Leadership in a Global Environment Cross Cultural Leadership Jose

Fachhochschule Frankfurt am Main

University of Applied Sciences

Masters of Business Administration in Aviation Management

Leadership in a Global Environment

Cross Cultural Leadership

José Joaquim Fernandes

March 2014

Page i

Table of Contents

1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 1

2 What is Culture .................................................................................... 2

2.1 Artifacts ......................................................................................... 4

2.2 Espoused Values .......................................................................... 5

2.3 Basic Underlying Assumptions ..................................................... 5

3 What is Leadership .............................................................................. 6

3.1 Leadership and change ................................................................ 8

4 The GLOBE Project ............................................................................. 9

4.1 Criticism of the GLOBE project ................................................... 13

5 Country Specific Analysis .................................................................. 15

5.1 The Southern Asia Cluster .......................................................... 15

5.2 The Germanic Europe Cluster .................................................... 16

5.3 The Anglo Cluster ....................................................................... 17

5.4 Differences amongst the clusters ................................................ 18

6 Perspectivation .................................................................................. 21

7 Conclusions ....................................................................................... 23

8 References ........................................................................................ 25

9 Appendix A: Elaboration of the 9 cultural dimensions identified by

GLOBE Project ........................................................................................ 29

9.1 Uncertainty Avoidance ................................................................ 29

9.2 Power Distance ........................................................................... 29

9.3 Institutional collectivism .............................................................. 29

9.4 In-group collectivism ................................................................... 29

9.5 Gender Egalitarianism ................................................................ 30

Page ii

9.6 Assertiveness ............................................................................. 30

9.7 Future orientation ........................................................................ 30

9.8 Performance orientation .............................................................. 30

9.9 Humane Orientation .................................................................... 30

9.10 Cultural Clusters classified on Cultural Dimensions ................ 31

10 Appendix B: An overview of the findings of Javidan (2010) ............... 32

10.1 Status Conscious Leadership .................................................. 32

10.2 Bureaucratic leadership ........................................................... 32

10.3 Autonomous Leadership .......................................................... 32

10.4 Face-saving Leadership .......................................................... 32

10.5 Humane Leadership ................................................................ 33

10.6 Self-sacrificial Leadership ........................................................ 33

10.7 Internally competitive leadership ............................................. 33

11 Appendix C: Relationship between culturally contingent leadership

factors and cultural dimension ................................................................. 34

Page iii

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Levels of Culture.........................................................................4

Figure 2: The Eight Steps for successful large-scale change.....................8

Figure 3: Globally culturally endorsed implicit leadership dimensions and

the twenty-one primary factors..................................................................11

Figure 4: Universally desirable Leadership Attributes...............................12

Figure 5: Universally Undesirable Leadership Attributes...........................12

Figure 6 GLOBE Culturally contingent leadership factors.........................14

Figure 7 Cultural dimensions for India, Germany and USA.......................18

Figure 6 Leadership profiles for India, Germany and USA........................21

Page iv

Abstract

This paper analyses Cross-Cultural Leadership.

I first define the basic concepts of Culture and Leadership.

Culture is defined using Scheins model, identifying culture at three levels,

Artifatcs, Espoused Values and Basic underlying assumptions.

Leadership is distinguished from management and defined using Kotters

view of leadership as change.

The concept of cross-cultural leadership is extrapolated from existing

definitions of leadership

Adopting Kotters view of leadership as change also makes change efforts

functional as I propose applying Kotters eight steps for successful large-

scale change.

This is followed by a brief overview of the GLOBE Project and some of its

relevant findings as well as some of the critics.

I finally propose to combine the results of Javidan (Javidan et al. 2010)

with the knowledge of the leadership profiles gained from project GLOBE

(House et al. 2002) to give us a prescription for successful cross-cultural

leadership. Further combining these results with Kotters 8 steps for

successful change (Kotter 2002) add a cultural dimension to Kotters 8

steps and makes successful cross cultural leadership more achievable.

I conclude that for a leader to succeed in the future of corporate

multinational world, it is increasingly important that he is able to master

Kotters 8 steps for successful change, paying particular attention to

creating urgency, while at the same time being attentive to the different

aspects of corporate culture and national culture in which his change

efforts are about to take place.

1 Introduction

In today’s corporate world, there is an ever increasing degree of

globalisation and an ever increasing dependency among nations.

With the increased globalisation of organisations and the increased

interdependencies among nations, there is an increasing need for

multinational leaders to better understand the influence of culture on

leadership and organisational practice.

Situations that international leaders face are highly complex and

constantly changing.

At its core the role of global leaders is to influence individuals, groups and

organisations from other parts of the world (Javidan et al. 2010)

More than ever before, managers of multinational corporations face fierce

and rapidly changing international competition. Failed leadership efforts in

one part of the world can have serious repercussions on business on the

other side of the globe.

The ever increasing global mobilisation of senior multinational leaders can

very well mean that you one day find yourself leading employees from

your own company in your own culture, and the next day find yourself

leading employees in a different national culture and in a different

corporate culture.

Effective organisational leadership across cultures is critical to the success

of international operations.

I first define the basic concepts of Culture and Leadership and extrapolate

the concept of cross-cultural leadership. This is followed by a brief

overview of the GLOBE Project and some of its relevant findings as well

as some of the critics.

I then detail the country specific findings of project Globe for India,

Germany and USA.

I subsequently propose to combine the results of Javidan (Javidan et al.

2010) with the knowledge of the leadership profiles gained from project

GLOBE (House et al. 2002) to give us a prescription for successful cross-

cultural leadership. Further combining these results with Kotters 8 steps

for successful change (Kotter 2002) add a cultural dimension to Kotters 8

steps and makes successful cross cultural leadership more achievable.

This is followed by perspectivation of the cross cultural leadership and I

finally give concluding remarks on how to succeed in the future of

corporate multinational world.

