SOCW 6070-week 4 discussion 1 Looking Through Different Lenses I ha

——–15 Culture and Leadership

DESCRIPTION

As the title suggests, this chapter is about culture and leadership . Like the previous chapter, this one is multifaceted and focuses on a collection of related ideas rather than on a single unified theory. Our discussion in this chapter will center on research that describes culture, its dimensions, and the effects of culture on the leadership process.

Since World War II, globalization has been advancing throughout the world. Globalization is the increased interdependence (economic, social, technical, and political) between nations. People are becoming more inter­ connected. There is more international trade, cultural exchange, and use of worldwide telecommunication systems. In the past I 0 years, our schools, organizations, and communities have become far more global than in the past. Increased globalization has created many challenges, including the need to design effective multinational organizations, to identify and select appropriate leaders for these entities, and to manage organizations with cul­ turally diverse employees (House & Javidan, 2004). Globalization has created a need to understand how cultural differences affect leadership performance.

Globalization has also created the need for leaders to become compe­ tent in cross-cultural awareness and practice. Adler and Bartholomew ( 1992) contended that global leaders need to develop five cross-cultural competencies: First, leaders need to understand business, political, and cultural environments worldwide. Second, they need to learn the perspec­ tives , tastes, trends, and technologies of many other cultures. Third, they need to be able to work simultaneously with people from many cultures.

I 0 15.1 Globalization I ~ 15.1 Global vs. Local 383

384 LEADERSHIP I THEORY AND PRACTICE

Fourth, leaders must be able to adapt to living and communicating in other cultures. Fifth, they need to learn to relate to people from other cultures from a position of equality rather than cultural superiority (Adler & Bartholomew, 1992, p. 53). Additionally, Ting-Toomey ( 1999) said that global leaders need to be skilled in creating transcultural visions. They need to develop communication competencies that will enable them to articulate and implement their vision in a diverse workplace. In sum, today's leaders need to acquire a challenging set of competencies if they intend to be effective in present-day global societies.

Culture Defined

Anthropologists, sociologists, and many others have debated the mean­ ing of the word culture. Because it is an abstract term, it is hard to define, and different people often define it in dissimilar ways. For our purposes, culture is defined as the learned beliefs , values, rules, norms, symbols, and traditions that are common to a group of people. It is these shared qualities of a group that make them unique. Culture is dynamic and transmitted to others. In short, culture is the way of 1ife , customs, and script of a group of people (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988).

Related to culture are the terms multicultural and diversity. Multicul­ tural implies an approach or a system that takes more than one culture into account. It refers to the existence of multiple cultures such as African, American, Asian, European, and Middle Eastern. Multicultural can also refer to a set of subcultures defined by race , gender, ethnicity, sexual ori­ entation, or age. Diversity refers to the existence of different cultures or ethnicities within a group or an organization.

Related Concepts

Before beginning our discussion of the various facets of culture, this section describes two concepts that are closely related to culture and lead­ ership: ethnocentrism and prejudice. Both of these concepts can have impacts on how leaders influence others.

Ethnocentrism

As the word suggests, ethnocentrism is the tendency for individuals to place their own group (ethnic, racial, or cultural) at the center of their

Chapter 15 I Culture and Leadership 385

observations of others and the world. People tend to give priority and value to their own beliefs, attitudes, and values, over and above those of other groups. Ethnocentrism is the perception that one's own culture is better or more natural than the culture of others. It may include the failure to rec­ ognize the unique perspectives of others. Ethnocentrism is a universal tendency, and each of us is ethnocentric to some degree.

Ethnocentrism is like a perceptual window through which people from one culture make subjective or critical evaluations of people from another culture (Porter & Samovar, 1997). For example, some Americans think that the democratic principles of the United States are superior to the political beliefs of other cultures; they often fail to understand the complexities of other cultures. Ethnocentrism accounts for our tendency to think our own cultural values and ways of doing things are right and natural (Gudykunst & Kim, 1997).

