Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster Analysis

The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. V, No. 1, 201116

Culture Differences in Leadership

This paper is a study of the impact culture has on leadership. It gives a comprehensive review of cultural differences in leadership and emphasizes the importance of understanding cultural differences between countries by examining the work of Geert Hofstede and the GLOBE (Global Leadership Organizational Behavioral Effectiveness). In earlier studies, Bernard Bass (1990) pointed out the different units of analysis in the study of leadership and culture: within and among countries, organizations and groups. In addition, he underscored the importance of understanding cultural differences, between countries. Studies such as Hofstede’s and the GLOBE project have shown that the success of the work of one nation’s individual in another culture is dependent upon understanding cultural differences, including the variations among attitudes towards and the practice of leadership styles. This article is a summary of the study of leadership in different cultures. The globalization of many organizations and the increasing interdependence of nations make the understanding of culture and its influence on leadership increasingly important.

© 2011 IUP. All Rights Reserved.

Almarie E Munley*

* Assistant Professor, 1705 Luxenbay Lane, Chesapeake, VA 23323, 1000 Regent University Drive, CRB 241, Virginia Beach, VA 23464. E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction There are many empirical studies on leadership; however, few have been concerned with the impact of cultural influence on leadership. In the Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications compiled by Bass and Stodgill and there is an important discussion regarding the globalization of many organizations and the increase of interdependencies of nations that makes the understanding of culture and its influence on leadership increasingly important.

The field of leadership and cultural studies is abundant in academic, corporate, and research institute literature. In his work, “A Case for Comparing Apples with Oranges: International Differences in Values”, Hofstede explains that to compare nations one needs theoretical justification and framework. The question then raised is, whether the phenomenon that is studied is functionally equal. Hofstede insists that any comparison of values and attitudes across nations is in some way a comparison of apples to oranges. It is a fruitless effort, Hofstede remarks, without the proper ‘fruitology’. The cultural attitudes, belief systems and values define the leader’s behavior as well as those who follow. Therefore, leadership changes across cultures emphasizing that there are

Culture Differences on Leadership 17

particular traits that label a leader depending on the region or society. One more concept to consider is the cultural programming within an individual that has to be examined carefully when reviewing leadership effectiveness. Hofstede’s, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind explains that every person carries within himself or herself patterns of thinking, feeling and potential acting which was learnt through a lifetime of experiences affecting the outcome or result of that person’s leadership style. In this article, two major works will be discussed briefly regarding leadership cultures: Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavioral Effectiveness (GLOBE) research project on nine cultural dimensions. The work of Hofstede explained the influence of culture in the leadership processes through a series of cultural dimensions. These include, power distance, masculinity, collectivism, uncertainty avoidance and long term versus short-term orientation. Three of these dimensions in Hofstede’s work are defined here:

1. Individualism (IDV): Individualism on the one side versus its opposite- collectivism, on the other, that is the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. On the individualist side, we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The word ‘collectivism’ in this sense has no political meaning: it refers to the group, not to the state. Again, the issue addressed by this dimension is an extremely fundamental one, regarding all societies in the world.

2. Power Distance Index (PDI): That is the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not from above. It suggests that the followers as much as the leaders endorse a society’s level of inequality. Power and inequality, of course, are extremely fundamental facts of any society and anybody with some international experience will be aware that ‘all societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others’.

3. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI): UAI deals with a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; it ultimately refers to a man’s search for Truth. It indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising and different from usual. Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and on the philosophical and religious level by a belief in absolute Truth: ‘There can only be one Truth and we have it.’ People in uncertainty avoiding countries are also more emotional, and motivated by inner nervous energy. The opposite type, uncertainty accepting

The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. V, No. 1, 201118

cultures, are more tolerant of opinions different from what they are used to; they try to have as few rules as possible, and on the philosophical and religious level they are relativist and allow many currents to flow side by side. People within these cultures are more phlegmatic and contemplative, and not expected by their environment to express emotions.

In addition, the GLOBE research program furthered the study of the cultural dimensions to include: future orientation, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, humane orientation, in-group collectivism, institutional collectivism, performance orientation, power concentration (in some of the research referred to as power distance).