2 What is Culture

When most of us hear the word Culture, we typically relate to national

culture such as, The Dutch, The Germans, The Indians; or we relate to

sociological culture, such as The Americans, The Europeans, The

Africans.

According to Virkus (Virkus 2009a), Kroeber and Kluckhohn complied in

1952 a list of 164 definitions of “Culture”.

Particularly slightly more traditional textbooks on organisational behaviour

have a very vague definition of culture, defining culture as institutionalised

traditions (Mishra 2001).

From Brown (Brown 1998) we know that the developments of corporate

culture within organisational theory significantly was influenced by

Hofstede’s book Cultures Consequences.

According to Hatch (Hatch 1997) Hofstede analysed and compared in the

late 1970’s different international affiliates of IBM and found evidence of

national culture differences within IBM’s organisational culture.

The four dimensions that Hofstede argues national cultures differ along

are:

Power Distance

Uncertainty Avoidance

Individualism (vs. collectivism); and

Masculinity (vs. femininity)

According to Bertsch (Bertsch 2012), Virkus (Virkus 2009a) and Brown

(Brown 1998) Hofstede later, in 1991, added a fifth element to his theory,

Confucian Dynamism (Long term vs. short term orientation).

Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture is a tool to identify national

cultural differences. His cultural dimensions and country rankings have

provided valuable methods for understanding and measuring national

cultures (Javidan and House 2002).

As we shall see later, the GLOBE project suggests nine unique cultural

dimensions (House et al. 2004).

According to Brown (Brown 1998), it was Edgar Schein’s book,

Organisational Culture and Leadership (Schein 1992) that has become

one of the key foundations of corporate culture.

Certainly a lot of textbooks on strategy and Leadership (Johnson and

Scholes 1997), (Hatch 1997), (Brown 1998) all quote Schein’s model for

culture (E.H. Schein 1992).

Although Tropenars and Hampden-Turner (Tropenars and Hampden-

Turner 1999) do not actually quote Schein, they also have a three-layered

model of culture identical to Schein (Schein 1992).

Schein (Schein 1992) identifies cultures at three different levels:

Artifatcs

Espoused Values

Basic underlying assumptions

Each of these will be briefly explained below.

Artifacts

These take the form of stories,

myths, jokes, metaphors,

rites, rituals and ceremonies,

heroes and symbols

Espoused Values

Beliefs, Values and attributes

Basic Underlying

Assumptions

These concern the

environment, reality, human

nature, human activity and

human relationships

Deepest Level of

Culture

Taken for granted

invisible

The most superficial

manifestation of culture

Visible but often undecipherable

Greater level of

awareness

Figure 1 Levels of Culture Source: Adapted from Schein (1992) P. 17, Hatch (1997) P. 211, Brown 1998) P. 12

2.1 Artifacts

According to Schein (1992) artifacts are at the surface of culture.

Hatch (Hatch 2007) explain artifacts as visible, tangible and audible parts

of culture. Categories of artifacts include physical objects created by

members, verbal manifestations seen in written, spoken language, rituals,

ceremonies and other behavioural manifestations. Members of a culture

may or may not be aware of their culture’s artifacts, but the artifacts

themselves can directly be observed by anyone. According to Schein

(Schein 1992) this level of culture is the easiest to observe but also difficult

to decipher. An observer can describe what he sees and feels but will not

be able to reconstruct what the artifacts mean to a given group or if they

even reflect important underlying assumptions (Schein 1992).

2.2 Espoused Values

Values are the social principles, goals and standards held within a culture.

(Hatch 1999)

They define what members of an organisation care about, such as

freedom, democracy, tradition, wealth or loyalty. Values constitute the

basis for making judgements about what is right or wrong (Hatch 1999).

According to Brown (Brown 1997) values are intimately connected with

moral and ethical code, and determine what people think ought to be

done.

Members of an organisation are able to recognise their values fairly easily

and become especially aware of them when someone tries to change their

culture in some fundamental way (Hatch 1999).

2.3 Basic Underlying Assumptions

According to Schein (Schein 1992), when a solution to a problem works

repeatedly, it comes to be taken for granted. Basic assumptions are held

unconsciously and are very difficult to surface (Brown 1998).

Basic assumptions tend to be those we neither confront nor debate. Basic

assumptions represent what members believe to be reality and thereby

influence what they perceive and how they think and feel (Hatch 2007).

Basic assumptions are therefore extremely difficult to change (Schein

1992).

Basic assumptions are implicit, deeply rooted assumptions that people

share. The basic assumptions guide perceptions, feelings and emotions

about things (Brown 1998).

3 What is Leadership

Just as with culture, leadership has had a huge number of different

meanings throughout the last 100 years. According to Yukl (Yukl 1998),

Steadgill concluded that there are almost as many definitions of leadership

as there are people that have attempted to define the concept. Northouse

(Northouse 2013) has not surprisingly the same reference. Yukl (Yukl

1998) lists 8 different definitions of leadership which has been used in the

last 50 years. Northouse (Northouse 2013) also refers to the study of Rost

finding more than 200 definitions of leadership in written material between

1900-1990.

Traditionally the traits approach for defining leadership was used (Yukl

1998). Slightly more traditional textbooks define leadership as the quality

of a good leader (Mishra 2001).

Kotter (Kotter 1999) defines and distinguishes between management and

leadership. Management is a set of processes that can keep a

complicated system of people and technology running smoothly (Kotter

1996). Management is about coping with complexity (Kotter 1999). Good

management brings a degree of order to dimensions like the quality and

profitability of products (Kotter 1999). Without good management, complex

enterprises tend to become chaotic in a way that threaten their very

existence (Kotter 1999).

Leadership is coping with change (Kotter 1999). Leadership is a set of

processes that creates organisations in the first place or adopts them to

significantly changing circumstances (Kotter 1986)

Leadership is different from management and the primary force behind

successful change of any significance is leadership, not management

(Kotter 1999).