Ethnocentrism can be a major obstacle to effective leadership because it prevents people from fully understanding or respecting the viewpoints of others. For example, if one person's culture values individual achievement, it may be difficult for that person to understand another person whose cul­ ture emphasizes collectivity (i.e., people working together as a whole). Similarly, if one person believes strongly in respecting authority, that person may find it difficult to understand someone who challenges authority or does not easily defer to authority figures. The more ethnocentric we are, the less open or tolerant we are of other people's cultural traditions or practices.

A skilled leader cannot avoid issues related to ethnocentrism . Even though she recognizes her own ethnocentrism, a leader also needs to understand-and to a degree tolerate-the ethnocentrism of others. In reality, it is a balancing act for leaders. On the one hand, they need to promote and be confident in their own ways of doing things; on the other hand, they need to be sensitive to the legi timacy of the ways of other cul­ tures. Skilled leaders are able to negotiate the fine line between trying to overcome ethnocentrism and knowing when to remain grounded in their own cultural values.

Prejudice

Closely related to ethnocentrism is pre judice. Preiudice is a largely fi xed attitude, belief, or emotion held by an individual about another individual or group that is based on faulty or unsubstantiated data. It refers to judg­ ments about others based on previous decisions or experiences. Prejudice

I 0 15.2 Reducing Ethnocentrism

386 LEADERSHIP I THEORY AND PRACTICE

involves inflexible generali za tions that are resistant to change or evi­ dence to the contrary (Ponterotto & Pedersen, 1993 ). Prejudice often is thought of in the context of race (e.g., European American vs. African American), but it also applies in areas such as gender, age, sexual orien­ tation, and other independent contexts. Although prejudice can be posi­ tive (e .g., thinking highly of another culture without sufficien t evidence), it is usually negative.

As Yith ethnocentrism , we all hold prejudices to some degree. Some­ times our prejudices alJo,,· us to keep our partially fixed attitudes undis­ turbed and constant. Sometimes pre judice can reduce our anxiety because it gives us a familiar way to structure our observations of others. One of the main problems with prejudice is that it is self-oriented rather than other­ oriented. It helps us to ach ieve balance for ourselves at the expense of others. Moreover, attitudes of prejudice inhibit understanding by creating a screen that filters and limits our ability to see multiple aspects and quali­ ties of other people . Prejudice often shows itself in crude or demeaning comments that peopl e make about others. Both ethnocentrism and preju­ dice interfere \ith our ability to understand and appreciate the human experience of others.

Jn addition to fighting their own prejudice, leaders also face the chal­ lenge of dealing with the prejudice of followers. These prejudices can be toward the leader or the leader's culture . Furthermore, it is not uncommon for the leader to face followers who represent several culturally different groups, and th ese groups have their own prejudices toward each other. A skill ed leader needs to find ,,.a, ·s to negotiate ,,·ith followers from various cultural backgrounds.

Dimensions of Culture

Culture has been the focus of many studies across a va ri ety of di sciplines. In the past 30 yea rs, a substantial number of studies have fo cused specifi­ cally on ways to identi~r and cla ss i~r the various dimensions of culture. Determining the basic dimensions or characteristics of different cultures is the first step in being able to understand the relationships between them.

Several well-known studi es have addressed the question of hmv to char­ ac terize cultures. For example, Hall ( 1976) reported that a primary charac­ teristic of cultures is the degree to which they are focused on the individual (individualistic cultures) or on the group (collecti,·istic cultures). Taking a

Chapter 15 I Culture and Leadership 387

different approach, Trompenaars ( 1994) surveyed more than 15,000 people in 47 different countries and determined that organizational cultures could be classified effectively into t\·o dimensions: egalitarian versus hierarchical , and person versus task ori entation. The egalitarian-hierarchical dimension refers to the degree to which cultures exhibit shared power as opposed to hierarchical power. Person-task orientation refers to the extent to which cultures emphasize human interaction and not tasks to accomplish.

Of all the research on dimensions of culture, perhaps the most referenced is the research of Hofstede ( 1980, 2001 ). Based on an analysis of question­ naires obtained from more than 100,000 respondents in more than 50 countries, Hofstede identified five major dimensions on which cultures differ: power distance, uncertaintv avoidance, inclividualism-collecti·ism, masculinity-femininity, and long-term-short-term orientation. Hofstede 's work has been the benchmark for much of the research on world cultures.

