The chapter titled “Culture and Leadership” delves into the different facets of culture and its impact on leadership. Similar to the previous chapter, this section addresses multiple interconnected ideas rather than a singular unified theory. Since there are no established theories on cultural leadership, our discussion in this chapter will concentrate on research that offers insights into culture, its dimensions, and how it influences the process of leadership. Globalization has been spreading globally since World War II.
Globalization is the growing interdependence among nations in economics, social interactions, technology, and politics. It includes increased interconnectedness between individuals, more international trade, cultural exchange, and widespread use of telecommunication networks. Schools, organizations, and communities have increasingly embraced globalization. However, it also presents challenges such as creating efficient multinational organizations, selecting suitable leaders for them, and effectively managing culturally diverse workforces within these organizations (House & Javidan, 2004).
Globalization has led to the recognition of the impact of cultural differences on leadership performance. As a result, leaders now require competence in cross-cultural awareness and practice. According to Adler and Bartholomew (1992), there are five cross-cultural competencies that global leaders must develop. The first is an understanding of business, political, and cultural environments on a global scale. The second is acquiring knowledge of perspectives, tastes, trends, and technologies from various cultures.
Thirdly, it is necessary for leaders to have the capability to collaborate with individuals from various cultures. Furthermore, leaders must possess the ability to adjust and communicate effectively in different cultures. Moreover, leaders should learn how to engage with people from different cultures on an equal footing, rather than assuming cultural superiority (p. 53). Additionally, Ting-Toomey (1999) asserts that global leaders must possess the capability to create transcultural visions. They should enhance their communication skills in order to effectively express and execute their vision within a diverse work environment.
Today’s leaders need a unique set of skills to succeed in today’s global societies. This chapter centers on the influence of culture on leadership, beginning with the definition of culture and two associated concepts. It goes on to examine cultural dimensions, world culture clusters, and their distinguishing features. Additionally, it delves into the variations in leadership across cultures and highlights certain universally esteemed or frowned upon leadership qualities.
After examining the research, we will now assess its strengths and weaknesses. Anthropologists, sociologists, and others have been engaged in an ongoing debate about how to interpret the term culture. The abstract nature of its definition and the differing perspectives held by individuals present challenges. For this study, culture is understood as a set of shared beliefs, values, rules, norms, symbols, and traditions that are unique to a specific group of people. These characteristics collectively distinguish them from other groups. Furthermore, culture is continuously evolving and passed down to future generations.
In summary, culture includes the lifestyle, traditions, and writing system of a specific population (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988). It is frequently associated with ideas like multiculturalism and diversity. Multiculturalism pertains to a framework or system that recognizes and integrates different cultures such as African, American, Asian, European, and Middle Eastern cultures.
The main focus of this chapter is diversity, which refers to the existence of various cultures or ethnicities within a group or organization. It examines the relationship between leadership and multiculturalism and highlights their close connection. Before discussing different cultural aspects, this section aims to clarify two related concepts: ethnocentrism and prejudice. These tendencies can greatly affect leaders’ ability to influence others.
Ethnocentrism is the tendency of individuals to prioritize their own ethnic, racial, or cultural group when perceiving others and the world. People often view their own beliefs, attitudes, and values as more significant than those of other groups. This perception of ethnocentrism includes seeing one’s own culture as superior or more important than others, potentially disregarding diverse perspectives. Ethnocentrism is a widespread inclination that exists in everyone to different degrees.
Ethnocentrism refers to the subjective or critical evaluations made by individuals from one culture towards those from a different culture (Porter & Samovar, 1997). An illustration of this is when some individuals consider the democratic principles of the United States to be superior to the political beliefs of other cultures, leading them to overlook the intricacies of these cultures. Ethnocentrism explains our inclination to deem our own cultural values and practices as correct and innate (Gudykunst & Kim, 1997).
Ethnocentrism inhibits effective leadership by hindering the understanding and appreciation of diverse cultures. This barrier occurs when individuals from individualistic cultures struggle to comprehend the perspective of those from collectivist cultures. Likewise, leaders with a strong emphasis on authority may find it difficult to accept or understand those who question or resist figures of authority, as noted by Northouse. The more ethnocentric individuals are, the less likely they are to tolerate or have an open mind towards different cultural traditions and practices. Competent leaders must confront and address ethnocentrism by recognizing their own biases while also striving to understand and accept moderate levels of ethnocentrism in others. Striking a balance between confidently promoting their own approaches and being respectful towards the legitimacy of other cultural ways is essential for effective leadership.