Researchers have examined contemporary research in the field of leadership effectiveness across cultures. In comparing cultures the question arises: To what extent is leadership culturally contingent? A review on leadership cultures is presented in the following sections: (a) Brief overview of leadership and current trends; (b) Culture orientation and leadership style and contemporary leadership research—to include Hofstede’s work and the GLOBE study, and (c) Future research in leadership effectiveness across cultures.

A Brief Overview on Leadership The word leadership can be a sophisticated and modern concept, noted by Bass in the Handbook of Leadership. At present, there is no consensually agreed-upon definition of leadership among scholars. Definitions vary in terms of emphasis on leader abilities, personality traits, influence relationships, cognitive versus emotional orientation, individual versus group orientation and appeal to self-versus collective interest.

Bass defines leadership as a ‘universal phenomenon.’ There is no society where it is completely absent or where cultural norms have completely substituted for it. “Leadership has been conceived as the focus of group processes, as a matter of personality, as a matter of inducing compliance, as the executive of influence, as a particular behavior, as a form of persuasion, as a power relation, as an instrument to achieve goals, as an effect of interaction, as a differentiated goal, as initiation of structure, and as many combinations of these definitions” (Bass, 1990, p. 66). Stodgill (1948) explains that a leader is a person who occupies a position of responsibility in coordinating the activities of the members of the group in their task of attaining a common goal.

The term ‘leadership’ is extremely general; however, literature has defined leader as an individual with status who exerts influence over other individuals. Leadership can also be defined as “the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of goals” (Robbins, 2001, p. 2); a leader is one who inspires organizational members to want to achieve. While there are numerous definitions of leadership, most have the common element that “it is a group process that involves interaction between atleast two persons in pursuit of a goal” (Yukl, 1989, p. 3). There are three elements that can be discerned from this definition, leadership is viewed as a process of influence that takes place in

Culture Differences on Leadership 19

a group. Finally, obtaining the goal which the group has set. The topic of leadership brings about a wide variety of elements that define the various behaviors of leaders. Bass quotes Morris and Seeman who provide definitions of the various classification. One cluster of definitions makes leadership synonymous with the importance of one position. There is a second cluster that defines the leader as a focus of attention, as a representative of a group. A leader is often defined simply as anyone who engages in leadership acts. Finally, leadership has been defined as influence. This is a positive influence. Stodgill (1948) then supports that leadership is not a matter of passive status, or the mere combination of traits. Leadership is a working relationship among members of a group, in which the leader acquires status through active participation.

From a scientific and theoretical perspective, compelling reasons exist for considering the role of culture in influencing leadership processes. Because the general goal of science is to develop universally valid theories, laws, and principles, leadership researchers should strive to develop leadership theories that transcend cultures. Bass (1997) explains that contingencies include the motivation of the subordinates and the situation.

Defining Culture and Leadership Robert J House conceived the idea of global research program concerned with leadership and organization practices (form and processes) in the summer of 1991. A proposal for the project was written in the spring of 1993, following substantial literature review and development of an item pool containing 753 questionnaire items. GLOBE began in October, 1993 and eventually involved 127 investigators in 62 countries or regions. Survey questionnaires were developed and collected from more than 17,000 middle managers in 951 organizations across three specific industries.

The GLOBE study resembled preceding studies in several ways. It developed nine cultural dimensions. House and his colleagues adopted three of Hofstede’s dimensions- individualism, power distance and uncertainty avoidance; developed two dimensions, gender egalitarianism and assertiveness in place of Hofstede’s masculinity. The GLOBE team also went back to the social anthropology work of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck to develop a dimension-humane orientation, and to replace Hofstede’s long-term orientation with a dimension-future orientation. The GLOBE team developed the last two dimensions, in-group collectivism and institutional collectivism, through a factor analysis of responses of these related items. GLOBE resembles other studies also in the use of ten cultural clusters resulting from modification of the eight cultural clusters that Ronen and Shankar found and adding two, Eastern Europe and Sub-Sahara Africa.