In the specific area of culture and leadershifJ, the studies by House, Hanges, Javiclan , Dorfman, and Gupta (2004) offer the strongest body of findings to elate, as published in the 800-page Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. These studies are called the GLOBE studies, named for the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness research program. The GLOBE studies ha·e gen­ erated a very large number of findings on the relationship between culture and leadership.

The GLOBE research program, \hich \as initiated by Robert House in 1991 , is an ongoing program that has im·ohecl more than 160 investigators to date. The primary purpose of the proj ect is to increase our understanding of cross-cultural interactions and the impact of culture on leadership effec­ tiveness. GLOBF. researchers have used quantitati ve methods to study the responses of 17,000 managers in more than 950 organizations, representing 62 different cultures throughout the world. GLOBF. researchers have col­ lected data in a variety of ways, including questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, and content analysis of printed media. The findings of the GLOBE studies will be provided in more detail throughout this chapter.

As a part of their study of culture and leadership , GLOBE researchers developed their om1 classifica tion of cultural dimensions. Based on th eir research and the work of others (e.g., Hofstede, 1980, 2001 ; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961 ; McClelland, 1961; Triamlis, 1995), GLOBF. researchers identified nine cultural dimensions: unce rtainty avoidance, pO\·er distance, institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, gender egalitarianism,

I ~ 15.1 Cross-Cultural Leadership

388 LEADERSHIP I THEORY AND PRACTICE

assertiveness, future orientation, performance orientation, and humane orientation. In the following section, each of the dimensions is described.

Uncertainty Avoidance

This dimension refers to the extent to which a society, an organization, or a group relies on established social norms, rituals, and procedures to avoid uncertainty. Uncertainty avoidance is concerned with the way cul­ tures use rules, structures, and laws to make things more predictable and less uncertain.

Power Distance

This dimension refers to the degree to which members of a group expect and agree that power should be shared unequally. Power distance is concerned with the way cultures are stratified, thus creating levels between people based on power, authority, prestige, status, wealth, and material possessions.

Institutional Collectivism

This dimension describes the degree to which an organization 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.

In-Group Collectivism

This dimension refers to the degree to which people express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families. In-group col­ lectivism is concerned with the extent to which people are devoted to their organizations or families.

Gender Egalitarianism

This dimension measures the degree to which an organization or a society minimizes gender role differences and promotes gender equality.

I 0 15.3 Leader and Gender Egalitarianism

Chapter 15 I Culture and Leadership 389

Gender egalitariani sm is concerned with how much societies deempha­ size members' biological sex in determining the roles that members play in their homes, organizations , and communities .

Assertiveness

This dimension refers to the degree to which people in a culture are determined, assertive, confrontational , and aggressive in their social relation­ ships. Assertiveness is concerned with how much a culture or society encour­ ages people to be forceful, aggressive, and tough, as opposed to encouraging them to be timid, submissive, and tender in social relationships.

Future Orientation

This concept refers to the extent to which people engage in future-oriented behaviors such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying gratification. Future orientation emphasizes that people in a culture prepare for the fuh1re as opposed to enjoying the present and being spontaneous.

Performance Orientation

T his dimension describes the extent to which an organization or a soci­ ety encourages and rewards group members for improved performance and excellence. Perfo rmance orientation is concerned with whether peo­ ple in a culture are rewarded fo r setting and meeting chall enging goals.

Humane Orientation

The ninth dimension refers to the degree to which a culture encourages and rewards people for being fair, altruistic, generous, caring, and kind to others. Humane ori entati on is concerned with how much a society or an organization emphasizes sens itivity to others, social support, and commu­ nity values.

G LOBE researchers used these nine cultural dimensions to analyze the attributes of the 62 different countries in the study. These cultural dimen­ sions formed the basis for studying how the countries varied in their approach to leadership.

