Leadership Question

Peter W. Dorfman *, John P. Howell, Shozo Hibino, Jin K. Lee, Uday Tate and Arnoldo Bautista

Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 233-274. Copyright 1997 by JAI Press Inc.

Supplement Reading – Ensari & Murphy (Christina)

Cross Cultural Variations in Leadership Perceptions and Attribution of Charisma to the Leader

Nurcan Ensari and Susan Elaine Murphy

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 92 (2003) 52-66

In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE

Mansour Javidan, Peter W. Dorfman, Mary Sully de Luque, and Robert J. House*

Academy of Management Perceptives, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Feb. 2006), pp. 67-90 (Academy of Management)

Supplement Reading – Resick et. al (Jeanette)

A Cross- Cultural Examination of the Endorsement of Ethical Leadership

Christian J. Resick, Paul J. Hanges, Marcus W. Dickson, and Jacqueline K. Mitchelson

Journal of Business Ethics (2006) 63: 345-359 (Springer 2006)

Topic 10: Cross Cultural Leadership

Evaluation of Reading Set

1. Commonalities:

· All look at …

· Readings 21 – Culture dimensions effect on leadership perception

· Dorman et. al (1997) - Culture influence on prevalent and effective leadership styles

· Ensari & Murphy (2003) – Interactive cultural effects on leadership perception and attribution of charism

· Javidan et. al (2006) - Development of global leaders in todays multi-cultural environment

· Resick et. al (2006) – Ethical leaders among multiple cultures

2. Differences:

· ?

· ?

· ?

3. Reconciliation:

· ?

· ?

4. Relevance and Value

· ?

· ?

5. Assessment of Synergy

· ?

· ?

· ?

Discussion Questions:

1. In Readings 21, the authors agree that the article only touch a small fraction of the multi-facet and complicated discussion of how culture effects leadership perception. As the workforce continues to grow in diversity, do you feel today’s leaders are knowledgeable in understanding the impact of cultural effects on leadership perception? How can organizations gain additional perceptive on its current employees’ cultural norms, roles, and belief systems to increase leadership effectiveness?

2. Dorfman’s study exploits the variation among leadership style effectiveness and culture, bridging even the gap between Western and Eastern cultures. Why is this knowledge valuable? Do you think it has relevance with the rise of globalization? Please explain.

3. Although in Middle East democracy is weak but still participatory leadership is quite popular. What are the reasons this dimension of leadership is gaining popularity? Describe the pro and cons of this style?

4. What are the ways to create leaders with a global mindset in the era of globalization where companies are focusing on expanding the areas of operations?

5. “A Cross-Cultural Examination of the Endorsement of Ethical Leadership” by Christian Resick & company dives into the idea that there are certain characteristics of ethical leadership that are universally endorsed. These are Character/Integrity, Altruism, Collective Motivation, and Encouragement. Different cultural clusters put more weight on some dimensions than others. Which dimension would you personally put the most and least consideration/weight towards and why?

Chapter 9: Readings 21 (Christina)

A Cross Cultural Perspective on Perceived Leadership Effectiveness

Jun Yan and James G. (Jerry) Hunt

International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management 5, 1 (2005), pp. 49-66. Copyright Sage Publications

Summary

Cross cultural studies help to better understand leadership behaviors in different cultures or in multi-cultural environments. Studies also help provide useful advice and guidelines to achieve leadership effectiveness in organizations with workforce that are more culturally, ethnically, and internationally diverse. This article research is in how leadership perception varies with different cultural dimensions in a cross-cultural context.

Leadership Perception Processes

Conceptual Model

1. Inference-Based Perception emphasizes the functional aspects of leadership

· Automatic inferential process, causal linkages are made based on salience and proximity

· Controlled inferential process, reflects a more careful, deliberate analysis of likely causal agents for organizational outcomes. Adequate and accurate information is needed.

2. Recognition-Based Perception

· Pre-existing knowledge about leadership, underlying leadership traits and behaviors. Knowledge could be learned or experienced and is culturally different.

· Leadership categories are hierarchically organized: highest level, leadership is generalized, and middle level incorporates situation information about leadership, lowest level types of leadership in their contest are further differentiated

Social- Cognitive Processes

· Effective leadership depends on adequate administration of rewards and technical abilities of a leader, as well as how subordinates, peer, and/or superiors interpret these actions.

