Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 1
Leadership Styles and Team Cohesivess Across Cultures
IACM 2004
Hein Wendt Hay Group b.v. Arnhemse Bovenweg 140, 3708 AH , Zeist, The Netherlands
Ph. +31.30.692 9951, Fax +31.30.692 9900 [email protected]
Martin C. Euwema
Dept of Social and Organizational Psychology Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands Ph. +31.30.253 4198, Fax: +31.30.253 4718
Olena Zhytnyk Dept of Social and Organizational Psychology Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands Ph. +31.30.253 4198, Fax: +31.30.253 4718
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Hein Wendt, Hay Group b.v., [email protected]
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 2
Leadership Styles and Team Cohesiveness Across Cultures
Abstract
The goal of this study is to clarify relationships between directive and supportive
leadership styles and team cohesiveness. Moreover, the effect of national culture on
leadership, team cohesiveness, and the moderating role of culture on the relationship
between leadership styles and team cohesiveness is examined. Data was collected
from 20,943 managers and 96,550 corresponding team members in 34 countries.
Multilevel analysis was used to test hypotheses, based on Hofstede’s dimension of
individualism–collectivism. Individualism was negatively related to the use of both
directive and supportive leadership styles. There was no relationship between
individualism and team cohesiveness. Directive behavior had a negative effect, and
supportive had a positive effect on team cohesiveness. The negative effect of directive
leadership was stronger in individualistic cultures.
Keywords: Leadership, National Culture, Team Cohesiveness
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 3
INTRODUCTION
Conflict is inevitably part of organizational life, particularly when people work in
teams. To limit the amount of destructive conflicts and deal effectivily with the
appearing conflicts, cohesiveness within the team is important (Jehn & Mannix,
2001). Social cohesion is often defined as the level of bonding to a group, the extend
to which members feel they are part of the team and the desire to stay within the team
Cohesiveness is strongly related to organizational citizenship (Chen, Lam,
Schaubroeck, & Naumann, 2002; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach,
2000) and team performance (Chang & Bordia, 2001; Langfred, 1998). An important
part therefore of the management of teams is the development of cohesiveness among
the team members (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003).
The goal of the present study is to clarify the relations between leadership
styles, in particular supportive and directive leadership and team cohesiveness.
Moreover, we will examine the effect of national culture on this relationship. We
focus on the cultural dimension that is highly relevant for organizational practices,
leadership and team work, being the degree to which a society can be described as
individualistic or collectivistic (Hofstede, 2001).
Team cohesivess and culture
Individualism–collectivism (IC) is the most documented and recognized
dimension of the original four dimensions developed by Hofstede (2001).; (see also
Smith, Peterson, Schwartz, et al., 2002 and Triandis, 2001). IC is defined as “the
degree to which people in a country prefer to act as individuals rather than as IC has
been studied widely in organizational research (Dickson, Den Hartog, & Mitchelson,
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 4
2003). Matsumoto, for example, considers IC a very important dimension in relation
to work organizations: “Collectivistic cultural values foster more conformity in
group, section or unit behavior. Harmony within groups is valued more in
collectivistic cultures, members are more likely to engage in behaviors that ensure
harmony and to refrain from behaviors that threaten harmony“ (Matsumoto, 2000,
455). Given the central place of group values, the IC dimension seems particularly
relevant to relate in this study to team cohesiveness. A number of studies has shown
that collectivists tend to have a stronger attachment to their organizations and tend to
subordinate their individual goals to group goals (Jung & Avolio, 1999; Triadis,
1995). Based on these theoretical and empirical arguments we expect a positive
relation between collectivism and cohesion.
H1 Collectivism is positively related to team cohesiveness.
Leadership and culture
Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context is expanding quickly
worldwide, exploring and explaining differences in managerial styles between
countries and cultures. The cultural dimensions developed by Hofstede have been
used extensively, showing relations -for example- between collectivism and different
leader behaviors (see for a review; Dickson, et al, 2003; Hofstede, 2001; Smith, et al.,
2002).