Like other studies then, GLOBE permits the distinction among countries based on different dimensions with substantial implications for the practice and understanding of leadership. On the dimension power distance, average scores of respondents varied from 2.41 to 3.10 on a scale of 7 (see Table 1). China, Singapore and the nations in the Germanic and Nordic clusters scored high in their power distance. They tend to

The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. V, No. 1, 201120

formalize interactions, document agreements in contracts, keep orderly and meticulous records, make and follow rules, carefully calculate risks and verify oral communication in writing. Latin American and Eastern European counties scored low. Respondents from these countries indicated a preference for informality, reliance on the words of someone they trust rather than a contract, reliance on informal interactions and norms and comfort with ambiguity. House points out the evident utility of this information.

If individuals from high and low power distance cultures are aware of their differences with respect to this cultural dimension, they will more likely know what to expect from each other, and possibly be able to negotiate mutually agreeable approaches to conflict resolution, problem solving, decision making and management practices (House et al., 2004, p. 6).

The GLOBE study broke considerable new ground in the comparative study of leadership cultures, as well as building on previous work. It asked respondents questions about the cultural dimensions as actual society practice (As Is) and as stated values (Should Be). Thus, GLOBE provides two measures on each dimension within each country: (1) The dimension as people see it in practice, and (2) The dimension as people understand it is supposed to be. This permits a third measure of the leadership

Table 1: Scores for GLOBE Culture Factors

Austria 4.73 5.27 2.44

Brazil 5.62 5.15 2.35

China 4.56 5.09 3.10

Germany 4.68 5.22 2.69

Greece 5.40 5.46 2.39

Guatemala 5.23 6.14 2.35

India 4.71 5.32 2.64

Mexico 4.92 5.95 2.85

Netherlands 4.55 5.17 2.45

Nigeria 5.03 5.48 2.69

Russia 3.89 5.79 2.62

Slovenia 4.38 5.71 2.57

Spain 5.20 5.79 2.26

Taiwan 5.15 5.45 3.09

Turkey 5.26 5.77 2.41

Note: All scores are on 1-7 point scales with higher scores indicating greater societal values.

Country Institutional Collectivism

In-group Collectivism

Power Distance

Source: House et al. (2004)

Culture Differences on Leadership 21

in each culture, the gap between the practice and the ideal value. The GLOBE researchers suggest we may not only distinguish one cultural cluster from another by the measure of avoidance of uncertainty, for example, but also by the gap between its practice and value. Anglo and Latin Europe clustered cultures have near accord score on the practice and value placed upon avoidance of uncertainty. Germanic and Nordic clusters score higher on the value placed on that dimension than on its practice. All other clustered cultures report higher scores on the practice or avoidance of uncertainty than its value.

The GLOBE team then began looking at the independent variables of cultural dimensions to explain the variation among countries on specific leadership characteristics. The clustering of these characteristics provided House and his colleagues six global leadership behaviors: (1) Charismatic/values-based leadership; (2) Team-oriented leadership; (3) Participative leadership; (4) Humane-oriented leadership; (5) Autonomous leadership; and (6) Self-protective leadership. The valued cultural dimensions had statistically significant correlation with the global leadership behaviors. For example, performance orientation, gender egalitarianism and humane orientation all seemed to provide strong support for a participative leadership behavior characterized by high participation and low autocracy. Conversely, participative leadership behavior had a negative relation to uncertainty avoidance and power distance. In another example, the cultural dimensions of performance orientation had a strong positive link to autonomous leadership, characterized by individualism and independence. Conversely, human orientation and institutional collectivism had strong negative links.

The GLOBE scholars were further to probe the possible correlations of cultural dimensions, as valued and practiced, with human conditions of physical and psychological health and with economic well-being. They reported a positive relationship between the practice of uncertainty avoidance and four measures of human conditions—as one went up, the others did so also. Conversely, they found a negative relationship between the value of uncertainty avoidance and the same conditions; as respondents expressed preference rules, their measures of well-being decreased. This may suggest that development efforts may inspire a desire to avoid uncertainty but once achieved, the culture of developed economies encourages risk. The same held true for economic well-being; a positive association with the practice of uncertainty avoidance and a negative association with the value placed upon it.