· Perception of leadership by followers is vital in influencing leadership behaviors as well conceptions of leadership effectiveness. “Cultural universality of cognitive processes” associated with leadership perception still need more exploring

Article Objectives

1. Research Goal: link 5 cultural dimensions to leadership perception process and generate propositions processes and group/organization performance outcomes

2. Explain and predicting cross cultural perceived leadership effectiveness

3. Examine whether cultural characteristics are associated with followers’ tendencies to adopt either inference-based or recognition-based leadership perception processes.

4. Examine how the leadership processes related and what are the consequences in terms of effective leaders or leadership effectiveness?

Cultural Dimensions

1. Collectivism vs individualism (CI), measures the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups

· Collective culture , interest of the group prevails over the interest of the individual

· Act cooperatively in their group’s interest and emphasizes the importance of group effort to success and not likely to blame one individual person for failure even if the individual is the leader. Individual achievement is not valued, reward is given to all collective member even when the leader plays the vital role. Self-effacement is highly valued. Leaders maintain a low profile before success. Low profiles of successful overseas Chinese business people are a good example.

· Horizontal collectivists believe ins subordination to the goal and good of the group. Adopt recognition-based process. Vertical collectivists, have strong allegiance to the organization as a separate entity, care more about the organization than the immediate group. Adopt recognition-based process.

· Individualistic Culture , interest of the individual prevails over the interest of the group

· Top executives bear the total responsibility for success and failure. Salaries of Japanese top executives and those of American counterparts proves this point)

· Vertical individualism, strong desire for and enjoyment of competition at work and emphasis on superior performance and winning. More likely to adopt an inference-based process. Horizontal individualism, desire for autonomy coexist with desire for conformity, deviation from group norm is considered an aberration. More likely to adopt a recognition-based process

Proposition 1: The higher the collectivism in a culture, the more the followers will adopt a b recognition-based process to perceive leadership and the less the followers will adopt an inference-based process to perceive leadership

· Leadership effectiveness is influenced by the perceptions and reactions of followers. Perceiving the leader as effective will increase the followers’ intentions and willingness to cooperate and dedications in carrying out jobs or implementing orders assigned by the leader

· Collectivist society, followers are more likely to accept the leadership that fits into their protype. Individualistic society, leaders’ performance will be more likely to increase follower’s compliance and devotion

2. Power Distance (PD), measures the way in which societies handle the problem of human inequality

· Low PD societies believe inequalities between people should be minimalized and hierarchies exist only for administrative convenience. Subordinates and leaders regard each other as equals, who have equal rights and representation. Subordinates are more likely to be given the opportunity to share important information and to participate in decision-making.

· High PD societies are characterized by acceptance of inequality and its institutionalization in hierarchies that locate people in their “rightful places”. Leadership is perceived has given rather than earned because of capabilities or good performance. Paternalism often dominates superior-subordinate relationships and loaded with emotions, which leads to followers less likely to perceive leadership rationally.

Proposition 2: The higher the PD in a culture, the less the followers will adopt an inference-based process to perceive leadership and the more the followers will adopt a recognition-based process to perceive leadership.

· High PD situation, acceptance of leadership comes from the subordinates who have high dependence on the leaders. Manipulation of subordinates’ emotions could skew their perception of leadership effectiveness

· Low PD situation, personal ability, skill, and performance plays a more important role in subordinates’ perception of an effective leader.

3. Masculinity vs Femininity (MASC or FEMI), measures the extent to which the dominate values of the society are masculine vs feminine values

· High masculinity index cultures, stress material success, favor large-scale enterprises, and leaders attach high importance to achievement and assertiveness. Leaders are less likely to focus on ethical issues.

· Low masculinity index cultures, leaders (male or female) are not achievement oriented and are nurturing and relationship concerned. Leaders are caring of subordinates and nurture good relationships with them.

Proposition 3: The higher the MASC in a culture, the more the followers will adopt an inference-based process to perceive leadership and the less the followers will adopt a recognition-based process to perceive leadership

· High MASC, personal achievement will be given more attention than personal characteristics. In a feminine society, good interpersonal relationships between leaders and followers are given more importance than achievements.

4. Uncertainty avoidance (UA), reflects a culture’s stance toward the authority of rules.

· High UA society, highly intolerant of ambiguity and distrustful of new ideas or behaviors. People value conforming to social and organizational norms. Organizations often adopt formal structures and centralizations to reduce sharing of information and decision-making with subordinates.

· Low UA society, tolerant of deviations from the norm. Followers attach more importance to the outcome of a behavior than whether it conforms to the rules and norms.

Proposition 4: The higher the UA in a culture, the less the followers will adopt an inference-based process to perceive leadership and the more they will adopt a recognition-based process to perceive leadership.

