Center for Comparative Management Studies

A "Cultural Contingency" Model of Leadership

This report summarizes some of the ideas of Muczyk and Holt, who prescribed that global leaders should adapt to changing economic conditions, particularly the growing intensity of globalization, by aligning their leadership styles and processes with cultural demands.  They suggested a “global framework of leadership” based on four “leadership dimensions”—consideration, concern for production, incentive for performance and democracy-autonomy—and then went on to prescribe recommendations for effective leadership styles in various regions of the world based on the predominant cultural characteristics in those regions identified by various researchers.

Leadership Dimensions as a Function of Cultural Imperatives

This report explores the efforts of two researchers, Muczyk and Holt, to suggest how leaders might select between “democratic” and “autocratic” styles in different cultural contexts.  In general, Muczyk and Holt observed that “democratic” leadership with respect to making decisions and setting goals may be suited for cultures that are low on power distance, high on individualism and femininity, low on uncertainty avoidance and characterized by internal environmental orientation and might also be suitable in societies whose members have a low regard for hierarchy and an inclination to bypass the chain of command.  On the other hand, Muczyk and Holt speculated that “autocratic” leadership might be more appropriate in societies that are high in power distance, collectivism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance and that are characterized by external environmental orientation and in societies whose members have a high regard for hierarchy and are reluctant to bypass the chain of command.  The observations made by Muczyk and Holt were similar to those made by Hofstede, who argued that large power distance and collectivism were closely related and typically associated with developing countries while small power distance and high individualism were closely related and typically associated with industrialized countries.

African Leadership & Management

This week's report focuses on “African leadership and management”, which is one of the most controversial areas of comparative management studies.  Relying on a review conducted by Nkomo several years ago, we examine four alternative approaches to the subject that have been used by various scholars: “African management development”, which focuses on the need for capable leadership and management in Africa in order to achieve economic and social goals; literature on national culture, which examines African leadership and management using one or more of the various cultural dimension models that have been developed and popularized by various researchers such as Gaart Hofstede; the representations of African leadership and management that have appeared in management textbooks, which typically focus on how historical feats in Africa such as the building of the pyramids in Egypt fit into the progression toward the development of “classical” and “scientific” management theory; and a small but growing number of works defining the elements of indigenous “African management philosophy” and development and adoption of management practices that are congruent with African cultural values as opposed to ill-suited prescriptions from Western cultures that were introduced during the colonial period.

Survey Finds Substantial Variety in European Leadership Behaviors

While the European Union has struggled to harmonize its legal, regulatory and political framework, the Member States continue to be perceived as very different environments to conduct business due, in large part, to long-standing cultural characteristics that remain in place even as European institutions are created and nurtured.

The Management Research Group (“MRG”), a private consultancy focusing on individual and organizational development, compared the leadership behaviors of almost 4,000 persons in various management positions with firms in eight European countries—Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom—using a questionnaire that measured 22 different leadership practices relating to what it referred to as six essential functions of the leadership role: creating and developing a vision or direction for the organization; developing a followership that supports the vision or direction identified for the organization; implementing the vision or direction in organizational terms; following through to make sure that things happen according to plan; achieving results (i.e., the ability of leaders to set high standards of performance for themselves and their organizations; and team playing (i.e., the ability to work within a team environment).  Based on the results of the survey, MRG concluded that there were very few similarities in leadership behavior among European managers and, in fact, they noted common ground on just three of the 22 leadership practices that were measured: expertise (i.e., as a group, managers from all of the surveyed countries tended to place the same degree of emphasis—moderate—on the level of technical expertise and orientation toward detail and in-depth analysis), competitiveness (i.e., managers from all countries tended to seek and prefer “win-win solutions” as opposed to engaging in forceful, competitive behaviors) and setting standards of excellence. 