GLOBE continued to expand its multi-phased research to study data that was both qualitative and quantitative. In a more recent study which began in the year 2000, CEOs from around the world were interviewed and responded to questions regarding their leadership styles. Questions were asked, such as What are your weaknesses? What are your strengths? Do you have a plan of atleast 5 years for the future of your organization? The responses to these questions were recorded and transcribed. In order to understand

The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. V, No. 1, 201122

further the value of each question, the content of the responses were coded according to the McClelland Motive Theory (see Winter, 1973). This codification is a qualitative method by which running text is studied. The motives coded were: affiliation, power, responsibility and achievement. You would naturally conclude that a leader who describes himself as being powerful would score high on a power motive. However, it was interesting to review the study more closely and find that power was not necessary linked to authority, but to the sense of belonging, affiliation to others and achieving great things. This particular motive coding provided a qualitative description of some of the current cultural dimensions and was also parallel to describing leadership style in regions around the world. A particularly interesting finding was made in Latin America when the highest motive to be expected was the ‘power-motive' while the data revealed a high score in affiliation. We can conclude that the reason for this was mostly because the cultural patterns of the Latin American people were more relational and importance was given to working relationships rather than hierarchies.

The GLOBE study posited that leadership is culturally contingent, that the importance and value of leadership may vary across cultures, that the status and influence of leaders vary considerably due to cultural forces in the countries or regions in which the leaders function. For example, Americans, Arabs, Asians, British, Eastern Europeans, French, Germans, Latin Americans and Russians tend to romanticize the concept of leadership and consider leadership to be both important and political in organizational arenas. In these cultures, leaders are commemorated with statues, names of major avenues or boulevards, or images on stamps. However, Germanic countries, such as Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia tend to be skeptical about leaders and tend to have the fear that they can accumulate or abuse power. In these countries, it is difficult to find public commemoration of leaders. These cultural differences may affect organizational performance in various ways. What may be effective in one culture may not prove to be so in another.

In the context of the GLOBE, research program (see House et al., 2004), previous work from GLOBE has shown how the characterization of societal culture can be somewhat complex as it includes both: (1) Ongoing practices and behaviors, as well as, (2) Values or strongly held beliefs of how the culture should be. Cultural practices inform us about the current perceptions of specific cultures, whereas cultural values tell of the aspirations and direction cultures wish to develop in. While cultural practices may be related to what people of a culture value, differences between what people say they value and what they actually practice often occurs. For example, practices or behaviors on a particular dimension of culture (e.g., power distance) can be relatively high, while values of what ‘should be’ occurring may be relatively low for a given society.

Comparing and Contrasting GLOBE and Hofstede The common point of cultural understanding has been provided for many years by the research studies of Hofstede. The work has been expanded more recently by the GLOBE study. This study reports on the relationship between its own practice and value measures

Culture Differences on Leadership 23

and also on the relationship between its own dimensions and those of Hofstede. Hofstede is the pioneer researcher in culture and its effects on management of business.

According to Smith (2006), Hofstede’s original work has surveyed a large number of employees of IBM between 1967 and 1973 in more than 70 countries to extract data on their cultural attributes. This work is updated and expanded in Hofstede (2001) and it continues to be widely cited and used by management scholars. Hofstede’s major advance in the field of cultural research is primarily the development of a set of dimensions which can be measured through survey instruments to obtain average values for a particular group of people and hence a measure of their national culture attributes. The dimensions which he identifies are power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity and long term orientation. By drawing on the dimension measures of different groups, one can develop an understanding of the cultural differences between these groups.

The GLOBE study (House et al., 2004) was conducted in the mid-1990s and involved 127 investigators in 62 countries or regions. The study was designed to replicate and expand on Hofstede’s (1980a) work and to test various hypotheses that had been developed in particular on leadership topics. Survey questionnaires were developed and collected from more than 17,000 middle managers in 951 organizations across 3 specific industries.