That the concept of leadership is still subject to many interpretations can

be seen from the fact that participating scholars in project Globe found it a

daunting task to define leadership (Dickson et al. 2012).

The GLOBE researchers who studied leadership worldwide were able to

agree on defining leadership as the ability of an individual to influence,

motivate and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and

success of the organisations of which they are members (House et al.

2004, Dickson et al. 2012).

Northouse (Northouse 2013) defines leadership as a process whereby an

individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.

Although the Globe project’s definition of leadership is likely to be more

academically correct, I feel that it does not in the same way as Kotters’s

definition of leadership provide a tangible way to actually exercise

leadership.

Extrapolating the three previous definitions of leadership and applying a

cultural dimension I can then manufacture three modified definitions of

cross cultural leadership.

Cross cultural leadership - is coping with cross-cultural change (Modified

Kotter).

Cross cultural leadership - is the ability of an individual from one culture to

influence, motivate and enable others from another culture to contribute

toward the effectiveness and success of the organisations of which they

are members (Modified Globe)

Cross Cultural leadership - is a process whereby an individual from one

culture influences a group of individuals from another culture to achieve a

common goal (Modified House)

Defining leadership in these procedural ways means that we distance

ourselves from the perspective of leadership as a trait and make it

available to everyone, not only to formally designated leaders in a group

(Northouse 2013).

As Kotter notes, no one has yet ever figured out how to manage people

effectively into battle, they must be led (Kotter 1999)

3.1 Leadership and change

Adopting Kotters view of leadership as change; Kotter observes that when

managers today produce successful change in organisations people move

through eight steps (Kotter 1999).

Initially Kotter defined the eight errors that prevent successful change

(Kotter 1999b). In his later books, he defines the necessary steps to be

taken to ensure successful change (Kotter 1996).

These eight steps for successful change are given below.

The Eight Steps for Successful Large-Scale Change

Step Action New Behaviour

1 Increase Urgency People start telling each other “Let’s go,

we need to change things!”

2 Build guiding team A group powerful enough to guide a big

change is formed and they start to work

together as well

3 Get the vision right The guiding team develops the right

vision and strategy for the change effort

4 Communicate buy-in People begin to buy into the change,

and this shows in their behaviour

5 Empower action More people feel able to act, and do act,

on the vision

6 Create short-term

wins

Momentum builds as people try to fulfil

the vision, while fewer and fewer resist

change

7 Don’t let up People make wave after wave of

changes until the vision is fulfilled

8 Make change stick New and winning behaviour continues

despite the pull of tradition, turnover of

change leaders, etc.

Figure 2: The Eight Steps for successful large-scale change. Source: Adapted from Kotter (2002) P. 7

Cohen (Cohen 2005) later developed a field guide providing concrete

tools, advice and insight for successfully achieving lasting change using

the above 8 steps.

Kotter (Kotter 2008) notes that the single biggest mistake people make

when they try to change, is that they do not create a high enough sense of

urgency among enough people to set the stage for making a challenging

leap into some new direction.

4 The GLOBE Project

The Globe project is an empirically study based on survey of more than

17.000 managers across 62 societal cultures (House, 2004)

According to Grove (Grove) the globe study exceeds all other studies in

scope, depth, duration and sophistication, even Hofstede’s IBM study.

The meta-goal of GLOBE was to develop an empirically based theory to

describe, understand and predict the impact of specific cultural variables

on leadership and organisational processes and the effectiveness on the

processes (House et al. 2002)

Northouse later simplifies this explanation somewhat and explains that the

overall the purpose GLOBE was to determine how people from different

cultures viewed leadership (Northouse 2013). They also wanted to find out

how differences in culture were related to differences in approaches to

leadership.

As part of their study of culture and leadership, GLOBE researchers

developed their own classification of cultural dimensions. Instead of

Hofstede’s 5 dimensions, GLOBE researchers identified 9 cultural

dimensions, as follows: Uncertainty Avoidance, Power Distance,

Institutional collectivism, In-group collectivism, Gender Egalitarianism,

Assertiveness, Future orientation, Performance orientation, Humane

Orientation. An elaboration of each of these are found in Appendix A.

GLOBE researchers identified twenty-one primary dimensions of

outstanding leadership, empirically derived from their survey. A second –

order factor analysis produced a set of six global leadership dimensions,

which comprised the culturally endorsed implicit leadership theory.

The six global leadership behaviours were identified as follows:

Charismatic/Value based leadership reflects the ability to inspire, to

motivate, and to expect high performance from others based on strongly

held core values. This kind of leadership being visionary, inspirational,

self-sacrificing, trustworthy, decisive and performance oriented.

Team-oriented leadership emphasizes team building and a common

purpose among team members. This kind of leadership includes being

collaborative, integrative, diplomatic, non-malevolent and administratively

competent.

Participative leadership reflects the degree to which leaders involve

others in making and implementing decisions. It includes being

participative and non-autocratic.

Humane-oriented leadership emphasizes being supportive, considerate,

compassionate and generous. This type of leadership includes modesty

and sensitivity to other people.

Autonomous leadership refers to independent and individualistic

leadership, which includes being autonomous and unique.

Self protective leadership reflects behaviours that ensure that safety and

security of the leader and the group. It includes leadership that is self-

centered, status conscious, conflict inducing, face saving and

procedural/bureaucratic.