· High UA society, conforming to the norms and rules will increase feeling of stability among followers and followers will be more willing complete required assignments and directions.

· Low UA society, followers are open to change and are optimistic to the new direction. Followers are more tolerant of deviant behaviors because the behaviors may not bring damage to the performance of the entire organization.

5. Fatalism (FT) or Locus of Control (LC), or cultural-level locus of control.

· High FT society, people learned that events in their lives are due to uncontrollable forces. Believe achievement is dependent on luck and people are willing to accept leadership endowed by other forces.

· Low FT society, achievement or failure depends on their own efforts and actions. Leaders are help accountable for both successes and failures of the entire organization.

Proposition 5: The more fatalistic the culture is, the more the followers will adopt a recognition-based process to perceive leadership and the less the followers will adopt an inference-based process to perceive leadership.

· High FT, leadership will not receive much credit for good performance and neither will receive credit for bad outcomes. Low FT, successful organizational outcomes will be more effective in gaining acceptance of followers.

Conclusion

Leadership perception is a combination of all 5 if not more cultural dimensions, in fact, the cross-cultural comparison effects on leadership perceptions make it more difficult. This article only examines a very small part of a very complex multi-facet cross cultural leadership perception concepts. We can agree there are correlations between cultural influences and leadership perception. In cultures that score high in collectivism, power distance, feminity, uncertainty avoidance, and/or fatalism, people then to prefer a recognition-based process. On the other hand, cultures that score low in collectivism, power distance, feminity, uncertainty avoidance, and/or fatalism may adopt to an inference-based process to perceived leadership.

Proposition 6a: The higher the collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, feminity, and fatalism in a culture, the more positively perceived leadership effectiveness will be associated with conforming to the implicit leadership prototypes in the minds of the followers

Proposition 6b: The lower the collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, feminity, and fatalism in a culture, the more positively perceived leadership effectiveness will be associated with producing good performance outcomes.

Practical Value

It is a fact people in different cultures have different values and perceptions, and therefore perception on effective leadership differ among cultures. The authors based their article on only 5 proven effective cultural dimensions in leadership perception and agree future discussions are needed to dive deeper into the complex understanding of cultural influences. The propositions discussed in the article are good starting points on how organizations and leaders can adapt leadership behaviors according to subordinates’ cultural dynamics to help motivate subordinate and increase organizational performance.

Dorfman et. al (1997) – Raz

Leadership in Western and Asian Countries: Communalities and Differences in Effective Leadership Process Across Cultures

Peter W. Dorfman *, John P. Howell, Shozo Hibino, Jin K. Lee, Uday Tate and Arnoldo Bautista

Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 233-274. Copyright 1997 by JAI Press Inc.

Summary

This article evaluates the cultural impact on effectiveness of different leadership styles, namely the Path-Goal Theory and Multiple Linkage Model, and cover directive, supportive, participative, contingent reward and punishment, and charismatic leadership. Specifically, the thesis evaluated five countries – Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Mexico, and the United States, to try and understand how some of the economically fastest-growing nations’ cultures accepted, rejected, or stood ambivalent on different styles of leadership. Each nation brings a different culture, which, in turn, helps determine which leadership styles its people will likely react to. In the research conducted, the authors were able to draw conclusions and see patterns and generalizations across entirely different cultures.

Studies

The authors collected geographical and biographical data, interviewed industry professionals within each country, and paired this research with prior studies on leadership variability among different cultures and environments. The authors analyzed the information based on the surveys and drew hypotheses about each leadership style and whether they would likely have a positive impact on the workforce, a negative impact, or neutral or no impact. Impact in this sense refers to organizational commitment and job performance. These factors closely align with the path-goal and multiple linkage theories in that they reflect reactions and outcomes of employees in response to the inputs of leadership attributes. In addition to the survey results, the researchers evaluated cultures’ norms, identities, and traits like beliefs, values, religion, and social organization. Specifically, the article’s authors evaluate a culture’s individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, degree of industrialization, paternalism, and Eastern versus Western attitudes towards work and authority.