According to Hofstede (2001) managers in more collectivistic cultures aspire
more for conformity and orderliness, and do not support employee initiative. Respect
and obedience to leaders are important in many collectivistic cultures, where
paternalistic leadership is traditionally often seen (Dickson, et al., 2003; Dorfman et
al., 1997). This ‘paternalistic’ style is a typical combination of both directive and
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 5
supportive leadership, high on status-orientation, support and involvement in the lives
of employees, also the non-work part of it. In a ‘paternalistic’ leadership style close
supervision and control of employees is combined with high care for the well being of
the person. This combination of both directive and supportive leadership behaviors
seems to be widespread, particularly in non-western cultures (Dickson et al., 2003).
Directive leadership is in general less common practice and less seen as
appropriate and good leader behavior in individualistic (Western) countries, compared
to collectivist societies (Hofstede, 2001; Dickson et al., 2003). Supportive leadership
behavior as well, seems to be appreciated more in collectivist cultures, compared with
individualistic cultures. As mentioned before, in collectivist cultures, there is a strong
emphasis on group relations, reduction of group tensions, and care for personal well
being of employees. Collectivists maintain longer-term relations with their
organizations and value interpersonal skills and relations more than individualists,
who are more motivated by self-interests and personal goals (Jung & Avolio, 1999). It
is likely, that in collectivist cultures supportive leadership is more common indeed, as
this is a core value of the cultural orientation. We therefore expect directive and
supportive leadership to be more present in collectivistic cultures.
H2 Directive leadership is negatively related with cultural individualism.
H3 Supportive leadership is negatively related with cultural individualism.
Team cohesiveness and Leadership
Cohesiveness is related to leader behavior (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). We focus on
two ‘classic’styles, directive and supportive leadership.
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 6
Directive leadership. This style is usually defined as task oriented behavior,
with a strong tendency to control discussions, dominate interactions and personally
direct task completion (Cruz, Henningson, & Smith, 1999). In addition, time
management, pressure to realize targets and close supervision on details are seen as
characteristic (Schmidt & Yeh, 1992). In this study, we define directive leadership as
task oriented behavior, with a strong focus on targets, close supervision and control of
subordinate actions.
Directive leadership seems to be negatively related to team cohesiveness, group
organizational citizenship and open communication (Cruz et al., 1999; Paine &
Organ, 2000; Podsakoff et al ,2000),
Supportive leadership, is a style originally defined by House (1971). It usually
incudes sensitivity to team member needs. In this study supportive leadership includes
sensitivity to individual and group needs, care for group tensions and focus on
harmonic working relations.) supportive leadership to be a strong predictor of
cohesive relations among team members (Chen et.al., 2002)
H4 Directive leadership is negatively related with team cohesiveness.
H5 Supportive leadership is positively related with team cohesiveness.
Culture, Leadership and Cohesiveness
We have argued that leadership styles are important for team cohesiveness,
and that leadership and cohesiveness might be influenced by national culture. We
now focus on the possible moderating effect of culture on the relation between
leadership and cohesiveness.
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 7
There is growing evidence that some leader behaviors are universally effective,
whereas others are culturally contingent (Dickson et al., 2003). Dorfman et al (1997)
reported a study in which managers from five different countries participated.
Supportive leadership was found to be consistently endorsed in all five countries,
whereas directive leadership was culturally contingent, with positive effects in more
collectivist countries, such as Taiwan and Mexico. Though only limited to a small
sample of countries, this suggests that the effects of supportive leadership might
indeed be positive, regardless of the cultural context. Directive leadership on the other
hand seems to have different effects depending on this cultural context. According to
Dickson et al (2003) this fits in a growing body of knowledge in which some
leadership behaviors are universaly appropriate, while others are culturally
contingent. This might also be applicated to the relation between leadership styles and
cohesiveness, in the sense that the (negative) efffect of directive leadership might be
moderated by culture, whereas supportive leadership has a positive effect on
cohesiveness, regardless of the cultural context.