The six global leadership dimensions resulting from GLOBE project along

with the twenty-one primary factors are:

Globally culturally endorsed implicit leadership dimensions and the

twenty-one primary factors

Charismatic/Value Based Team Oriented

1. Charismatic 1: Visionary 7. Team 1: Collaborative team

orientation

2. Charismatic 2: Inspirational 8. Team Integrator

3. Charismatic 3: Self-sacrifice 9. Diplomatic

4. Integrity 10. Malevolent (reverse scored)

5. Decisive 11. Administratively Competent

6. Performance orientation

Self Protective Participative

12. Self Centered 17. Autocratic (reverse scored)

13. Status Conscious 18. Non-participative (reverse

scored)

14. Conflict Inducer/Internally

competitive

15. Face Saver

16. Procedural/Bureaucratic

Humane Oriented Autonomous

19. Modesty 21 Autonomous

20. Humane Orientation

Figure 3: Globally culturally endorsed implicit leadership dimensions and the twenty-one primary factors. (Adapted from Javidan et al. 2010, Table 13-2)

According to Northouse (Northouse 2013) one of the most interesting

outcomes of the GLOBE project was the identification of a list of

leadership attributes that were universally endorsed by 17.000 people is

62 societies as positive aspects of leadership.

Respondents to the GLOBE study identified 22 universally desirable

leadership attributes and these attributes were universally endorsed as

characteristics that facilitate outstanding leadership.

Positive Leader Attributes

Trustworthy Just Honest

Has foresight Plans ahead Encouraging

Positive Dynamic Motive aroused

Confidence builder Motivational Dependable

Intelligent Decisive Effective bargainer

Win-win problem solver Communicative Informed

Administratively skilled Coordinative Team builder

Excellence oriented

Figure 4: Universally desirable Leadership Attributes. (Adapted from Northouse 2013, P. 404)

According to Northouse (Northouse 2013) we can draw a portrait of an

outstanding leader, based on the universally desirable leadership

attributes.

The portrait of a leader whom almost everyone sees as exceptional is:

High integrity is charismatic and value based, and has interpersonal skills.

The GLOBE project also identified a list of leadership attributes that were

universally viewed as obstacles to effective leadership.

Negative Leader Attributes

Loner Asocial Non-cooperative

Irritable Non-explicit Egocentric

Ruthless Dictatorial

Figure 5: Universally Undesirable Leadership Attributes. (Adapted from Northouse 2013, P. 404)

These characteristics suggest, according to Northouse (Northouse 2013),

that the portrait of an ineffective leader is someone who is asocial,

malevolent and self-focused. People from all cultures find these

characteristics to hinder effective leadership.

4.1 Criticism of the GLOBE project

Although the Globe study is the biggest of its kind today, it continues to

contribute to significant attention amongst scientists in the field. Hofstede

(Hofstede 2006) and Javidan are exchanging opinions on their respective

work. Other researchers, such as Brewer (Brewer and Venaik 2009)

comment on the different aspects of the results of Project GLOBE. In his

commentary to Project Globe, Smith (Smith 2006) concludes that we now

know more than we did about differences in National culture.

Javidan (Javidan et al. 2010) criticises the GLOBE findings on mainly two

points.

The consolidation and aggregation has led to a very broad categorisation

of the six global leadership dimensions.

Secondly, they found that although the six global leadership dimensions

are valuable, these six dimensions give less than a precise image of the

aspects of leadership which are culturally contingent, i.e. the aspects of

leadership which are endorsed in some cultures and rejected in others.

Based on the culturally endorsed implicit leadership dimensions and the

twenty-one factors Javidan (Javidan et al. 2010) found the below seven

primary leadership dimensions to be culturally contingent leadership

factors. From a cross-cultural perspective, the most interesting attributes

and dimensions, out of the 21 factors, are those that are culturally

contingent, i.e. which are endorsed or desirable in some cultures and

rejected or undesirable in other cultures (Dorfman et al. 2012).

The overall results of their analysis are repeated below.

GLOBE Culturally contingent leadership factors

1 Status Conscious: This dimension reflects a consciousness of

one’s own and others social position; holds an eliteist belief that

some individuals deserve more privileges than others.

2 Bureaucratic/Procedural: This dimension emphasizes

following established norms, rules policies, and procedures;

habitually follows regular routines.

3 Autonomous: This dimension describes tendencies to act

independently without relying on others. May also include self-

governing behaviour and a preference to work and act

separately from others.

4 Face saving: This leadership dimension reflects the tendency to

ensure followers and not embarrassed or shamed; maintains

good relationships by refraining from making negative comments

and instead uses metaphors and examples.

5 Humane: This dimension emphasizes empathy for others by

giving time, money, resources and assistance when needed;

shown concern for followers’ personal- and group welfare.

6 Self-sacrificial/Risk Taking: This dimension indicates an ability

to convince followers to invest their efforts in activities that do

not have a high probability of success, to forego their self-

interest, and make personal sacrifices for the goal of vision.

7 Internally competitive/Conflict Inducer: This dimension

reflects the tendency to encourage competition within a group

and may include concealing information in a secretive manner.

Figure 6: GLOBE Culturally contingent leadership factors. (Adapted from Javidan et al, 2010, Table 13-3)

Javidan (Javidan et al. 2010) made elaborate statistical analysis of the

GLOBE findings to substantiate a number of hypotheses regarding the

relationship between national and organisational culture; and leadership

attributes (Javidan et al. 2010)

An overview of Javidan’s findings are listed in Appendix B and Appendix

C.

The analysis of Javidan (Javidan et al. 2010) show that national culture

and organisational culture greatly matter with regard to culturally

contingent leadership (Dorfman et al. 2012).

Referring to Javindan’s findings (Javidan et al. 2010) listed in appendix B it

can be found that power distance values at the national or organisational

level are predictive of three culturally contingent leadership dimensions:

Status Conscious, Bureaucratic and internally competitive. Countries with

high power distance values, such as India (Northouse 2013), desire

leaders who behave in a rule-oriented somewhat secretive manner and

who are highly aware of status differences among themselves and their

followers.

5 Country Specific Analysis

Having now clarified the concepts of culture using Scheins 3-stage model,

Leadership using Kotter’s 8 steps for successful change we can now

proceed with applying the findings of Javidan (Javidan et al. 2010) and the

Globe project (House et al. 2002) and others, to elaborate on which

leadership style might be appropriate in the three different countries, USA,

Germany and India.