I ~ 15.1 Cross-Cultural Management I ~ 15.2 Interpreting GLOBE Dimensions

390 LEADERSHIP I THEORY AND PRACTICE

Clusters ofWorld Cultures GLOBE researchers divided the data from the 62 countries they studied

into regional clusters. 1 These clusters provided a convenient way to ana­ lyze the similarities and differences between cultural groups (cl usters), and to make meaningful generalizations about culture and leadership.

To create regional clusters, GLOBE researchers used prior research (e .g., Ronen & Shenkar, 1985), common language, geography, religion, and historical accounts. Based on these factors, they grouped countries into 10 distinct clusters: Anglo, Germanic Europe, Latin Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Middle East, Confucian Asia, Southern Asia, Latin America, and Nordic Europe (Figure 15.1 ). These 10 regional clusters are the groupings that were used in all of the GLOBE studies.

Figure 15.1 Country Clusters According to GLOBE

Switzerland

(Francophone)

Spain

Portugal

SOURCE: Adapted from House , R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan , M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V., Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, copyright© 2004, Sage Publications, Inc. Reprinted with permission.

I jl 15.2 Leadership and Culture

Chapter 15 I Culture and Leadership 391

To test whether the clusters, or groups of countries, were valid, research­ ers did a statistical analys is of questionnaire data collected from individuals in each of the clusters. Their results indicated that the scores of respon­ dents within a cluster correlated with one another but were unrelated to the scores of responden ts in different clusters. From these findings, they concluded that each cluster was unique. In sum, these regional clusters represented a valid and reliable way to differentiate countries of the world into l 0 distinct groups.

Characteristics of Clusters

In an effort to characterize the regional clusters, GLOBE researchers analyzed data from each of the regions using the dimensions of culture described earli er. Table 15 .l provides a classification of the cultural clus­ ters in regard to how they scored on each cultural dimension. In the table, the nine cu ltural dimensions are listed in the left-hand column; the high­ score and low-scorc regional clusters are provided in the next two columns. These are the regional clusters that were significantly higher or lower on particular dimensions than other regions. From these data, several observa­ tions can be made about the characteristics of these regional cultures.

Anglo

The Anglo cluster consists of Canada, the United States, Australia , Ire­ land, England, South Africa (Vhite sample), and New Zealand. These countries or populations were high in performance orientation and low in in-group collecti·ism. This means it is characteristi c of these countries to be competitive and results orien ted, but less attached to their famili es or similar groups than other countries.

Confucian Asia

This cluster, which includes Singapore, Hong Kong, Ta iwan, China, South Korea , and Japan, exhibited high scores in performance orienta­ tion, institutional collectivism, and in-group collectivism. These coun­ tries are results driven , and they encourage the group working together over individual goals. People in these countri es are devoted and loyal to their families.

I jl 15.2 Leadership and Cultural Diversity

392 LEADERSHIP I THEORY AND PRACTICE

Table 15.1 Cultural Clusters Classified on Cultural Dimensions

Cultural Dimension

Assertiveness orientation

Future orientation

Gender egalitarianism

Humane orientation

In-group collectivism

Institutional collectivism

Performance orientation

Power distance

Uncertainty avoidance

High-Score Clusters

Eastern Europe Germanic Europe

Germanic Europe Nordic Europe

Eastern Europe Nordic Europe

Southern Asia Sub-Saharan Africa

Confucian Asia Eastern Europe Latin America Middle East Southern Asia

Nordic Europe Confucian Asia

Anglo Confucian Asia Germanic Europe

No clusters

Germanic Europe Nordic Europe

Low-Score Clusters

Nordic Europe

Eastern Europe Latin America Middle East

Middle East

Germanic Europe Latin Europe

Anglo Germanic Europe Nordic Europe

Germanic Europe Latin America Latin Europe

Eastern Europe Latin America

Nordic Europe

Eastern Europe Latin America Middle East

SOURCE: Adapted from House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., &

Gupta, V. (Eds.) , Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, © 2004, SAGE Publications, Inc. Reprinted with permission.