Directive leadership styles are not only more prevalent, but also seem to be
perceived as more appropriate and effective in collectivistic cultures, compared with
individualistic cultures (Dickson et al., 2003). Though too much directive behavior
might also inhibit cohesiveness collectivist cultures (Paine & Organ, 2000), it is likely
to expect that in individualistic cultures this effect is stronger. Here, employees focus
more on personal needs and rewards and take care of themselves. If a manager in such
a context exercises a directive leadership style, the feeling to be part of a great team
and the desire to stay in such a team will not be promoted. .
We conclude with the expectation that supportive leadership has a positive
effect on cohesiveness, regardless of the cultural context, therefore is not moderated
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 8
by individualism-collectivism, whereas directive leadership does has a stronger
negative impact on cohesiveness in more individualistic countries. Though formally
the 0-hypothesis can not be tested, we do formulate our expectations, for reasons of
consistency for both styles.
H6 The negative impact of directive leadership on cohesiveness is stronger in
individualistic countries, compared with collectivistic countries.
H7 The positive impact of supportive leadership on cohesiveness is not different
in individualistic countries, compared with collectivistic countries.
METHOD
Population and Sample
This study used data from the database of a world-wide operating consulting
firm (Hay Group). The dataset contains multi-actor data of management and their
employees within 473 organizations for a wide range of industries and services, both
public and private. Data was collected during the period 1992 – 2002. Data collection
was part of the assessment of management training programs within each of the
organizations and this guaranteed a response rate of approximately 100%.
For our analyses, we selected countries for which there were at least 100
questionnaires. To meet this criterion, we combined the information of Norway,
Sweden and Denmark into a ‘Nordic countries’. Likewise, the Arab countries Qatar,
Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates were also combined in to one group ‘Arab
Countries’ to meet this criterion. The final dataset included 34 countries. For the
present study, the information from 20,943 self-assessment questionnaires by
managers and 96,550 questionnaires of corresponding employees was available.
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 9
Seventy percent of the respondents were male and 30% female managers. Average
age of the respondents was 41.5 years.
Measurement
Team Cohesiveness. Cohesiveness was measured with four items, e.g., ‘The
people our proud to belong to my workgroup’, and ’There is a lot of personal loyalty
to the work group’. The scale used a Likert-type scale, with answers ranging from 1
to 5, with on the extreme poles the alternative answers. Cronbach’s alpha of the scale
was .75.
T-tests between the scores of each manager and the corresponding employees
on the cohesiveness items, revealed no significant differences between the two
groups, thus the responses were used to compute one measure of cohesiveness,
whereby each respondent received the same weight.
Directive and Supportive Leadership. The two leadership dimensions were
measured with the original scales of Litwin and Stringer (1968, see Hay/McBer,
2000). Factor analysis of these items resulted in two factors (see Table 1).
- Insert Table 1 about here -
Directive leadership was measured with 9 items (α = .82). Supportive leadership was
measured with 7 items (α = .85). The items of both scales were measured using bi-
polar (6-point) scales, with two opposing responses on both ends. Since this is a
measurement of leadership style, the scores from the managers themselves were
omitted, and only the scores of the employees were used.
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 10
Individualistic vs. Collectivistic National Cultures. The individualistic vs
collectivistic dimension (IC) of Hofstede was used. Each country was assigned the
score as computed and reported by Hofstede (2001).
Data Analyses
Data were collected at two levels. Leadership styles (from the scores of the
employees) and cohesiveness (from the combined scores of the managers and
employees) are measured at level 1 (i.e., the lowest level). Individualism (IC) is a
measure at the aggregate (country) level or level 2 (i.e., the higher level). Data
analysis was performed using MLwiN 1.2 (Rasbach 1999).
RESULTS
For each country in our sample the means for key variables are presented in Table 2.
- Insert Table 2 about here -
Table 3 provides an overview of the statistics and correlations between key variables,
leadership styles and cohesiveness, at individual level and individualism (IC) at
country-level.