5.1 The Southern Asia Cluster

Southern Asia, which includes India, exhibited high score on humane

orientation and in-group collectivism. Southern Asia are characterised as

countries that demonstrate strong family loyalty and deep concern for their

families (Northouse 2013).

The southern Asia leadership profile place importance on self-protective,

charismatic/Value-based humane oriented- and team-oriented leadership

and they find participative leadership ineffective.

The southern Asia countries characterise effective leadership as especially

collaborative, inspirational, sensitive to people’s needs and concerned with

status and face saving.

They believe that leaders who tend to be autocrative are more effective

than those who lead by involving others into their decision making process

(Northouse 2013)

In their study of the Southern Asia cluster, Gupta (Gupta et al. 2002) find

that India, as well as the South Asian cluster, are contrasted with 55 other

societies in having lower levels of uncertainty avoidance, less gender

egalitarianism and lower levels of assertiveness.

In contrast to the other 55 societies, they have a higher power distance,

humane orientation, performance orientation and significantly higher group

and family collectivism.

In the south Asia cluster, transformational-charismatic and team oriented

leadership are according to Gupta (Gupta et al. 2002) the most effective

models for outstanding results in southern Asia.

India as well as the rest of the south Asian cluster, find self-protective

leadership much more accepted and less of an impediment than the other

55 societies (Gupta et al. 2002).

Also humane leadership, where care and modesty are expected from their

leaders are much more prevalent in India.

In contrast to the other societies, participative leadership is considerable

less in India (Gupta et al. 2002).

I find this illustrative of the significant hierarchical organisation structures,

typically found in Indian organisations.

5.2 The Germanic Europe Cluster

The Germanic Europe, which includes Germany, scored high in

performance orientation, assertiveness, future orientation and uncertainty

avoidance.

They were low in humane orientation, institutional collectivism and in-

group collectivism.

The countries value competition and aggressiveness more and are more

result oriented than people oriented.

They enjoy planning and investing in the future and using rules and laws

to give them control over the environment. These countries are more likely

to be individualistic and less group oriented. They tend not to emphasize

broad societal groups (Northouse 2013).

The ideal leader in the Germanic Europe cluster has a style that is very

participative, while also being inspirational and independent. The ideal

leader would be a unique visionary person who is autonomous,

charismatic/Value based, participative, humane oriented and team

oriented, but not status conscious or concerned with face saving. The

Germanic European countries think effective leadership is based on

participation, charisma and autonomy but not on face saving and other

self-centered attributes.

5.3 The Anglo Cluster

The Anglo cluster, which includes USA, exhibited high score in

performance orientation, institutional collectivism and in-group collectivism.

The countries are result driven and they encourage the group working

together over intended goals. People in these countries are devoted and

loyal to their families (Northouse 2013).

The Anglo leadership profile emphasize that leaders are especially

charismatic/Value based, participative and sensitive to people. Anglo

countries want leaders to be exceedingly motivating and visionary, non-

autocratic and considerate of others.

Leaders should be team-oriented, and autonomous. The least important

characteristic for Anglo countries is self protective leadership.

They believe that it is ineffective if leaders are status conscious or prone to

face-saving (Northouse 2013).

5.4 Differences amongst the clusters

In the following I emphasize some significant differences amongst the

clusters of the three countries, India, Germany and the USA.

Selecting only the relevant clusters from my adaptation of Northouse

(Northouse et al. 2014) Table 15.1, repeated in its entirety in Appendix A,

we get the following short version covering USA, Germanic Europe and

South Asia.

Cultural Dimension High Score Clusters Low-Score Clusters

Assertiveness orientation Germanic Europe

Future Orientation Germanic Europe

Gender Egalitarianism

Humane Orientation Southern Asia Germanic Europe

In-group Collectivism Southern Asia Anglo

Germanic Europe

Institutional Collectivism Germanic Europe

Performance orientation Anglo

Germanic Europe

Power Distance

Uncertainty Avoidance Germanic Europe

Modified adaptation from Northouse 2013, Table 15.1

We see that in particular Germanic Europe scores mostly extreme others,

either high score (Assertiveness Orientalism) future orientation. Future

ownership, performance orientation and uncertainty avoidance or extreme

low score (Humane orientation, In-group collectivism and institutional

collectivism.

Anglo and Germanic Europe shares the same scores with Germanic

Europe on in-group collectivism and performance orientation

In stark contrast, Southern Asia, are opposite scores on the cultural

dimension of humane orientation and in-group collectivism.

In their study of differences in perceptions of leadership between US and

Japanese workers, and although Japan belongs to the confucian asian

and not to the south asian cluster, Yancey (Yancey and Watanabe 2009)

found that Americans perceive personality characteristics as more

important for leadership, whereas Japanese perceive skills and behaviour

as more important for leadership.

In contrast to the southern Asia cluster, the Germanic European culture

sees self-protective leadership as extremely inhibiting to effective

leadership (Dickson et al. 2003).

The Germanic and Anglo clusters are particularly supportive of

participative leadership (Dickson et al. 2003), which is in stark contrast to

the lack of participative leadership in southern Asia (Gupta et al. 2002).

India is one of the most gender differentiated countries in Globe (Javidan

and House 2001) and it is also one of the most in-group collective

countries in Globe (Javidan and House 2001)

The USA is amongst the highest ranked countries on assertiveness and

performance orientation. It is in the middle range on all other cultural

dimensions. (Javidan and House 2001)

Germany is amongst the highest ranked countries on assertiveness and

uncertainty avoidance, whereas USA is in the middle (Javidan and House

2001). However it is amongst the lowest ranked countries on humane

orientation (Javidan and House 2001)

According to a recent field study by Martin (Martin et al. 2013) the USA

place particularly strong emphasis on the consistency between espoused

values and behaviour (Value-behaviour consistency) and being honest

and possessing a clear moral compass, bound by strong personal moral

code and values; and on demonstrating consistency between their words

and deeds (word action consistency).