The GLOBE study, in a similar manner to Hofstede, develops nine cultural dimensions across both actual society practice (As Is) and values (Should Be) in the different cultural settings. These dimensions are: (1) Performance orientation, (2) Future orientation, (3) Gender egalitarianism, (4) Assertiveness, (5) Institutional collectivism, (6) In-Group collectivism, (7) Power distance, (8) Humane orientation, and (9) Uncertainty avoidance. Again the dimension measures for different societies allow an analysis of the cultural differences that exist between these groups.

There are a number of similarities as well as differences between the two studies in the way the concept of national culture is measured. For example, both studies include the dimensions of uncertainty avoidance and power distance. However, Hofstede’s masculinity dimension is measured with the two dimensions of gender egalitarianism and assertiveness in the GLOBE study. Similarly, Hofstede’s collectivism is measured with two constructs: Institutional collectivism (collectivism I) and in-group collectivism (collectivism II). Finally, whereas Hofstede’s long-term orientation is similar to GLOBE’s future orientation, there are two additional dimensions of culture in GLOBE —performance orientation and humane orientation—that are not measured by Hofstede. Besides differences in the number of dimensions, another key difference is that the GLOBE study separately measures two distinct aspects of national culture—practices and values—for each of the nine dimensions, there are 18 culture scores for each country in GLOBE versus five in Hofstede.

Cultural Orientation and Leadership Style Culture is said to play a strong role in the context of leadership styles. To date, studies by Gerstner and Day and the GLOBE project further examine cross-cultural differences

The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. V, No. 1, 201124

in leadership prototypes. Hofstede conceptualized culture in terms of meaning; he therefore asserted the values of people studying culture level rather than individual level. Adler (2008) provides definitions by Kroeber and Kluckhohn, “Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, culture systems may be considered as products of action and as conditioning elements of future action”. Consequently, culture is an attribute that develops within any identity group enduring over time (see Doney et al., 1998). The profound effect of culture on leadership suggests that we must understand it. There is great debate as to how to define the term ‘culture’.

Hofstede’s further explains culture, is the collective programming of the mind— mental programs or software of the mind that distinguishes one group of people from another. Adler (2008) provides a number of definitions regarding culture. First of all Tylor in 1877 (p. 1) defined culture as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief art, law, morals, customs and any capabilities and habits acquired by a man as a member of society.” A more recent working definition is Hofstede’s “culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another and the interactive aggregate of common characteristics that influence a human group’s response to its environment” (p. 25). The kind of leadership attempted and the level of leaderships success will depend on the congruence between the cultural values and leadership processes. The prevailing view is that the core beliefs and values consistent with these ‘cultural dimensions’ guide leadership action (see Punnett and Shenkar, 1996). Culture then influences the action not by supplying the ultimate values toward which action is oriented, but by shaping a repertoire or ‘tool kit’ of strategies of actions in which certain patterns of actions are facilitated while others are not. It is our every day behavior, the mundane routines in life that get to the heart of culture. There are cultural dimensions that are important to leadership that have not been resolved completely. After years of cross-cultural research, Hofstede suggests that individualism and collectivism is one of the most important dimensions of cultural variation. His argument is that “leadership processes vary and may differ in individualist and collectivist societies”. In Hofstede’s study on assessing the values of people, produced four factors; individualism, power distance, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance. Individualism stands for societies in which the ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only”, and “collectivism stands for a society in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (see Hofstede, 1991, pp. 260-261).

For individualist cultures, support might be valued when needed, but achievement- oriented and participative leadership would be key leader’s behaviors (see Punnett and Shenkar, 1996). A strong case can be made for the importance of the cultural dimension labeled power stratification by House and power distance by Hofstede (1980b). Consistent with these notions is the speculation that charismatic leadership will be