- Insert Table 3 about here -
Descriptive Results
A few interesting observations may be noticed from Table 3. First, the mean
scores on managerial behavior show that world wide supportive behavior is used more
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 11
than directive behavior, and that these two styles correlate slightly negative (-.11).
Second, the countries in this study do represent both strongly individualistic countries
as well as collectivistic countries, with a mean (.47; SD 26.4) close to the original
mean of scale (.50) by Hofstede (2001). Third, cohesiveness is –as expected-
positively related with supportive managerial behavior (r= .30), and negatively with
directive leadership (-.23). Also, the correlations between both styles with
individualism are negative, as expected. For supportive leadership this correlation is -
.27. For directive leadership the correlation is even a strong -.74, indicating that in
collectivist countries managers indeed do use directive leadership styles more
frequently.
Test of hypotheses
Culture and cohesiveness.
Hypothesis 1 predicted a positive relation between collectivism and team
cohesiveness. Neither at simple correlational level, nor using multi-level analysis, a
relation was found. Therefore there is no support for H1.
Directive leadership and culture.
Hypothesis2 predicted a negative relation between individualism and the use of
directive leadership. Model 1 in Table 4 shows the results for the intercept-only model
for directive behavior, the model that contains no explanatory variables at all (Hox,
2002). The intraclass correlation coefficient is σ2e/( σ2
e+ σ2 country) is .21.4, i.e. 21.4%
of the variance is explained by the grouping structure in the population (Hox, 2002).
Adding the Cultural parameter Individualism improved the model (Diff –2 Log
Likelihood 28, 1 dF, p < .01). These results support hypothesis 2.
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 12
- Insert Table 4 about here -
Supportive leadership and culture.
Hypothesis3 predicted a negative relation between individualism and the use of
supportive leadership. Model 1 in Table 5 shows the results for the supportive
leadership style. The intraclass correlation coefficient is σ2e/( σ2
e+ σ2 country) is .16.6.
Adding the Cultural parameter Individualism improves the model (Diff –2 Log
Likelihood 2.8, 1 dF, p < .10). These results support hypothesis 3.
- Insert Table 5 about here -
When we plot the leadership styles of the individualistic and collectivistic cultures,
the same pattern becomes clear. Figure 1 illustrates the main effects of culture on both
styles.
- Insert Figure 1 about here -
Leadership styles and cohesiveness.
Two hypotheses relate leadership styles with cohesiveness, H4 predicts a negative
relation for directive leadership, and H5 predicts a positive relation for supportive
leadership.
Model 1 in Table 6 shows the results for the intercept-only model for cohesiveness.
The intraclass correlation coefficient is σ2e/( σ2
e+ σ2 country) is .094.
In model 2 we enter the directive and supportive styles at individual level. Both
parameters are significant, and in line with hypotheses. The directive style has a
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 13
negative effect on cohesiveness, and the supportive style a positive effect, offering
support for both H4 and H5.
Culture, leadership and cohesiveness.
Our final hypotheses predict a moderating effect of culture on the relation
between leadership behavior and cohesiveness. We expected that in individualistic
cultures the effects of directive leadership on cohesiveness are more negative, than in
collectivistic cultures, whereas the effect of supportive leadership is not moderated by
culture. The testing consists of two steps. The first step is to check if there is a direct
relationship from IC on cohesiveness (model 3a). We have to reject this model, and
continue with the interaction-model (3b). The model with interaction is a significant
improvement for directive behavior only. The model does not improve when the
interaction of supportive leadership with IC is added, offering support for hypotheses
six and seven.
- Insert Table 6 about here -
A plot of the moderating effect of Individualism, presented in figure 2, shows that in
individualistic countries a directive style has a stronger (negative) impact on
cohesiveness compared to collectivistic countries.
- Insert Figure 2 about here -
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 14
DISCUSSION
This study explores the relations between managerial behavior and team
cohesiveness in different cultures. A first surprising outcome, is that the national
culture does not have impact on the level of cohesiveness, as experienced by
managers and team members. Though we expected to find more cohesive relations in
collectivist cultures, we did not.