They also tend to view leadership as a characteristic of individuals who

lead by example.

In Germany emphasis on having a strong value system guided by strong

personal moral and values; on acting in accordance with the system

(Value based consistency) word action consistency and how these leaders

treat others (sense of responsibility for an towards others; and fair and

just) captures the central beliefs about leader integrity.

Martin (Martin et al. 2013) found strong emphasis in social awareness,

social justice and responsibility towards the followers of the leader.

The Confucian Asian cluster, revealed a dominant orientation towards a

leaders treatment of others as reflected in the themes such as fair and

just, and a sense of responsibility for and towards others. Word-action

consistency was also identified as a component of leadership integrity.

Strong personal moral code and value and behaviour consistency were

absent in Martin’s survey of Hong Kong respondents (Martin et al. 2013),

while honesty featured less prominently amongst Chinese respondents.

Although Martin’s field study of Asia (Martin et al. 2013) related to the

Confucian Asia and not the southern Asia, it is still somewhat relevant for

southern Asia, as we know from House (Northouse 2013) that Confucian

Asia and southern Asia have similar leadership profiles.

Southern Asia differs from Confucian Asia in that charisma is an important

leadership attribute (Northouse 2013).

In the following chart I have listed the 7 leadership profiles for India,

Germany and USA in a comparative manner.

The graph serves to illustrate the differences in importance placed on

leadership profiles in each of the societies.

0 1 2 3

Automonous Leadership

Charasmatic Value

Humane

Team

Autonomous

Perspective Leadership

Self Protective

India

Germany

USA

Modified consolidated adaptations from Northouse 2013, Tables 15.10, 15.9 and 15.7

6 Perspectivation

Kotter argues in his set of ten interrelated observations (Kotter 1999) that

some essential action taken by effective managers with transformational

goals always vary from case to case to fit key contingencies in their

situation.

He also notes that people often get into trouble when they try to apply

tactics that have worked in their last change experience, without

considering how the new situations is different (Kotter 1999).

I believe this is particularly relevant when we talk about an international

leader finding himself to perform a change effort across different national

and/or corporate cultures.

This is particularly the case when we have a leader from one culture and

followers from another culture; be it either a leader from one corporate

culture and the followers from another corporate culture; or the leader from

one national culture and the followers from another national culture.

National culture is an important situational factor determining which

leadership style will be most effective (Robbins 2001). Culture is a

powerful determinant of human behaviour (Cartwright 1999)

National culture affects leadership styles by way of the followers (Robbins

2001). Leaders can not choose their styles at will (Robbins 2001). Leaders

are constrained by the cultural conditions that their followers have come to

expect (Robbins 2001).

The effect of cultural impact is even greater when we have a leader from

one national culture and one corporate culture and the followers are from

another national culture and another corporate culture. This is often the

case with multinational consulting.

The result of Javidan’s study (Javidan et al. 2010) is particularly interesting

as it gives a further elaboration on which leadership factors are endorsed

in some cultures and rejected in others. This is of particular interest when

performing leadership change efforts across cultures. The failed attempts

of NORDED and TAI BANK given in Javidan’s case study (Javidan et al.

2005) clearly underlines the need for cultural awareness in change efforts.

Top leaders in individualistic societies may been seen as the cause for an

organisations success, but are less likely to be held accountable for

organisations failures; while in collective societies, top leaders are less

often seen as the sole source of the organisations success, but are more

frequently held accountable for the organisations failures (Dickson et al.

2012).

This aspect of leadership is not directly an act of leadership, but rather a

consequential effect that the leadership style can have on a cross cultural

leader. Combining the results of Javidan (Javidan et al. 2010) repeated in

Appendix B and Appendix C, with the knowledge of the leadership profiles

gained from project GLOBE (House et al. 2002) can give us a prescription

for successful cross-cultural leadership. Further combining these results

with Kotters 8 steps for successful change (Kotter 2002) add a cultural

dimension to Kotters 8 steps and makes successful cross cultural

leadership more achievable.

For any change effort to be successful, each of Kotters 8 steps should be

followed.

In each of the eight steps, the cross-cultural leader’s approach should be

carefully adapted to be attentive to the aspects of leadership which are

endorsed in the target cultures and rejected in his own culture; and

similarly also those which are rejected in the target culture and endorsed

in his own culture.

A better understanding of cross cultural leadership can also help in terms

of defining leadership behaviours and organisational practices that are

acceptable and effective in some societies and those that are seen as

unacceptable and ineffective in others (Dickson et al. 2012)

In an expatriate leadership situation, knowledge of leadership preferences

and cultural values of one’s own culture and the expat culture can assist in

understanding when unexpected conflicts arise or behaviours that is

seemingly incongruous occur (Dickson et al. 2012)

Taking the cultural aspect into consideration when performing cross

cultural leadership change should be able to improve the outcomes of

change efforts performed in multinational organisations.

7 Conclusions

The role of global leaders is increasingly to influence individuals, groups

and organisations from other parts of the world.

The continued growth and expansions of multinational organisations and

the increased mobility in the modern workforce increases the possibility of

leaders managing subordinates from different countries.

In today’s corporate multinational world, where leadership transcends

national and corporate cultural borders like never before, a leader can no

longer suffice with mastering Kotters 8 steps for successful change without

taking the aspects of difference in corporate culture and national culture

into consideration. A leader that is a cultural master of corporate and

national culture, but does not pay sufficient attention to Kotters 8 steps for

successful change, will also no longer suffice.

In order to succeed in international leadership of today’s world, leaders,

and in particular expatriate leaders, will increasingly have to fulfil the

expectations of their host supervisors, peers and subordinates by being

aware of cultural influences on leadership around the globe.