Culture Differences on Leadership 25

expected and effective in high power distance cultures. The central role the group plays in a collectivist cultures parallels some of the similar value orientations associated with transformational leadership (see Jung and Avolio, 1999) as opposed to people in individualist cultures who are expected to be more motivated to satisfy their own self- interests and personal goals. A conclusion can suggest that congruence between followers; cultural values and transformational leaders attempt to build identification with a collective vision is expected to enhance motivation and performance among followers. The GLOBE study’s prediction is that such leaders would maximize the efforts and performance of followers who have a collectivistic orientation. There should be careful consideration as to which cultural factors are most important in any given situation. There are important issues regarding the aspects of culture that leadership researchers should consider. First, cultures are not static; they are dynamic and continously evolving. The speed varies from culture to culture but the associated beliefs, values and other elements of culture at a single point in time may not necessarily be reflected in a later time period. Second, although cultures may be characterized correctly as being high, or low, on a specific dimension such as power distance by Hofstede (this orientation will not likely be characteristic of all issues or situations). Third, individual differences exist in the adoption of cultural values such that not all individuals of a culture will have attitudes of that culture. Fourth, it is easy to look over the significant differences that exist within a country as well as the differences between countries that belong to a cluster of countries (see Ronen and Shenkar, 1985). Careful consideration should be given to cultural entities, organizational culture and national culture. The arguments linking leadership process to cultures are necessary to advance the position that empirically derived cross-national difference in leadership process reflect cross-cultural differences.

Are there universally endorsed prototypes of effective/ideal leader? Although it is unlikely that there is a single prototype of an effective leader that conforms equally across societies, there may be universally endorsed attributes as well as culturally specific attributes. Initial studies provide the argument that culture plays a strong role in the content of leadership prototypes. Additional findings by Gerstner and Day provide evidence that leadership prototypes vary across cultures. There are a number of questions that are important regarding cross-cultural studies. For instance, Does leadership prototype differ among nations, are they equally compelling and influential? and what psychological mechanisms link the prototypes to dominate cultural values? (see Gerstner and Day, 1994, p. 285).

In recent studies, some researchers have been able to prove that there are culturally endorsed implicit leadership theories that are universal. In Den Hartog’s 1999 research, she focused on an implicit leadership study on leader behaviors and attributes that are effective and ineffective across cultures, specially relating to transformational and charismatic leadership. The findings provided a controversial position to the current leadership studies namely because the attributes associated with transformational and charismatic leadership will be universally endorsed as contributing to outstanding

The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. V, No. 1, 201126

leadership. As with leadership, there is no universally agreed-upon definition among scholars regarding the term culture. For the purpose of this study, culture will be important regarding the influence factor, how leaders influence others to help accomplish group or organizational objectives. Studies by Gerstner and Day in 1994 and the GLOBE project have examined cross-cultural differences in leadership prototypes. Hofstede conceptualized culture in terms of meaning; he asserted that the values of people are at the culture level rather than individual level. Kroeber and Kluckhohn suggest a definition, “Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups.... Culture systems may be considered as products of action and as conditioning elements of future action.” Consequently, culture develops within any identity group enduring over time.

Contemporary Leadership Research: Studies in Progress and New Conceptual Models Currently the GLOBE project finds itself in the final phases of collecting data. This phase includes: investigating the impact and effectiveness of specific leadership behavior and styles on employee attitude and job performance. The theoretical base for the GLOBE research program is implicit leadership theory, value/belief theory of culture, implicit motivation theory and structural contingency theory of organizational form and effectiveness.

Event Management Leadership Theory: This model addresses the way that events in organization's life are interpreted. People in explicit leadership roles compete with other sources to shape the meaning given to events. Test of the theory have assessed that event management processes were related to cultural dimensions. Using Hofstede’s individualism and collectivism index Smith and Peterson (1994) were able to report experiences that showed the high and low of power distance in different culture. This resulted in most managers reporting interpreting events based on their own experience and training more than on any other source.

Culture, Self-Identity, and Work Theory: Erez and Early (1994) promote a new situational model of leadership that focuses on the role of culture in influencing the leader-follower(s) relationship. Their model assumes that societal culture influences all aspects of leadership but the basic interpersonal and psychological mechanisms that embody the leadership process are similar across cultures. This model specifically addresses how and why leaders are likely to engage in activities and behaviors that are consistent with their culture through self-representational motives. This particular study considers how leadership processes differ in individualist versus collectivist cultures. According to Punnett and Shenkar (1996) and Erez and Early (1994) leadership model signifies advancement into specific mechanism by which the macro level of cultural factors influences micro level leader-follower behaviors in a culturally consistent manner (Punnet and Shenkar, 1996).