Dorfman et al (1997) present a theoretical model with both a causal effect of
culture on leadership behaviors and a moderating effect of culture on the effects of
leadership behaviors. Our study demonstrates the validity of this model. Moreover,
this study specifies the moderating effect, as this was found for directive leadership
behavior only.
There have been only a limited number of managerial studies reporting from
over 30 countries (Smith et al, 2002). The present findings offer interesting insights
and support the idea that indeed in collectivistic cultures, compared with
individualistic cultures, leaders do behave more directive and more supportive at the
same time. This reflects the typical paternalistic way of managing, in which the leader
takes care of his employees, and in return demands obedience, which can be seen as
representative for many collectivistic cultures (Chen, 1995; Dickson et al, 2003).
The observations of over 100.000 employees from 473 companies give a clear
indication of the managerial behavior. Leaders worldwide apparently use the
supportive style considerably more than the directive style. This is good news for
management worldwide, as this style contributes positive to team cohiseveness.
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 15
The effects of directive behavior were indeed more negative in individualistic
cultures. No moderating effect was found for culture on the positive relation between
supportive leadership and cohesiveness. This suggests that supportive leadership is
important, regardless of the cultural context. These results are in line with findings
from the GLOBE project (Den Hartog, House, Hanges, t.al., 1999), in which
inspirational and team oriented attributes are worldwide seen as important for
effective leaders, while domineering, formal and willful characteristics vary widely in
their relevance across cultures. Our results are also in line with and largely extent the
findings by Dorfman et al. (1997,) from their previously mentioned five-country
study. They conclude that “three behaviors (leader supportiveness, contingent reward,
and charismatic) showed universally positive impacts in all five cultures; and three
leader behaviors (participativeness, directiveness, and contingent punishment) had
positive impact in only two cultures (p.262).” The present study offers further support
for the idea that some leadership behaviors are indeed universal in their effects, while
the effects of other styles are moderated by culture.
One of the strengths but also one of the limitations of this study is the sample.
The participating organizations and respondents have usually an international or even
Western orientation. This is due to the use of the consultancy firm that collected the
data. This might cause a response bias, in the sense that these companies might under-
represent the actual national culture they are part of. Even with this sample, however,
we find clear main effects of culture on managerial behavior, as well as on the relation
of directive behavior and team cohesiveness.
Another limitation of this sample is the lack of demographic data, which
makes it impossible to control for important variables as gender, age, and education.
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 16
Also it should be mentioned that there is an under representation of Eastern
European and African countries in this sample, as has been the case in most cross-
cultural data-bases (Den Hartog, et al., 1999; Hofstede, 2001).
Finally, we like to underscore the importance of supportive managerial
behavior. This seems indeed a universal highly valued way of leading people,
regardless the cultural environment. In this respect people around the globe do have
the same values and needs.
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 17
References
Chang, A., & Bordia, P. 2001. A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion –
group performance relationship. Small Group Research, vol. 32, No. 4: 379-
405.
Chen, X.P, Lam, S.S.K., Schaubroeck, J., & Naumann, S. 2002. Group Organizational
Citizenship Behavior: A Conceptualization and preliminary test of its
antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Proceedings 2002.
Cruz, M.A., Henningsen, D.D. & Smith, B.A. 1999. The impact of directive
leadership on group information sampling, decisions, and perceptions of the
leader. Communication Research, 26, 349-370.
Den Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J. and associates. 1999. Culture specific
and crossculturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are the
attributes of charismatic/ transformational leadership universally endorsed?
Leadership Quarterly, 10: 219-256.
Dickson, M.W., Den Hartog, D.N., Mitchelson, J.K. 2003. Research on Leadership in
a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions.
Leadership Quarterly, 14: 729-768.
Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U. & Bautista, A. 1997.
Leadership in Western and Asian countries: commonalities and differences in
effective leadership processes across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 8: 233-
274.
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 18
Druskat, V.U. & Wheeler, J.V. 2003. Managing from the boundary: The effective
leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management, 46, 4, 435-
457.