For a leader to succeed in the future of corporate multinational world, it is

increasingly important that he is able to master Kotters 8 steps for

successful change, paying particular attention to creating urgency, while at

the same time being attentive to the different aspects of corporate culture

and national culture in which his change efforts are about to take place

8 References

Bertsch, Andrew M. (2012), Validating GLOBE’s Societal Values Scales: A

Test in the U.S.A., International Journal of Business and Social Science,

Vol. 3, No. 8, Special Issue – April 2012, pp. 10-22

Brewer, P. and Venaik, S. (2009). GLOBE practices and values: A case of

diminishing marginal utility?. Journal of International Business Studies,

2010, Vol. 41. P1316 - P1324.

Brown, Andrew (1998). Organisational Culture, Second Edition. 1998.

London: Financial Times Management Pitman Publishing

Cartwright, Jeff (1999). Cultural Transformation, Nine factors for improving

the soul of your business. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall

Cohen, Dan S., (2005). The Heart of Change Field Guide – Tools and

tactics for Leading Change in your organisation. Massachusetts: Harvard

Business School Press.

Dickson M., Den Harton D., Mitchelson J. (2003). Research on leadersip in

a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions. The

Leadership Quaterly, Vol. 14, pp. 729-768

Dickson M., Castaño N., Magomaeva A., and Den Hartog D. (2012).

Conceptualizing leadership across cultures. Journal of World Business,

Vol. 47, pp. 483-492.

Dorfman P., Javidan M., Hanges P., Dastmalchian A., and House R.

(2012). GLOBE: A twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture

and leadership. Journal of World Business, Vol. 47, pp. 504-518.

Growe, Cornelius N., Growewell LLC. Introduction to the GLOBE research

project on Leadership Worldwide. Available at:

http://www.grovewell.com/pub-GLOBE-intro.html [Accessed 26 March

2014]

Gupta V., Surie G., Javidan M., and Chhokar J. (2002). Southern Asia

cluster: Where the old meets the new? Journal of World Business, Vol. 27,

pp. 16-27

Hatch, Mary Jo (1997). Organization Theory – Modern Symbolic and

Postmodern Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hofstede, G.(2006). What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers' mind

versus respondents' minds. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.

37, pp. 882 - 896.

House, R., Javidan M., Hanges P., and Dorfman P. (2002). Understanding

cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An Introduction

to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, Vol. 37, pp 3 – 10.

House, R., Hanges P., Javidan M., Dorfman P., and Gupta V. (eds)

(2004). Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE study of 62

Societies. Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Javidan, M. and House R. (2001). Cultural Acumen for the Global

Manager: Lessons from Project GLOBE. Organizational Dynamics, Vol.

29, No. 4, pp. 289–305.

Javidan M. and House, R. (2002). Leadership and cultures around the

world: findings from GLOBE An introduction to the special issue, Journal of

World Business, Vol. 37, pp1 – 2.

Javidan, M., Stahl G., Brodbeck F., and Wilderom C. (2005), Cross-border

transfer of Knowledge: Cultural Lessons from Project GLOBE. Academy of

Management Executive, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp59 – 76.

Javidan, M., Dorfman P., Howell J., and Hanges P. (2010), Leadership

and Cultural Context – A Theoretical and Empirical Examination Based on

Project GLOBE. In N. Nohira and R. Khurana (eds), Handbook of

leadership Theory and Practice – A Harvard Business School Centennial

Colloquium. Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.

Johnson, Gerry and Scholes, Kevan (1997). Exploring Corporate Strategy

– Text and Cases. Fourth Edition. London: Prentice Hall Europe.

Kotter, John P. (1996). Leading Change. Massachusetts: Harvard

Business School Press.

Kotter, John P. (1999). John P. Kotter on What Leaders Really Do.

Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.

Kotter, John P. (1999b), Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts

Fail. In President and Fellows of Harvard College (eds), Harvard Business

Review on Change. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

Kotter, John P. and Cohen Dan S. (2002). The Heart of Change – Real-life

stories of how people change their organisations. Massachusetts: Harvard

Business Press.

Kotter, John P. (2008). A sense of urgency. Massachusetts: Harvard

Business Press.

Martin G., Keating M., Resick C., Szabo E., Kwan H., and Peng C. (2013).

The meaning of leader integrity: A comparative study across Anglo, Asian

and Germanic cultures. Leadership Queterly, Vol. 24, pp. 445-461.

Mishra, M. N. (2001), Organisational Behaviour. New Delhi, Vikas

Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.

Northouse, Peter G. (2013). Leadership Theory and Practice. Sixth

Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc.

Robbins, Stephen P (2001). Organisational behavior, Ninth Edition. New

Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Private Limited.

Schein, Edgar H (1992). Organisational Culture and Leadership. Second

Edition., California: Josey-Bass Inc. Publishers.

Smith, P. (2006). When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: the

GLOBE and Hofstede projects. Journal of International Business Studies,

2006, Vol. 37. pp915 - 921.

Virkus, Sirje (2009a) Leadership Dimensions: Culture and Leadership –

Definitions of Culture. Available at:

http://www.tlu.ee/~sirvir/Leadership/Leadership%20Dimensions/definitions

_of_culture.html. [Accessed 26 March 2014].

Virkus Sirje (2009b) Dimensions of Culture: Geert Hosstede. Available at:

http://www.tlu.ee/~sirvir/Leadership/Leadership%20Dimensions/dimesnion

s_of_culture_geert_hofstede.html [Accessed 26 March 2014].

Trompenaars, Fons and Hampden-Turner, Charles. (1999). Riding the

waves of Culture – Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. Second

Edition. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Yancey G., and Watanabe N. (2009). Differences in perceptions of

leadership behaviours between US and Japanese workers. The Social

Science Journal, Vol. 46, pp. 268-281

Yukl, Gary (1998). Leadership in Organizations. 4Ed. New Jersey:

Prentice Hall Inc.

