickson, M. W., D. N. Den Hartog, and J. K. Mitchelson. 2003. “Research on Leadership in a Cross-Cultural Context: Making Progress, and Raising New Questions.” The Leadership Quarterly 14 (6): 729–768. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.002.

Dorfman, P. W., and J. P. Howell. 1988. “Dimensions of National Culture and Effective Leadership Patterns: Hofstede Revisited.” In Advances in International Comparative Management, Vol. 3, edited by E. G. McGoun. Greenwich: JAI Press.

Dorfman, P. W., J. P. Howell, S. Hibino, J. K. Lee, U. Tate, and A. Bautista. 1997. “Leadership in Western and Asian Countries: Commonalities and Differences in Effective Leadership Processes across Cultures.” The Leadership Quarterly 8 (3): 233–274. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90003-5.

Farh, J.-L., P. M. Podsakoff, and B.-S. Cheng. 1987. “Culture-Free Leadership Effectiveness Versus Moderators of Leadership Behavior: An Extension and Test of Kerr and Jermier’s “Substitutes for Leadership” Model in Taiwan.” Journal of International Business Studies 18: 43–60. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490411.

Geletkanycz, M. A. 1997. “The Salience of ‘Culture’s Consequences’: The Effects of Cultural Values on Top Executive Commitment to the Status Quo.” Strategic Management Journal 18 (8): 615–634. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266.

Gerstner, C. R., and D. V. Day. 1994. “Cross-Cultural Comparison of Leadership Prototypes.” The Leadership Quarterly 5 (2): 121–134. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(94)90024-8.

Goncalo, J. A., and B. M. Staw. 2006. “Individualism-Collectivism and Group Creativity.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 100: 96–109. doi:10.1016/j. obhdp.2005.11.003.

Gong, Y., J. Huang, and J. Farh. 2009. “Employee Learning Orientation, Transformational Leadership, and Employee Creativity: The Mediating Role of Employee Creative Self- Efficacy.” Academy of Management Journal 52 (4): 765–778. doi:10.5465/ AMJ.2009.43670890.

Graen, G. B. 2006. “In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross-Cultural Lesson in Leadership from Project GLOBE: A Response Viewed from the Third Culture Bonding (TCB) Model of Cross-Cultural Leadership.” The Academy of Management Perspectives 20 (4): 95–101. doi:10.5465/ AMP.2006.23270309.

Gregersen, H. B., A. J. Morrison, and J. S. Black. 1998. “Developing Leaders for the Global Frontier.” Sloan Management Review 40 (1): 21–32.

Gupta, V., P. J. Hanges, and P. Dorfman. 2002. “Cultural Clusters: Methodology and Findings.” Journal of World Business 37 (1): 11–15. doi:10.1016/S1090-9516(01)00070-0.

Hezlett, S. H., A. M. Ronnkvist, K. E. Holt, and J. F. Hazucha. 2006. The PROFILOR® Technical Summary. Minneapolis, MN: PDI Ninth House.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

276 S.J. Hwang et al.

Hofstede, G., and M. H. Bond. 1988. “The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to Economic Growth.” Organizational Dynamics 16 (4): 5–21. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(88)90009-5.

Hofstede, G., G. Hofstede, and M. Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software for the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

House, R. J., P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta. 2004. Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hui, W., K. S. Law, R. D. Hackett, W. Duanxu, and C. Zhen Xiong. 2005. “Leader-Member Exchange as a Mediator of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Followers’ Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior.” Academy of Management Journal 48: 420–432. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407908.

Hur, Y., P. Van Den Berg, and C. M. Wilderom. 2011. “Transformational Leadership as a Mediator between Emotional Intelligence and Team Outcomes.” The Leadership Quarterly 22 (4): 591– 603. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.002.

Ishida, H. 1986. “Transferability of Japanese Human Resource Management Abroad.” Human Resource Management 25: 103–120. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-050X.

Ishikawa, J. 2012. “Transformational Leadership and Gatekeeping Leadership: The Roles of Norm for Maintaining Consensus and Shared Leadership in Team Performance.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 29 (2): 265–283. doi:10.1007/s10490-012-9282-z.

Javidan, M., P. W. Dorfman, M. De Luque, and R. J. House. 2006. “In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE.” Academy Of Management Perspectives 20 (1): 67–90. doi:10.5465/AMP.2006.19873410.

Jung, D., F. J. Yammarino, and J. K. Lee. 2009. “Moderating Role of Subordinates’ Attitudes on Transformational Leadership and Effectiveness: A Multi-Cultural and Multi-Level Perspective.” The Leadership Quarterly 20: 586–603. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.011.

Kim, H., and H. R. Markus. 1999. “Deviance or Uniqueness, Harmony or Conformity? A Cultural Analysis.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77: 785–800. doi:10.1037/ 0022-3514.77.4.785.

Muczyk, J. P., and B. C. Reimann. 1987. “The Case for Directive Leadership.” The Academy of Management Executive 1 (4): 301–311. doi:10.5465/AME.1987.4275646.

Northouse, P. G. 2006. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. PDI Ninth House. 2004. PROFILOR® for Managers. Minneapolis, MN: PDI Ninth House. Podsakoff, P. M., W. D. Todor, and R. S. Schuler. 1983. “Leader Expertise as a Moderator of the

Effects of Instrumental and Supportive Leader Behaviors.” Journal of Management 9 (2): 173–185. doi:10.1177/014920638300900208.

Robie, C., K. M. Johnson, D. Nilsen, and J. F. Hazucha. 2001. “The Right Stuff: Understanding Cultural Differences in Leadership Performance.” Journal of Management Development 20 (7): 639–650. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005637.

Savicki, V. 1999. “Cultural Work Values for Supervisors and Managers: A Cross-Cultural Look at Child and Youth Care Agencies.” Child and Youth Care Forum 28 (4): 239–255. doi:10.1023/ A:1021905308717.

Scarborough, J. 1998. “Comparing Chinese and Western Cultural Roots: Why “East Is East And…”.” Business Horizons 41 (6): 15–24. doi:10.1016/S0007-6813(98)90018-0.

Shin, S. J., and J. Zhou. 2003. “Transformational Leadership, Conservation, and Creativity: Evidence from Korea.” Academy of Management Journal 46: 703–714. doi:10.2307/30040662.

Silverthorne, C. 2001. “Leadership Effectiveness and Personality: A Cross Cultural Evaluation.” Personality and Individual Differences 30 (2): 303–309. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00047-7.

Smith, P. B., and M. F. Peterson. 1988. Leadership, Organizations and Culture: An Event Management Model. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stephenson, W. 1953. The Study of Behavior; Q-Technique and Its Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Trompenaars, F. 1993. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: The Economist Books.

Wang, J., G. G. Wang, W. E. Ruona, and J. W. Rojewski. 2005. “Confucian Values and the Implications for International HRD.” Human Resource Development International 8 (3): 311–326. doi:10.1080/13678860500143285.

Xing, F. 1995. “The Chinese Cultural System: Implications for Cross-Cultural Management.” SAM Advanced Management Journal 60 (1): 14–20.

Yukl, G. A. 2012. Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Human Resource Development International 277

Copyright of Human Resource Development International is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.