Results

The authors drew the following conclusions based on their studies for each of the five countries:

JAPAN

The authors concluded that Japan’s structure favours masculinity and uncertainty avoidance and is moderately collectivist. Because it is largely risk-averse, charismatic leadership is insignificant in Japanese leadership styles. Additionally, Confucianism dictates many cultural norms in Japan, and there is a strong tendency to focus on group harmony and not individual successes or failures. Prominent managerial styles, the authors concluded, would not be individualized in nature, but reflect group harmony and collective gains. The authors concluded the following:

Positive Impact Leadership Styles – supportive, contingent reward, participative

Negative Impact Leadership Styles – contingent punishment (individual)

Insignificant Impact Leadership Styles – charismatic

SOUTH KOREA

While South Korea also draws great influence from Confucianism, its application, as the authors discuss, is closer to Taiwan than that of Japan. One key factor in South Korea is the importance of hierarchical structure; the culture demands respect for senior officials. Officials, in turn, are expected to care for those under their jurisdiction, making the case for supportive and directive leadership as keys to harmonious business settings. Obedient members respond positively to directive leadership, and with a “collective good” bias to maintain harmony, employees will rarely be singled out for criticism. In this way, it is like Japanese culture. The authors’ conclusions were as follows:

Positive Impact Leadership Styles – supportive, charismatic, directive, contingent reward

Negative Impact Leadership Styles – no significant data

Insignificant Impact Leadership Styles – contingent punishment, participative

TAIWAN

Taiwan – which the authors link to Chinese values as well – is closely aligned with South Korea in many aspects. With a Confucianism influence, the culture favours managers “more authoritarian and autocratic than Western managers,” making for a power differential leadership influence. Also noteworthy is the general Chinese promotional framework, which is based more on conformity and nepotism than on ideas, collaboration, and performance. This negates much possibility for participative leadership. And because the culture is focused on conformance and loyalty, there is not much of a need for charismatic leadership, as the follower expectations are generally already established. The authors’ conclusions:

Positive Impact Leadership Styles – directive, supportive, contingent reward

Negative Impact Leadership Styles – contingent punishment

Insignificant Impact Leadership Styles – participative, charismatic

MEXICO

Mexico represents the “Western” culture, but it is not entirely different from that of its Asian counterparts regarding effective leadership styles. In Mexico, collectivism and paternalism are both strong, and these traits influence the general workforce. Like the Asian nations analyzed, Mexican leadership structure would generally not include a participative style due to the culture’s affinity towards collectivism and power structure. Finally, strong power dynamic dictates that charismatic leadership would likely thrive in the Mexican culture because of the followers’ typical response to leaders of that nature – and its history of such leaders. The authors concluded that in Mexico the following leadership traits would be impactful:

Positive Impact Leadership Styles – directive, supportive, contingent reward, charismatic

Negative Impact Leadership Styles – no significant data

Insignificant Impact Leadership Styles – participative, contingent punishment

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Likely because many of the leadership styles studied generated from American research, the United States had more readily available data. Unsurprisingly, the United States differed in key areas due to divergent cultures, norms, and values. First, the United States is medium on masculinity, low on power distance, and high on individualism. The last point alone paints the stark contrast to the other nations. Because of the focus on the individual, participative leadership has shown effectiveness in the U.S. whereas the other countries studied – more collectivist on the spectrum – would rarely benefit from a leader who is participative and engaging by nature. Perhaps because of this individualistic nature, Americans also respond more positively to individual feedback, making the contingent reward and punishment attributes effective in eliciting response from employees. Finally, charismatic leadership is studied to have been effective in driving positive job performance in America. The summarized findings are below:

Positive Impact Leadership Style – supportive, participative, charismatic, contingent reward, contingent punishment

Negative Impact Leadership Styles – no significant data

Insignificant Impact Leadership Styles – directive

Conclusion

Although there are great cultural, geographic, and demographic differences among countries in the Asia-Pacific basin, there are some similarities among leadership styles thought to bring positive feedback and performance. Notably, each of five countries studied indicated that supportive and contingent reward leadership are positively correlated with employee job performance and commitment. Despite differences in masculinity, individualism, power distance and view of authority, among other variables, it seems almost universal that these leadership styles will elicit positive reactions in teams. Individualistic societies like the United States favours less directive styles while countries which place high emphasis on structure and hierarchy, as well as collectivism, favour directive styles and non-participative leaders. A general assumption from the text would be that participative leadership is not necessary when cultural norms dictate that leaders are to be respected and followed at all cost, and that individuals’ ideas are not significant. Charismatic leadership and contingent punishment have probably the lowest correlation, as the five nations varied significantly on the impact and response to these structures. Overall, there is a difference in which leadership styles will have an impact based on certain country attributes. This research begins the conversation around which those might be.