Eastern Europe

Included in this cluster are Greece, Hungary, Albania, Slovenia, Poland, Russia, Georgia, and Kazakhstan. These countries scored high on assertiveness, in-group collectivism, and gender egalitarianism. They scored low on performance orientation, future orientation, and uncer­ tainty avoidance. People in this cluster tend to be forceful and supportive of their coworkers and to treat men and women equally. They are less

Chapter 15 I Culture and Leadership 393

likely to be achievement driven, to emphasize strategic planning, and to stress rules and laws as a way to maintain order.

Germanic Europe

The Germanic Europe countries, which include Austria, The Nether­ lands, Switzerland, and Germany, scored high in performance orientation, assertiveness, future orientation, and uncertainty avoidance. They were low in humane orientation, institutional collectivism, and in-group collectivism. These countries value competition and aggressiveness and are more results oriented than people oriented. They enjoy planning and investing in the future and using rules and laws to give them control over their environment. At the same time, these countries are more likely to be individualistic and less group oriented. They tend not to emphasize broad societal groups.

Latin America

The Latin America cluster is made up of Ecuador, El Salvador, Colom­ bia, Bolivia, Brazil, Guatemala, Argentina, Costa Rica, Venezuela, and Mexico. People in these countries scored high on in-group collectivism and low on performance orientation, future orientation, institutional col­ lectivism, and uncertainty avoidance. People in these countries tend to be loyal and devoted to their families and similar groups but less interested in overall institutional and societal groups.

Latin Europe

Comprising Israel, Italy, Francophone Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, and France, the Latin Europe cluster exhibited more moderate and fewer high scores on any of the cultural dimensions, but they scored low on humane orientation and institutional collectivism. It is characteristic of these countries to value individual autonomy and to place less value on the greater societal collective. Individuals are encouraged to watch out for themselves and to pursue individual rather than societal goals.

Middle East

This cluster was made up of Qatar, Morocco, Egypt, Kuwait, and Tur­ key. These countries scored high on in-group collectivism and low on

394 LEADERSHIP I THEORY AND PRACTICE

future orientation , gender egalitarianism, and uncertainty avoidance. People in these countries tend to show great pride in their families and organizations. T hey are devoted and loyal to their own people. Further­ more , it is common for these countries to treat people of different genders in distinctly different ways. Women often are afforded less status than men, and fewer women are in positions of authority than men. In the Middle East, orderliness and consistency are not stressed, and people do not place heavy reliance on policies and procedures. There is a tendency to focus on current issues as opposed to attempting to control the future.

Nordic Europe

The Nordic Europe cluster, which includes Denmark, F inland , and Sweden, exhibited several distinctive characteristics . This cluster scored high on future orientation , gender egalitarianism, institutional collectiv­ ism, and uncertain ty avoidance, and low on assertiveness, in-group col­ lectivism, and pm' er distance. T he Nordic peopl e place a high priority on long-term success . Women are treated with greater equality. The Nordic people identify with the broader society and far less with family groups. In Nordic Europe, rules, orderliness, and consistency are stressed. Asserti ve­ ness is down played in favor of modesty and tenderness, and power is shared equally among people at all levels of society. Cooperation and societal­ level group identity are highly valued by the ordic people.

Southern Asia

T he Philippin es, Indones ia , Malaysia , India, T hailand, and Iran form the Southern Asia cluster. These countries exhibited high scores on humane ori entation and in-group collectivism. Southern As ia could be characteri zed as countries that demonstrate strong family loyalty and deep concern for their communities .

Sub-Saharan Africa

The Sub-Saharan Africa cluster consisted of Zimbabwe, Namibia, Zambia, Nigeria, and South Africa (Black sample) . These countries or populations expressed high scores on humane ori entation. In Sub-Saharan Africa, people generally are very concerned for and sensitive to oth ers. Concern for family and fri ends is more important than concern for self.

Chapter 15 I Culture and Leadership 395

Leadership Behavior and Culture Clusters

The overall purpose of the GLOBE project was to determine how people from different cultures viewed leadership. In addition, researchers wanted to determine the ways in which cultural characteristics were related to culturally endorsed leadership behaviors. In short, they wanted to find out how differ­ ences in cultures were related to differences in approaches to leadership.