9 Appendix A: Elaboration of the 9 cultural dimensions

identified by GLOBE Project1

9.1 Uncertainty Avoidance

This dimension refers to the extent to which a society, an organisation or a

group relies on established social norms, rituals and procedures to avoid

uncertainty. Uncertainty avoidance is concerned with the way cultures use

rules, structures and laws to make things more predictable and less

uncertain.

9.2 Power Distance

This dimension refers to the degree to which members of a group expect

and agree that power be shared unequally. Power distance is concerned

with the way cultures are stratified, this creating levels between people

based on power, authority, prestige, status, wealth and material

possession

9.3 Institutional collectivism

This dimension describes the degree to which an organisation or a society

encourages institutional or societal collective action. Institutional

collectivism is concerned with whether cultures identify with broader

societal interests rather than with individual goals and accomplishments.

9.4 In-group collectivism

This dimension refers to the degree to which people express pride, loyalty

and cohesiveness in their organisations or families. In-group collectivism is

concerned with the extent to which people are devoted to their

organisations or families.

1 Adapted from Northouse 2013, P. 388-389

9.5 Gender Egalitarianism

This dimension measures the degree to which an organisation or a society

minimizes gender role differences and promotes gender equality. Gender

egalitarianism is concerned with how much societies deemphasize

member biological sex in determining the roles that members play in their

homes, organisations and communities.

9.6 Assertiveness

This dimension refers to the degree to which people in a culture are

determined, assertive, confrontational and aggressive in their social

relationships. Assertiveness is concerned with how much a culture or

society encourages people to be forceful, aggressive, and tough as

opposed to encouraging them to be timid, submissive and tender in social

relationships.

9.7 Future orientation

This concept refers to the extent to which people engage in future-oriented

behaviours such as planning, investing in the future and delaying

gratification. Future orientation emphasizes that people in a culture

prepare for the future as opposed to enjoying the present and being

spontaneous.

9.8 Performance orientation

This dimension describes the extent to which an organisation or a society

encourages and rewards group members for improved performance and

excellence. Performance orientation is concerned with whether people in a

culture are rewarded for setting and meeting challenging goals.

9.9 Humane Orientation

This dimension refers o the degree to which a culture encourages and

rewards people for being fair, generous, caring and kind to others.

Humane orientation is concerned with how much a society or an

organisation emphasizes sensitivity to others, social support and

community values.

9.10 Cultural Clusters classified on Cultural Dimensions

Cultural Dimension High Score Clusters Low-Score Clusters

Assertiveness orientation Eastern Europe

Germanic Europe

Nordic Europe

Futue Orientation Germanic Europe

Nordic Europe

Eastern Europe

Latin America

Middle East

Gender Egalitarianism Easter Europe

Nordic Europe

Middle East

Humane Orientation Southern Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa

Germanic Europe

Latin America

In-group Collectivism Confucian Asia

Eastern Europe

Latin America

Middle East

Southern Asia

Anglo

Germanic Europe

Nordic Europe

Institutional Collectivism Nordic Europe

Confucian Asia

Germanic Europe

Latin America

Latin Europe

Performance orientation Anglo

Confucian Asia

Germanic Europe

Eastern Europe

Latin America

Power Distance No Clusters Nordic Europe

Uncertainty Avoidance Germanic Europe

Nordic Europe

Eastern Europe

Latin America

Middle East

Adapted from Northouse 2013, Table 15.1

10 Appendix B: An overview of the findings of Javidan (2010)

10.1 Status Conscious Leadership

Status conscious leadership was viewed as contributing to outstanding

leadership in cultural context that highly value uncertainty avoidance.

Status conscious leadership was viewed as contributing to outstanding

leadership in cultural context that highly value power distance.

Status conscious leadership inhibited outstanding leadership in cultural

contexts that highly value assertiveness.

10.2 Bureaucratic leadership

Bureaucratic leadership was viewed as contributing to outstanding

leadership in societal cultures that value uncertainty avoidance.


leadership in societal cultures that value power distance.


leadership in societal cultures that value institutional collectivism.

10.3 Autonomous Leadership

Autonomous leadership was viewed as inhibiting outstanding leadership in

cultural contexts that highly value institutional collectivism.

Autonomous leadership was viewed as inhibiting outstanding leadership in

cultural contexts that highly value in-group collectivism.

10.4 Face-saving Leadership

Face saving leadership was viewed as inhibiting outstanding leadership in

cultural contexts that highly value performance orientation.

10.5 Humane Leadership

Humane leadership was viewed as contributing to outstanding leadership

in cultural contexts that highly value humane orientation.

10.6 Self-sacrificial Leadership

Self-sacrificial leadership was viewed as contributing to outstanding

leadership in cultural contexts that highly value institutional collectivism.


leadership in cultural contexts that highly value performance orientation.


leadership in cultural contexts that highly value in-group collectivism.

10.7 Internally competitive leadership

Internally competitive leadership was viewed as contributing to outstanding

leadership in societal cultures that highly values power distance.

Internally competitive leadership was viewed as inhibiting outstanding

leadership in societal cultures that highly values gender egalitarianism.

11 Appendix C: Relationship between culturally contingent leadership factors and cultural dimension

Cultural Dimension

Cultura

lly c

ontinge

nt le

aders

hip

fa

cto

rs

Uncertainty

avoidance

Power

distance

Institutional

collectivism

Humane

orientation

Performance

orientation

In-group

collectivism

Assertiveness Gender

egalitarianism

Status

Conscious

Contribute Contribute Inhibit

Bureaucratic Contribute Contribute Contribute

Automonous Inhibit Inhibit

Face-Saving Inhibit

Humane Contribute

Self-

sacrificial

Contribute Contribute Contribute

Internally

competitive

Contribute Inhibit

(Adapted from Javidan et al. 2010, Table 13-7)

Leadership in a Global Environment Cross Cultural Leadership Jose

Documents

Transcript of Leadership in a Global Environment Cross Cultural Leadership Jose