Practical Value

It is worth noting that these hypotheses are just that – estimations based on empirical data and survey results. While there is certainly merit to the studies and their conclusions, they should not be treated as absolutes, and just as leadership styles vary between nations, they will likely also vary within nations. Still, there is significant practical value to the results. As the world’s global economy continually grows, the likelihood of doing business with companies and teams outside one’s home country is becoming more the norm than the exception. Many multinational corporations will place employees in various roles in different countries to expose current and future leaders to different cultures and preferences. That makes the knowledge of each culture’s correlation with its most effective leadership styles so valuable. For leaders doing business in foreign nations or working for different company divisions or organizations in other countries, they must learn how to extract the best results from their teams with respect to their cultures. Knowing which leadership styles will be best received by employees – and therefore most likely to lead to long-term success – there is tremendous value in a leader’s flexibility and ability to adapt to their environment.

Enari & Murphy (2003) – Christina

Cross Cultural Variations in Leadership Perceptions and Attribution of Charisma to the Leader

Nurcan Ensari and Susan Elaine Murphy

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 92 (2003) 52-66

Summary

As discussed in Readings 21, leadership perception is based on two processes, recognition-based (stereotype based) or inference-based (performance based). It is important to understand how people process information and interpret organizational performance in different cultural contexts, to understand how they perceive leaders. Previous research suggests that leadership perceptions are based on both the leader’s traits(recognition-based) and outcome (inference-based) of events.

Conger and Kanungo’s (1994) theory, focuses on six behavioral factors exhibited by a leader:

1. Strategic vision and communication

2. Sensitivity to the environment

3. Unconventional behavior

4. Personal risk

5. Sensitivity to organizational members’ needs

6. Deviation from the status quo

Research Objectives

1. Investigate leadership perceptions by comparing interactive effect recognition-based and inference-based information processing. (1st study to try to confirm the interactive effect)

2. Goal: Examine how the 2 leadership perception processes increases attributions of charism to leaders in collectivistic (Turkey) and individualistic (United States) cultures. Understand what factors are likely to contribute to attributions of charism. (1st study to investigate information processing specifically within the context of charismatic leadership)

3. Investigate moderating and mediation processes involved. Examine culture as the potential moderator and dispositional attributions as the potential mediator. (Consider the context of culture as a backdrop for the 2 types of leadership information processing and moderating effects of culture and its effects on attribution of charisma)

Hypothesis 1

Combine effects of recognition-based and inference-based processing to produce an interaction such that optimal attributions of charismatic leadership will be formed when the leader is presented as highly prototypical, and when the company’s performance outcome is successful.

· Based on Kelley’s (1973) attribution theory, people try to yield causal explanation for factual outcomes by assembling relevant information in the social environment to reach accurate conclusions. If the information level is inadequate, people are likely to seek out additional information to explain the outcome. People tend to give the facilitative cause more weight in producing the outcome

Hypothesis 2

Individualistic cultures will make their judgements based on the leaders’ characteristics and behaviors such that charismatic leadership will be perceived through reference-based processing

· When leaders are highly consistent with prototypical, expect a stronger tendency toward attributions of charismatic qualities to the leader than when the leader is anti-prototypical

Hypothesis 3

Collectivist cultures will make their judgements based on the leaders’ characteristics and behaviors will be perceived through inference-based processing.

· Will attribute the causes of outcomes to the collective action and make attributions of charismatic qualities to the leader based on organizational outcomes

Hypothesis 4

Effect of recognition-based processing on attributions of charisma to the leader should be mediated by the extent to which participants in an individualistic culture made attributions to dispositional factors.

· Kelley’s (1973) attribution theory suggests that people acting in a typical manner are more responsible, while those acting in an anti-prototypical manner are distinctive and therefore lead to an external attribution.

Hypothesis 5

The more likely a person is to make dispositional attributions, the more likely this will interact with performance outcomes and increase attributions of charisma. Expect this to be true across both cultural groups.

Pilot study

· Examine cultural differences in leaders’ prototypical behaviors to select prototypical and anti-prototypical behaviors of leaders in collectivistic and individualistic cultures. Distinguish ideal, effective leader behaviors from prototypical, representative leader behaviors.

· 49 American Students and 26 Turkish students to rate both the prototypicality and effectiveness of the 76 leader behaviors used in past research.