Skilled leaders have the capacity to navigate the fine line between striving to overcome ethnocentrism and acknowledging the significance of staying connected to their own cultural values. Prejudice, which is closely associated with ethnocentrism, refers to a fixed mindset, belief, or emotion that an individual harbors towards another individual or group without valid evidence or information. It involves making judgments about others based on past decisions or experiences. Prejudice comprises inflexible generalizations that are resistant to change or conflicting evidence (Ponterotto & Pedersen, 1993).
Prejudice is commonly associated with race (e.g., European American vs African American), but it also extends to sexism, ageism, homophobia, and other independent prejudices. While there can be positive forms of prejudice (e.g., forming a high opinion of another culture without sufficient evidence), it is typically negative. Like ethnocentrism, we all possess prejudices to some extent. Our prejudices can sometimes help us maintain our partially fixed attitudes and keep them consistent. Moreover, prejudice can alleviate our anxiety by providing a familiar framework for interpreting our observations of others.
Prejudice is a major problem that revolves around self-centeredness, neglecting others in favor of personal well-being. Moreover, prejudice obstructs understanding by imposing a barrier that limits our perception of different aspects and qualities in others. Prejudice often materializes through derogatory or offensive comments about others. Both ethnocentrism and prejudice impede our ability to fully grasp and appreciate the diverse human experiences of others.
Not only do leaders need to address their personal biases, but they also have to deal with the prejudice of their followers towards them or their cultural background. Additionally, leaders frequently come across followers from various cultural groups who hold biases against each other. It is crucial for a capable leader to know how to handle interactions with individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds. Numerous fields of study have extensively explored culture.
In the past three decades, numerous studies have concentrated on identifying and categorizing the different dimensions of culture. The initial step in comprehending the connections between cultures is determining their fundamental dimensions or features. Several renowned studies have examined how to describe cultures. For instance, Hall (1976) stated that a key characteristic of cultures is whether they prioritize the individual (individualistic cultures) or the group (collectivistic cultures).
According to Trompenaars (1994), organizational cultures can be categorized into two dimensions: egalitarian versus hierarchical and person versus task orientation. He conducted a survey with over 15,000 individuals from 47 countries, concluding that cultures differ in terms of the extent to which they have shared or hierarchical power, as well as their emphasis on human interaction versus task accomplishment.
The main goal of the project is to enhance our comprehension of cross-cultural interactions and how culture influences leadership effectiveness. Researchers from GLOBE conducted quantitative analysis on the responses of 17,000 managers from over 950 organizations in 62 different cultures worldwide. Data collection was achieved through questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, and content analysis of printed media. Detailed findings from the GLOBE studies will be presented in this chapter.
In their study of culture and leadership, GLOBE researchers created their own classification of cultural dimensions. They identified nine cultural dimensions: uncertainty avoidance, power distance, institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, future orientation, performance orientation, and humane orientation. These dimensions were developed based on the researchers’ own work and the work of others such as Hofstede (1980, 2001), Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck (1961), McClelland (1961), and Triandis (1995). This section provides a description of each dimension, starting with uncertainty avoidance.
This dimension refers to the level of reliance that a society, organization, or group has on established social norms, rituals, and procedures to mitigate uncertainty. Uncertainty avoidance relates to how cultures utilize rules, structures, and laws to establish predictability and reduce uncertainty. Power Distance This dimension refers to the extent to which group members anticipate and consent to unequal distribution of power. Power distance focuses on how cultures are hierarchically structured, resulting in varying levels of power, authority, prestige, status, wealth, and material possessions.
Institutional Collectivism is the extent to which an organization or society promotes collective action. It focuses on whether cultures prioritize broader societal interests over individual goals and achievements. In-Group Collectivism measures the level of pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness individuals exhibit towards their organizations or families.
In-group collectivism refers to the level of commitment individuals have towards their organizations or families. Gender egalitarianism measures the extent to which an organization or society reduces gender role differences and advocates for gender equality. It focuses on the extent to which societies prioritize individuals’ biological sex when determining their roles within their homes, organizations, and communities. Assertiveness describes the level of determination, assertiveness, confrontation, and aggression individuals exhibit in their social relationships within a culture.
The concept of assertiveness refers to the level at which a culture or society encourages strength, aggression, and resilience in social interactions, as opposed to passivity, submission, and gentleness. Future orientation relates to how much individuals within a culture engage in behaviors that are future-oriented, like making plans, investing, and delaying immediate satisfaction. It highlights that people in a specific culture prioritize preparing for the future instead of enjoying the present moment and being spontaneous. Another factor to take into account is performance orientation.