The conceptualization of leadership used by GLOBE researchers was derived in part from the work of Lord and Maher (1991) on implicit lead­ ership theory. According to implicit leadership theory, individuals have implicit beliefs and convictions about the attributes and beliefs that distin­ guish leaders from nonleaders and effective leaders from ineffective lead­ ers. From the perspective of this theon·, leadership is in the eye of the beholder (Dorfman, Hanges, & Brodbeck, 2004) . Leadership refers to what people see in others \'hen they are exhibiting leadership behaviors.

To describe how different cultures view leadership behaviors in others, GLOBE researchers identified six global leadership behaviors: charismatic/ value based, team oriented, participative, humane oriented, autonomous, and self-protective (House & Javidan, 2004). These global leadership behaviors were defined in these studies 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 leadersh ip includes being vis ionary, inspirational, self-sacrificing, trustworthy, decisive, and per­ formance oriented.

Team-oriented leadership emphasizes team building and a common purpose among team members. This kind of leadership includes being collaborative, integrative, diplomatic , nonmalevolent, and administratively competent.

Participative leadership reflects the degree to which leaders involve others in making and implementing decisions. lt includes being participative and nonautocratic .

Humane-oriented leadership emphas izes being supportive, consider­ ate, 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.

~ 15.2 Global Leaders

396 LEADERSHIP I THEORY AND PRACTICE

Self-protective leadership reflects behaviors that ensure the safety and security of the leader and the group . It includes leadership that is self-centered, status conscious, conflict inducing, face saving, and procedural.

These six global leadership behaviors emerged from the GLOBE research and were used to assess the different ways in which various cultural clusters viewed leadership. From thi s analysis, the researchers were able to identify a leadership profile for each cluster. Each profile describes the relative impor­ tance and desirabili ty that different cultures ascribe to different leadership behaviors. The leadership profiles for each of the 10 culhire clusters follow.

Eastern Europe leadership Profile

For the Eastern European countries, an ideal example of a leader would be a person who was first and foremost independent while maintaining a strong interest in protecting his or her position as a leader (F igure 15.2). In addition , the leader would be moderately charismatic/value based, team oriented, and humane oriented, yet largely uninterested in involving others in the decision-making process . To sum up, this culture describes a leader as one who is highly autonomous, makes decisions independently, and is to a certain degree inspiring, team oriented, and attentive to human needs.

Figure 15.2 Culture Clusters and Desired Leadership Behaviors: Eastern Europe

IAutonomous Leadership w ~ ISelf-Protective Leadership a: ~ ICharismaticNalue-Based Leadership z ~ ITeam-Oriented Leadership Ill

;:5 IHumane-Oriented Leadership

IParticipative Leadership

SOURCE: Adapted from House et al. (2004) .

Chapter 15 I Culture and Leadership 397

Latin America Leadership Profile

Quite different from the Eastern European countries, the Latin Ameri­ can countries place the most importance on charismatic/value-based, team-orien ted, and self-protective leadership, and the least importance on autonomous leadersh ip (Figure 15. 3). In addition , this cluster is moder­ ately interested in leadership that is participative and humane oriented. The profile for the Latin America cluster is of a leader who is charismatic/ value based but somewhat self-serving, collaborative, and inspiring. These leaders tend to be moderately interested in people and their participation in deci sion making.

Figure 15.3 Culture C lusters and Desired Leadership Behaviors: Latin America

[ Charismatic/Value-Based Leadership

<( ! U [ Team-Oriented Leadership

ii2 w :t [ Self-Protective Leadership <(

[ Participative Leadership

[ Humane-Oriented Leadership

SOURCE: Adapted from House et al. (2004).

Latin Europe Leadership Profile

The Latin Europe cluster values leadership that is charismatic/value based , team oriented, participative, and self-p rotective (Figure 15.4 ). Inde­ pendent leadership and the human side of leadership are downplayed in this cluster. In short, the profile of the Latin Europe cluster centers on leadership that is inspiring, collaborative, participative, and self-oriented, but not highly compassionat