Culture Differences on Leadership 27

Conclusion The study of culture provides fascinating insights into the common elements and distinguishing variety of human experiences. The extensive research in this area provides rich data that invites one to make application and generalization. Several concerns suggest caution in doing so.

First, although we can make generalizations about a culture within geographic boundaries, we know that there are different cultures within them as well.

The second caution relates to this one and has a formal name—the ecological fallacy. It suggests that it would be an error to attribute to an individual member of a group, the characteristics of a group. As a rule of thumb, one can find that the extremes within a group generally vary more that the average between groups. Thus, the tallest and shortest members of a group of men and women would have a greater difference in heights than the difference of the average man and woman. Thus, one cannot know beforehand that a specific, individual Latin American leader will use less power than a specific, individual Canadian leader whatever the profiles of their respective cultures might suggest. The opposite also applies; one cannot make valid and accurate inferences on a whole group based on only one or two members. The sampling procedures and statistical analysis of the scholarship we discussed here intend to prevent false or hasty generalizations. Nonetheless, discussions of culture and individuals invite the risk of stereotyping individuals because of their group or a group because of a few individuals. Culture may best be kept as a background factor that may help understand a particular situation and not so prominent as to bias the perception of that situation.

Another concern stems from the bias of the research. The respondents to Hoftede’s survey were mainly managers in for-profit businesses. This presents the problem of applying generalizations from this group to people in other contexts—politics and civil society. Another risk related to bias deals with creating norms from one culture and applying them to another in the manner of distinguishing better and worse. Some of these comparisons inevitably result in cross-cultural studies. In high avoidance uncertainty and low avoidance leadership styles, we inevitable compare characteristics of one with another. Having given the characteristics of the first, we may then use terms such as ‘less’ or ‘more.’ For eample, low avoidance leadership styles are ‘more informal’ than high ones. Other comparisons may imply a preference and thus a deficit in one style. For example, low avoidance uncertainty leadership styles are “less concerned with orderliness and the maintenance of records” (like—do not document the conclusions drawn in meetings); and “tend to be less calculative when taking risks” (House et al., 2004, p. 6) which seem to be measures, calibrated by the high avoidance of uncertainty dimension and suggest the difference from them rather than the purposes these behaviors may serve. For example, less calculative while taking risks may be a greater willingness to accept the chance that conditions will change in ways beyond our ability

The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. V, No. 1, 201128

to calculate. The correlation of the cultural dimensions with economic and human conditions does not imply that they cause them. There may be many intervening variables that account for the variation in both measures and their direct and inverse relationship.

Efforts to construct dimensions of leadership, measure them within different nations, and compare those measures nation by nation and by cultural clusters of nations offer an understanding of findings and new questions about the national distinctions of leadership concepts and practices. They provide a starting point to explore universally desired attributes of leadership among the many cultural differences that exist. On a much more practical level, these efforts provide a place to begin understanding the cultural variations of leadership and the cultural contexts that may influence individual leaders from different countries. That understanding, along with precautions we have offered may provide a necessary foundation for collaboration to achieve mutual objectives.

Bibliography 1. Adler N J (2008), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, Boston,

Kent.

2. Atkinson J W (1958), Motive in Fantasy, Action and Society, Princeton, Van, NJ.

3. Bass B M (1997), “Does the Transactional - Transformational Leadership Paradigm Transcend Organizational and National Boundaries?”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 130-139.

4. Bass B M and Stodgill R M (1990), Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, p. 11, 3rd Edition, Free Press, New York.

5. Den Hartog D N, House R J, Quintanilla S A, Dorfman P and Associates (1999), “Culture Specific and Cross Culturally Generalizable Implicit Leadership Theories: Are Attributes of Charismatic/Transformational Leadership Universally Endorsed?”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 219-256.

6. Dorfman P W and Howell J P (1988), “Dimensions of National Culture and Effective Leadership Patterns: Hofstede Revisited”, in R Farmer and E McGoun (Eds.), Advances in International Comparative Management, Vol. 3, pp. 127-150.