This dimension relates to how much an organization or society promotes and acknowledges the accomplishments of its members as a group. It determines if individuals in a culture are incentivized for setting ambitious objectives and achieving them. The ninth dimension, known as Humane Orientation, describes the extent to which a culture fosters and recognizes fairness, selflessness, generosity, empathy, and benevolence towards others.
These regional clusters exhibit notable variations in certain dimensions compared to other regions, allowing for observations about their cultural characteristics. The Anglo cluster encompasses Canada, the United States, Australia, Ireland, England, South Africa (white sample), and New Zealand. These countries demonstrate a strong emphasis on performance orientation and a minimal focus on in-group collectivism. This suggests that competitiveness and achieving results are prominent traits within these nations while they exhibit lesser attachment to family or similar groups when compared to other countries.
Confucian Asia, which consists of Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, South Korea, and Japan, demonstrated strong performance orientation, institutional collectivism, and in-group collectivism. These nations prioritize achieving outcomes and emphasize collective efforts over individual objectives. The individuals in these countries show great dedication and loyalty to their families.
Eastern Europe encompasses Greece, Hungary, Albania, Slovenia, Poland, Russia, Georgia, and Kazakhstan. This region displayed high levels of assertiveness, in-group collectivism, and gender egalitarianism.
The first group lacked performance orientation, future orientation, and uncertainty avoidance. They tend to be assertive and supportive towards coworkers and treat women fairly. However, they are not driven by achievement, do not prioritize strategic planning, and do not rely on rules and laws for order maintenance.
In contrast, the countries in Germanic Europe (Austria, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and Germany) ranked high in performance orientation, assertiveness, future orientation, and uncertainty avoidance.
The Latin Europe cluster comprises of France, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland (French speaking), Italy, and Israel. These countries demonstrate more moderate and fewer high scores on the cultural dimensions. However, they exhibit low levels of humane orientation and institutional collectivism. The emphasis in these countries is placed on individual autonomy, giving less significance to societal collective goals. Individuals are encouraged to prioritize their personal well-being and individual objectives over societal goals. The Middle East cluster includes Qatar, Morocco, Egypt, Kuwait, and Turkey.
The countries mentioned possess high levels of in-group collectivism but low levels of future orientation, gender egalitarianism, and uncertainty avoidance. They demonstrate a profound sense of pride towards their families and organizations, displaying unwavering loyalty to their own people. Moreover, it is typical for individuals in these nations to treat people of different genders dissimilarly. Notably, women often encounter reduced status and limited chances for authoritative roles compared to men. In the Middle East, orderliness and consistency are not given utmost importance while policies and procedures have relatively less reliance.
Instead of controlling the future, there is a tendency to concentrate on current issues. The Nordic Europe cluster, which includes Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, has distinct characteristics. This specific cluster ranks high in terms of future orientation, gender egalitarianism, institutional collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance; however, it scores low in assertiveness, in-group collectivism, and power distance. The people of the Nordic region prioritize long-term success and value treating women with greater equality.
Researchers aimed to explore the connection between cultural traits and culturally endorsed leadership behaviors. Specifically, they sought to uncover the correlation between cultural differences and various leadership approaches. GLOBE researchers derived their conceptualization of leadership from Lord and Maher’s (1991) work on implicit leadership theory. Implicit leadership theory suggests that individuals hold unconscious beliefs and convictions about the qualities and values that differentiate leaders from nonleaders, as well as effective leaders from ineffective ones.
According to this theory, leadership is subjective, and it refers to the perception of individuals when they observe others demonstrating leadership behaviors (Dorfman, Hanges, & Brodbeck, 2004). The way leadership behaviors are perceived varies across different cultures. GLOBE researchers have identified six global leadership behaviors: charismatic/value-based, team-oriented, participative, humane-oriented, autonomous, and self-protective (House & Javidan, 2004) to describe how different cultures view leadership behaviors in others (Northouse(4e)-13. qxd 9/15/2006 7:01 PM Page 314 314 LEADERSHIP).
The studies defined these global leadership behaviors as follows:
– Charismatic/value-based leadership: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high performance from others based on strongly held core values. This leadership style encompasses qualities such as being visionary, inspirational, self-sacrificing, trustworthy, decisive, and performance oriented.
– Team-oriented leadership: emphasizes team building and a shared purpose among team members. This leadership style includes qualities like being collaborative, integrative, diplomatic, nonmalevolent, and administratively competent.
Participative leadership involves involving others in decision-making and implementation, while also being nonautocratic. Humane-oriented leadership, on the other hand, emphasizes support, consideration, compassion, and generosity. This type of leadership is characterized by modesty and sensitivity. Autonomous leadership is independent and individualistic, embodying autonomy and uniqueness. Lastly, self-protective leadership focuses on behaviors that prioritize the safety and security of both the leader and the group.