MRG also highlighted distinctions between behaviors of managers in regions typically clustered together such as the Scandinavian countries and reported several areas where the leadership styles of Swedish managers contrasted sharply with their peers in Denmark.  For example, while Swedish managers rated themselves as the most innovative, team-oriented and pragmatic and less reliant on using guidelines, procedures and systematic methods for monitoring progress, Danish managers reported being more strategic, analytical and demanding, less team oriented and more likely to rely on formal planning and performance measurement processes.  Not surprisingly, given the results of other studies, differences also emerged between German and French managers.  One illustration was that while German managers accessed new ideas and perspectives by reference to past practices, seeking to minimize risk by building on knowledge gained through experience, French managers are much less likely to reflect on the past.  German managers are much more technically-oriented and analytical than the French and while Germans prefer long-range planning after detailed study the French are more likely to take a short-term view.  French managers are outgoing and continuously engaged with their followers while German managers are more understated and subdued. 

MRG summed its findings by quoting Jean Monnet, the founder of the European Community: “If I were again facing the challenge to integrate Europe, I would probably start with culture.”

Ways in Which Culture Can Influence Leadership Styles and Behaviors

The relationship between culture and leadership styles and behaviors has been extensively studied and debated and the evidence appears to confirm that culture does have a small, but significant, impact on the use and effectiveness of leadership styles although a number of other factors (e.g., personality characteristics of the leader and followers, needs and expectations of the parties, age, gender, skills and expertise, type of organization and structure and type of work unit) also influence the relationship between leaders and their followers.  When considering how culture relates to the way in which they interact with their subordinates, managers should consider the following comprehensive list and explanation of ways in which culture can influence leadership styles and behaviors developed by Zagoršek:

• Culture plays an important role in shaping the approved leadership prototype—the image of the ideal leader—of a particular society.
• Culture has a significant—many say fundamental--influence on the personality traits and work values of leaders and their subordinates in a particular society.
• The cultural values and norms of a society determine the attitudes of leaders and their actual pattern of leadership behaviors including the ways in which leaders and their subordinates relate to one another.
• Just as cultural values and norms impact the attitudes and behaviors of leaders, they also influence how subordinates perceive and ultimately accept or reject the behaviors and practices of their leaders.
• Consistent with the points discussed above, culture is an important determinant of the effectiveness of particular leadership styles and behaviors and leader behaviors that are inconsistent with societal norms and values and/or with the implicit leadership theories of subordinates in the society are likely to be ineffective and ultimately lower the morale of the subordinates and harm the productivity and performance of the organizational unit that the ineffective leader oversees.
• Culture is important in providing leaders with guidance regarding the outcomes and results that they should try to achieve through their decisions, actions and behaviors.
• Culture impacts how leaders are selected and accepted as “legitimate” within societies (e.g., in egalitarian, individualistic, low power distance societies the leader usually has to “earn his title” while in collectivistic and high power distance countries the leadership role is usually ascribed to an individual by the nature of his or her status (acquired by birth, kinship, gender, age, education, or connections).
• Differences among societies have been identified with respect to the bases of power and influence tactics that leaders rely upon in order to be effective.
• The nature of the relationship between leaders and their subordinates is also impacted by cultural factors.  In some societies, for example, the relationship is akin to a parent and child and the subordinate is dependent on the leader and the leader is expected to attend to and satisfy the needs of his or her subordinate.  In more egalitarian societies, however, there are far fewer distinctions between leaders and subordinates and the leader is often simply “first among equals”.
• Culture provides context for the styles and behaviors of leaders and thus provides a way to identify whether a particular action will be consider appropriate or inappropriate within a society.  For example, in South East Asia attendance by a leader at a subordinate’s family celebration will be considered “supportive” as will a leader’s discussion of the personal problems of one subordinate with other subordinates in Japan; however, such behaviors by a leader in US would likely be considered annoying or offensive by the subordinate whose personal space has been intruded upon by the leader. 

Lessons on Effective Leadership - The GLOBE Project

Continuing with our series on cultural dimensions the report in this post introduces the impressive work carried out under the Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness Project, commonly referred to as "GLOBE", which was conceived in the early 1990s and is considered to be the most extensive and ambitious attempt to gather and analyze information relevant to the study of the cross-cultural aspects of leadership.  In future posts we will examine many of the cultural dimensions included and tested in the GLOBE project more closely.