7. Emmerik H Fisher D, Gardner W L and Wendt H (2008), “McClelland’s Motives, Culture, and Leadership: A Cross Cultural Study of Managers in 32 Countries”, Paper presented at the Meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, California.

8. Erez M (1994), “Toward a Model of Cross-Cultural Industrial and Organizational Psychology”, Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 559-607, Consulting Psychology Press, Palo Alto, CA.

Culture Differences on Leadership 29

9. Erez M and Early P (1993), “Culture, Self-Identity and Work, Oxford University Press, New York.

10. Frese M (1994), Taking a Fresh Look at the Elephant: Intercultural Research Assumptions, The New Lexington Press, San Francisco, CA.

11. Gerstner C R and Day D V (1994), “Cross-Cultural Comparison of Leadership Prototypes”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 121-134.

12. Hanges P M, Javidan M, Dorfman P and Gupta V (2004), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

13. Hofstede G (1980a), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work- Related Values, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

14. Hofstede G (1980b), “Motivation Leadership and Organization: Do American Theories Apply Abroad”, Organizational Dynamics, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

15. Hofstede G (1993), “Cultural Constraints in Management Theories”, Academy of Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 81-94.

16. Hofstede G (1998), “A Case for Comparing Apples with Oranges: International Differences in Values”, Journal of Social Science, IJCS, Vol. 1, pp. 16-31.

17. Hofstede G (2001), “Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors”, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

18. Hofstede G (2002), Culture’s Consequences. Comparing Values Behaviors and Institutions Across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

19. House R J, Hanges P M and Javidan M (2004), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

20. House R J, Spangler W D and Woycke J (1991), “Personality and Charisma in the US Presidency: A Psychological Theory of Leader Effectiveness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 364-396.

21. Kluckhohn F R and Strodtbeck F L (1961), Variations in Value Orientations, HarperCollins, New York.

22. Kroeber A L and C Kluckhohn (1952), Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions.

23. McClelland DC (1975), Power: The Inner Experience, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL.

24. Mischel W (1973), “Toward a Cognitive Social Learning Reconceptualization of Personality”, Psychological Review, Vol. 80, pp. 252-283.

25. Munley A E and Martinez B (2002), “Leadership Across Cultures: Extensions of Lessons Learned from the GLOBE Project”, in K Klenke (Chair), Managing Across

The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. V, No. 1, 201130

Reference # 50J-2011-03-02-01

Physical and Intellectual Borders, Symposium conducted at the Meeting of the International Western Academy of Management (IWAM), Lima, Peru.

26. Winter Pearson D G (1973), The Power Motive, Free Press, New York.

27. Robbins S P (2001), Organizational Behavior, 9th Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

28. Ronen S and Shenkar O (1985), “Clustering Countries on Attitudinal Dimensions: A Review and Synthesis”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 435-454.

29. Smith P (2006), “When Elephants Fight, the Grass Gets Trampled: The GLOBE and Hofstede Projects”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 915-921.

30. Stogdill R M (1948), “Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 35-71.

31. Yukl G (1989), “Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 251-290.

Form IV

1. Place of publication : Hyderabad 2. Periodicity of its publication : Quarterly 3. Printer’s Name : E N Murthy

Nationality : Indian (a) Whether a citizen of India? : Yes Address : M/s. ICIT Software Center Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot Nos. 165 & 166 P, Phase-V, IDA, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad 500055.

4. Publisher’s Name : E N Murthy Nationality : Indian (a) Whether a citizen of India? : Yes Address : # 126, Mahalaxmi Towers,

Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad 500073. 5. Editor’s Name : E N Murthy

Nationality : Indian (a) Whether a citizen of India? : Yes Address : # 126, Mahalaxmi Towers,

Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad 500073. 6. Name and addresses of individuals who own the newspaper and holding more than one

percent of the total capital – IUP Publications, # 126, Mahalaxmi Towers, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad 500073.

I, E N Murthy, hereby declare that the particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Date Sd/- March 2011 Signature of Publisher

Copyright of IUP Journal of Soft Skills is the property of IUP Publications 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.