· Results, all the behaviors were rated as being moderately effective in both cultures

Method

· Participants: 87 American undergrad students (individualistic) & 100 Turkish students (Collectivistic)

· Design

· 2 recognition-based processing: prototypical vs anti-prototypical leader behavior

X

· 2 inference-based processing: high vs low outcome

X

· 2 culture: individualistic vs collectivistic

· Procedure: conducted during class time, students received questionnaire with vignette describing prototypical and anti-prototypical behavior

Measures

· Dispositional attributions (performance outcome)

· General leadership impression (exhibiting leadership behavior)

· Charismatic leadership perceptions (charisma: inspiration, vision, environmental sensitivity, group member sensitivity, personal risk and unconventional behavior)

· Manipulation check measures

· Individualism-collectivism

Results

· Manipulation check of prototypicality

· 2 (prototypicality) x 2 (outcome) x 2 (culture) ANOVA

· Vignettes used to characterize prototypical or anti-prototypical leader did not vary as of a function of the amount of charismatic leader behavior they contained.

· Manipulation check of outcome

· 2 (prototypicality) x 2 (outcome) x 2 (culture) ANOVA

· Students perceived the performance outcome of the company as higher in the high outcome condition

· Attribution of charismatic leadership

· 2 (prototypical vs. anti-prototypical leader) x 2 (high vs low outcome) x 2 (individualistic vs collectivistic culture) ANCOVA

· Confirmed hypothesis 1: when leader was highly prototypical, the high outcome lead to higher attribution of charisma than the low outcome. Co-occurrence of prototypicality and high-performance outcome produced optimal attributions of charisma.

· Confirmed hypothesis 2: Individualistic students attributed charisma to prototypical leader more than anti-prototypical leader. Collectivistic students, the prototypicality of the leader did not play a role in making attributions to charisma

· Confirmed hypothesis 3: Collectivistic students made their judgements based on the outcome of the company. When the company made high profits, students made higher attributions of charisma than when the company’s outcome was low.

· Dispositional attribution

· 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA and a separate 2 (prototypicality) x 2 (outcome) ANOVAs for the two cultures

· Collectivistic sample, Students made higher person attributions when the leader was prototypical

· Individualistic sample, more likely to give credit to the leader for the higher outcomes when the leader was prototypical

· Mediating role of dispositional attributions

· Used attributional measure that asked to what extent the person was responsible for performance as a covariate in separate 2 (prototypicality) x 2 (outcome) ANCOVs for individualistic culture and compared those to the results to an ANOVA without the attribution rating as a covariate.

· Confirm hypothesis 4: dispositional attributions mediated the effect of prototypicality on the attributions of charisma

· Moderating role of dispositional attributions

· Moderated regression with charisma as the dependent measure and the dispositional attribution, outcome level, and the dispositional attribution by outcome level cross product revealed a significant interaction.

· Confirmed hypothesis 5: If a person made less dispositional attributions, then the outcome level did not affect his or her ratings or charisma, and they tend to rate charism low across both outcomes.

Conclusion

The goal of the research is to investigate how the combine effects of leader prototypicality and performance outcome determine the attribution of charisma. Both collectivistic and individualist cultures, prototypical behavior combined with a high outcome produce greater attribution of charisma to the leader compared to the leader’s individual contributions. Results showed that in the individualistic culture leadership perceptions are determined by the recognition-based processing and collectivistic culture, inference-based processing was more likely to affect charism attributions. This study is also important because it applies social-cognitive perspective to executive leadership and organizational performance.

Practical Value

The study was done based on vignettes and student questionnaires, not sure how practical it is in the world to base our opinions how culture effects leadership perceptions. The study also lacks other charismatic leadership behaviors due to research restraints and practicality. Leadership perception is important in judging effective leadership, however the research also failed to consider situational implications of real-world leadership behaviors. The study is a good background information to help further develop new hypothesis and continued research on cultural effects on leadership perceptions.

Javidan et. al (2006) - Rachida

In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE

Mansour Javidan, Peter W. Dorfman, Mary Sully de Luque, and Robert J. House*

Academy of Management Perceptives, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Feb. 2006), pp. 67-90 (Academy of Management)

Summary

The authors provide information about the importance of knowledge of culture and its benefit influences a multi- cultural business environment. They also explain how it is necessary for leaders to be open-minded and more aware and understanding diverse cultures surrounding them. There are common cultural dimensions which are important for the development of global leaders.

· Performance Orientation: The degree to which a collective encourages and rewards (and should encourage and reward) group members for performance improvement and excellence.

· Assertiveness: The degree to which individuals are (and should be) assertive, confrontational, and aggressive in their relationships with others

· Future Orientation: The extent to which individuals engage in future-oriented behaviors such as delaying gratification, planning, and investing in the future.

· Humane Orientation: The degree to which a collective encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, generous, caring, and kind to others.