Hay/McBer. 2000. The Organization Climate Dimensions, Hay/McBer white paper,
Boston, M.A.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences. Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions, and organizations across nations. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, Sage.
House, R.J. 1971. A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16: 321-339.
House, R.J., Aditya, R.N. & Ram, N.1997. The social scientific study of leadership:
Quo Vadis?, Journal of management, 23: 409-474.
Jehn, K.A., & Mannix, E.A. 2001. The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal
study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management
Journal, vol. 44, No. 2: 238-251.
Jung, D.I., & Avolio, B.J. 1999. Effects of Leadership style and followers’cultural
orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy
of Management Journal, 42: 208-219.
Langfred, C.W. 1998. Is group cohesiveness a double-edged sword? Small Group
Research, vol 29, No. 1: 124-144.
Litwin, G.H. & Stringer, R.A. 1968. Motivation and Organizational Climate. Boston:
Harvard University Press.
Matsumoto, D. 2000. Culture and Psychology, People around the world. Wadsworth,
Australia.
Offerman, L.R., & Hellmann, P.S. 1997. Culture’s consequences for leadership
behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28: 342-351.
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 19
Paine, J.B., & Organ, D.W. 2000. The cultural matrix of organizational citizenship
behavior: Some preliminary conceptual and empirical observations. Human
Resource Management Review, 10: 45-59.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. 2000.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and
empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of
Management, 26: 513-563.
Rasbash, J. et.al. 1999. A users guide to MlwiN, London, Institute of Education.
Raudenbush, S. Bryk, A. Cheong, Y.F. & Congdon, R. 2001. HLM5, Hierarchical
Linear and Nonlinear Modeling, Scientific Software International.
Schmidt, S.M. & Yeh, R.S. 1992. The structure of leader influence, a cross-national
comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23: 251-264.
Smith, P.B., Peterson F., Schwartz S. et al. (2002). Cultural values, sources of
guidance and their relevance to managerial behaviour: a 47 nation study.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33: 188-208.
Triandis, C.H. 1995. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder: CO: Westview Press.
Triandis H.C. 2001. Individualism-Collectivism and personality, Journal of
Personality, 96: 907-924
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 20
Table 1
Results of Factor Analysis of Leadership Items
Factor 1 Factor 2
Supportive leadership (α = .85)
− Works hard to ease tensions whenever they arise in work group .726 -.045
− Discourages arguments that might lead to conflict among employees
.632 .127
− Encourages employees to talk to him/her about personal problems .698 -.117
− Devotes a great deal of time to employees’ job security and fringe benefits.
.675 .037
− Works to develop close personal relationships with employees .749 -.086
− Relies on what he/she learns through personal contact with employees to use each person’s talent most effectively.
.788 -.092
− Frequently demonstrates concern for employees .778 -.232
Directive leadership(α = .82)
− Expects his/her employees to follow my instructions precisely -.232 .676
− Motivates employees by letting them know what will happen to them if their work is unsatisfactory.
-.030 .518
− Requires employees to submit detailed reports of their activities .105 .678
− Makes sure that he/she does the important tasks self -.151 .394
− Makes most decisions for employees -.273 .688
− Supervises employees very closely .145 .778
Eigenvalue 3.92 3.92
% Variance explained 24.52 24.5
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 21
Table 2
Sample size and mean scores on the main variables per country.
N Supportive leadership
Directive
leadershipCohesive
ness Individualism Argentina 127 72.41 54.84 4.94 46.0 Arab Countries 135 62.28 58.32 4.66 38.0 Australia 11,443 58.40 47.80 4.69 90.0 Belgium 446 58.43 54.12 4.60 75.0 Brazil 2,222 69.80 58.68 4.52 38.0 Canada 1,080 63.64 46.32 5.00 80.0 Chile 148 68.95 52.53 4.77 23.0 Colombia 328 60.01 60.23 4.82 13.0 Germany 789 62.32 47.25 4.71 67.0 Spain 2,573 62.31 60.01 4.65 51.0 France 1,752 61.67 54.41 4.41 71.0 Greece 310 61.65 58.43 4.59 35.0 Hong Kong 1,148 56.65 56.48 4.39 25.0 Italy 292 64.19 50.07 4.52 76.0 India 500 66.59 50.79 4.73 48.0 Ireland 1,374 60.73 48.55 4.45 70.0 Japan 952 59.22 50.47 4.54 46.0 Malaysia 46,95 59.58 57.52 4.28 26.0 Mexico 1,085 65.17 57.72 4.72 30.0 The Netherlands 2,339 56.47 48.67 4.65 80.0 Nordic countries 174 63.37 47.59 4.81 71.3 New Zealand 1,997 59.67 50.44 4.66 79.0 China 797 65.41 53.94 4.53 15.0 Indonesia 420 59.86 61.47 4.62 14.0 Korea 148 61.61 54.52 4.56 18.0 Philippines 1,308 56.24 50.80 4.66 32.0 Singapore 1,648 57.76 53.43 4.43 20.0 Thailand 106 73.40 60.73 4.34 20.0 Turkey 123 70.23 63.35 4.47 37.0 Taiwan 233 63.21 55.13 4.53 17.0 UK 11,856 61.48 46.46 4.74 89.0 USA 64,380 60.31 47.17 4.83 91.0 Venezuela 561 74.93 60.56 5.01 12.0 South Africa 166 66.21 51.03 4.61 65.0 Total 117,655 60.52 49.33 4.72 47.0
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 22
Table 3
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of main variables.
N Mean SD 1 2 3
1. Supportive 20,493 60.5 10.6
2. Directive 20,493 49.3 10.1 -.11**
3. Cohesiveness 20,493 4.72 .54 .30** -.23**
4. Individualism 34 47.0 26.4 -.27* -.74** .23
* p < .10, ** p < .01
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 23
Table 4 Multi-level analysis of directive leadership with cultural individualism
Model 1 Model 2
Parameter estimate
SE Parameter estimate
SE
Fixed part Intercept 53.77 .842 60.40 1.164 Individualism - .140 .021 Random part Σ2
e 84.69 .84 84.69 .837 Σ2
country 23.05 5.85 9.57 2.55 -2 Log Likelihood 149,251 149,224 Diff –2 Log Likelihood
28 (1 DF)
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 24
Table 5
Multi-level analysis of the supportive leadership-styles with cultural individualism
Model 1 Model 2
Parameter estimate
SE Parameter estimate
SE
Fixed part Intercept 62.93 .816 60.40 1.164 Individualism - .140 .021 Random part σ2
e 107.127 1.06 84.69 .837 σ2
country 21.300 5.48 9.57 2.55 -2 Log Likelihood 154058.7 154055.9 Diff –2 Log Likelihood
2.8 (1 DF)
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 25
Table 6 Linear mixed model for Cohesiveness (N=20,493).
Model 1 Model 2
Parameter estimate
SE Parameter estimate
SE
Fixed part Intercept -.166 .055 -.154 .050 Directive -.153 .007 Supportive .282 .007 Individualism Directive * Individualism
Random part σ2
e .909 .009 .803 .008 σ2
country .094 .025 .075 .020 -2 Log Likelihood 56,291.610 53,760.110
Model 3a Model 3b
Parameter estimate
SE Parameter estimate
SE
Fixed part Intercept -.157 .049 -.181 .051 Directive -.153 .007 - .117 .011 Supportive .283 .007 .282 .007 Individualism .054 .048 ns .078 .048 ns Directive * Individualism
- .033 .007
Random part σ2
e .803 .008 .803 .008 σ2
country .071 .019 .076 .021 -2 Log Likelihood 53,758.880 53,740.530 Diff –2 Log Likelihood
0 (1 dF) (1 dF)
Leadership and Cohesiveness Across Cultures IACM2004 26
Figure 1
Supportive and directive leadership styles in collectivistic and individualistic cultures.
45
50
55
60
65
Supportive Directive
Collectivism Individualism
Top Related