· Institutional Collectivism: The degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action.

· In-Group Collectivism: The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families.

· Gender Egalitarianism: The degree to which a collective minimizes gender inequality.

· Power Distance: The degree to which members of a collective expect power to be distributed equally.

· Uncertainty Avoidance: The extent to which a society, organization, or group relies on social norms, rules, and procedures to alleviate unpredictability of future events.

Regional Clustering of GLOBE Nations: Determined ten culture clusters from the 62-culture sample which include: Latin America, Anglo, Latin Europe (e.g., Italy), Nordic Europe, Germanic Europe, Confucian Asia, Sub- Saharan Africa, Middle East, Southern Asia, and Eastern Europe, each culture cluster differs with respect of the nine cultural dimensions.

Managing and Leading in Different Countries: Examine the importance to study the similarities and differences among cultures regarding management and leadership practices. The substantial empirical evidence indicates that leader attributes, behavior, status, and influence vary considerably because of culturally unique forces in the countries or regions in which the leaders’ function.

Do Required Leadership Qualities Differ Among Nations?

Leadership qualities encompass certain attributes that can compete or contribute to outstanding leadership. There are six dimensions of leadership:

1. Charismatic/value-based: Ability to inspire, to motivate, and to expect high performance outcomes from others based on firmly held core beliefs.

2. Team-oriented: Emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a common purpose or goal among team member

3. Participative: Involvement of others in decision making and implementation.

4. Humane oriented: Display supportive and considerate leadership but also includes compassion and generosity.

5. Autonomous: Refers to independent and individualistic leadership.

6. Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual.

Although there are cultural differences among the nations, we can see some common facilitators and impediments of leadership effectiveness. The facilitators are trustworthy, honest, having foresight, being positive, dynamic, encouraging, motivating, communicative, informed and team integrator, etc. The impediments are loners, asocial, non-cooperative, irritable and autocratic, etc.

Study

The research provides differences in effective leadership attributes among the four countries.

· Brazil: Individualistic, autonomous, and independent leadership is highly disliked. People believe that positions of authority deserve to be treated with respect and deference. The leaders are very much cautious and take the risk-averse approach.

· France: Charismatic/value-based, team-oriented leadership, participative leadership are viewed positively whereas autonomous and self-protective leaders are viewed negatively. They prefer participatory work and have strong labor unions as well as a bureaucratic formality. French leaders prefer team work and group collectivism.

· Egypt: Charismatic/value-based, team-oriented, humane-oriented and participative leadership has a positive view whereas self-protective leaders are viewed negatively. Egyptian employees due to their very strong in-group collectivism, prefer their leaders to respect group harmony, avoid group conflict, and take caution.

· China: The view towards charismatic/value-based, team-oriented, humane-oriented and participative leadership is viewed as like previous countries. Self-protective leadership dimension is considered as an impediment to effective leadership. Chinese leaders are very much performance oriented who strive for performance excellence. In some cases, they are authoritative and expect respect and obedience and tends to make autonomous decisions.

The study found that cross-cultural management is crucial for global success. There are two steps that should be implemented. Step one, the leaders should strive to share information about their own culture and understand other cultures. Training and education can be effective in this case. The second step, leaders should think positively to bridge the gap between two cultures. Some leaders view learning other culture is a sign of weakness, this view point needs to be changed.

Conclusion

This era of globalization requires a global leader to develop experiences of working with different cultural backgrounds and has a global mindset. The leader should also can tolerate high levels of ambiguity as well as shows cultural adaptability and flexibility. Cultural adaptability is vital for the leaders, the behavior can help them to achieve goals, build strong and positive relations with local citizens. Formal education and training, working in overseas and international assignments are also effective in building global leadership capabilities.

Practical Value

Global leadership qualities and attributes are crucial in organizational success. This article expresses the views of leadership dimensions in various cultures. As a leader, it is important to learn about the culture and external environment of foreign countries. Global trading and multinational operations leaders should develop an understanding of other cultures and values. The study proved there are difference between the European, Asian, Middle East and Latin American cultures. The same attributes can be viewed differently due to geographical locations. Operating in foreign soil or international meeting requires understanding the cultural dynamics and behaviors based on the integrated development effort. The paper conceptualizes leadership behavior and depict an interactive picture of success factors for multinational organizations.

Resick et.al (2006) – Jeanette

A Cross- Cultural Examination of the Endorsement of Ethical Leadership

Christian J. Resick, Paul J. Hanges, Marcus W. Dickson, and Jacqueline K. Mitchelson

Journal of Business Ethics (2006) 63: 345-359 (Springer 2006)

Summary

The authors of this reading start by prefacing that cross-cultural leadership is being researched heavily, but there is little research about cross-cultural ethical leadership. The increasingly multinational nature of business

creates a need for research aimed at understanding global business ethics. Reading defines ethical leadership as leading in a manner that respects the rights of others. The underlying assumption is that a person’s character predisposes a person to do right things and to act ethically. The authors decided to conduct a comprehensive review of the previous cross-cultural leadership literature. After review, they found and identified six key attributes which characterize ethical leadership.

1. Character and integrity

a. A commitment to virtue in all circumstances

b. Pattern of intentions and inclinations that provide moral foundation for ethical behavior

c. Provide a foundation of personal characteristics that guide a leader’s beliefs, decisions, and actions

2. Ethical awareness

a. Perceive and be sensitive to relevant moral issues

b. Concern for the collective good of the group

3. Community/People-orientation

a. Being people oriented

b. Using social power to achieve collective good of group as opposed to own self-interests

c. Integrating the rights and needs of others

4. Motivating

a. Persuading and motivating followers to put the group’s interest in front of their own

5. Encouraging and empowering

a. Giving followers a sense of self-sufficiency and importance

b. Letting followers think independently and creatively

6. Managing ethical accountability

a. Setting standards and expectations of ethical conduct

b. Holding followers accountable with rewards and punishment system

Study

This study examines the endorsement of components of ethical leadership across multiple cultures. First, a measure of ethical leadership is designed, and the measurement equivalence of this scale is examined. A study of leadership and culture is observed from 62 countries. Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) Research Program collected data from middle-managers and corporations. Participants completed questionnaires based on leaders and perception. Half of the participants answered questions to evaluate corporation culture (Form A) while the other half of the participants were asked to evaluate societal culture (Form B). GLOBE’s questionnaires asked participants to assess 21 different dimensions of leadership using 100 attributes. Examples of these attributes were personality traits such as benevolent, nurturing, and visionary. Although these did not specifically measure ethical leadership, the authors used graduate students to perform an exercise to identify which of GLOBE’s 100 items were reflective of ethical leadership after giving them a summary of ethical leadership to read. A total of 23 items were identified by all 6 students as being reflective of an ethical leader. The items were then standardized within countries in order to make social comparisons. There were two items that did not line up with GLOBE’s attributes. The two items that were NOT addressed in the current study were ethical awareness and accountability. This study suggests that while the measure was not able to capture the full breadth of the six components comprising the ethical leadership construct, it provides a useful starting point for examining beliefs about ethical leadership across cultures. Every society has their own culture, but there are some similarities among countries. There are some societal/region clusters in regards to culture. Some of these include Anglo, Eastern European, Latin American, Southeast Asian, and more.

Results

Overall, the results of the measurement equivalence analyses provide some modest evidence that the dimensions of ethical leadership are defined by the same items across societies. This demonstrates measurement equivalence. The GLOBE Culture Clusters are groupings of societies that have similar cultural values and practices among multiple dimensions of culture. Results from the various tables from the reading showed that the endorsement of each dimension of ethical leadership differed significantly across cultural clusters. Examples are that Nordic European cultures value character/integrity more strongly than Middle Eastern cultures. In contrast, Southeast Asian cultures valued altruism much higher than Nordic European cultures.

Conclusion

The biggest takeaway from this reading and study is that each of the ethical leadership dimensions addressed in focuses on leading in a positive or people-focused manner. The findings suggest that there is universal endorsement for the importance of the components of ethical leadership; however, societies differ in the degree of endorsement. In general, the findings from this study indicate that components that characterize ethical leadership in western societies are universally supported. These components are Character/Integrity, Altruism, Collective Motivation, and Encouragement. They are viewed as behaviors and characteristics that contribute to a person being an effective leader across a variety of cultures. There are some limitations to this study, though. Most of conceptualization of ethical leadership stems from Western cultures. Although the dimensions and characteristics of ethical leaders were universally endorsed, the degree and weight that different cultures valued in those traits differed significantly.

Practical Value

Today’s business climate is a global one. Most successful companies and industries are multi-national corporations who are effective in transitioning their business practices throughout different cultures. This reading and study are important for business leaders as they can digest which values their customers want in an ethical leader. There are previous studies that show ethical leaders are usually more successful. If businesses are able to adhere to different cultures, be a trailblazer in their industry, and do this all while being ethical leaders, there is no telling to how much success could be gained.

Page 2 of 2