The GLOBE research identified six global leadership behaviors: selfcenteredness, status consciousness, conflict induction, face saving, and procedural. These behaviors were used to assess how different cultural clusters perceive leadership. Based on this analysis, a leadership profile was created for each cluster, which describes the importance and desirability of various leadership behaviors according to different cultures. The following are the leadership profiles for each of the 10 culture clusters, starting with the Eastern Europe Leadership Profile.
To summarize, in Latin American countries, a leader is seen as someone who is highly autonomous but also inspiring, team-oriented, and attentive to human needs. This is in contrast to Eastern European countries where the focus is more on autonomous leadership. Latin American leadership places the most importance on team-oriented, charismatic/value-based, and self-protective leadership, while placing the least importance on autonomous leadership. Additionally, this cluster of countries shows moderate interest in leadership that is participative and people-oriented.
The Latin America cluster has a leadership profile that is charismatic/value-based, somewhat self-serving, collaborative, and inspiring. These leaders are moderately interested in people and their participation in decision making. The Latin Europe cluster values leadership that is charismatic/value-based, team-oriented, participative, and self-protective. However, independent leadership and the human side of leadership are downplayed in this cluster. In summary, the leadership profiles in Latin America and Latin Europe both prioritize charisma, values, collaboration, and involvement in decision making, but differ in the emphasis on independence and the human aspect of leadership.
During the discussion, it was discovered that the principles of Islam greatly influence how Muslims approach banking. These principles, outlined in the Koran over 14 centuries ago, strictly prohibit the giving or receiving of interest. Additionally, Islamic finance emphasizes that money serves as a means of exchange and should not be used to generate more wealth. According to Islamic beliefs, the human aspect of a business venture holds more significance than the monetary aspect. Similarly, Islamic finance mandates that both the provider and the user of capital equally share the risks involved in a business venture. These perspectives on finance differ from those held by the Central Bank. Central Bank was unfamiliar with the Muslim perspective on money as a medium of exchange. Following these enlightening discussions, Central Bank’s management felt compelled to develop a financing program aligning with Islamic finance principles in order to attract Muslim customers. As a result, Central Bank introduced two new types of mortgage financing, known as ijara and murabaha.
Ijara and murabaha are two finance plans that comply with Islamic beliefs, which forbid Muslims from paying or receiving interest. In ijara, the bank purchases a home for the customer and leases it to them. The customer pays rent and a portion of the property purchase. On the other hand, murabaha involves the bank buying the home and then selling it to the customer at an agreed-upon markup. The customer pays for the home in installments over a period of 15 to 30 years. Both of these transactions involve using money for purchasing tangible assets rather than for making additional money.
Central Bank has received favorable legal rulings (fatawa) from prominent Islamic legal scholars in the US and globally, validating these forms of financing. Consequently, Central Bank’s Islamic finance plans have gained significant popularity. Despite their success, there has been opposition towards these plans. Certain individuals strongly disapprove of finance programs tailored for the Muslim population, while others object due to concerns about the separation of church and state.
Despite facing resistance, Central Bank remains committed to exclusively serving the Muslim community. It takes pride in being the only bank in the country that offers financial services tailored specifically for this religious minority group. This raises several questions:
1. Why are banks in the United States hesitant to provide financing options designed for Muslims?
2. Is it justifiable to offer a unique banking opportunity to one specific minority group?
3. How does ethnocentrism play a role in this case?
4. How do Central Bank’s finance plans align with the concept of in-group collectivism?
5. What will be other banks’ reaction within the community towards Central Bank’s approach?
These issues are discussed in Case 13.3 titled “Whose Hispanic Center Is It?”.
River City, located in the Midwest, is a thriving city with a population of 200,000. The population is diverse, comprising of 65% White residents, 20% African American residents, 13% Hispanic residents, and 2% Native American residents. The Hispanic community in particular is growing rapidly. To cater to the needs of both the Hispanic community and the wider River City community, there is the Hispanic Center—a non-profit organization offering a range of programs and services. The operations of the Hispanic Center are overseen by an executive director who reports to the board of directors.
The Hispanic Center has undergone a transformation under the leadership of new board members, Mary Davis and Jose Reyna. Their efforts have focused on renovating the physical facilities and shifting program services. Mary Davis brings expertise in neighborhood development, while Jose Reyna has experience in city government.
The board of directors is comprised of 15 individuals, with 10 being Hispanic and 5 non-Hispanic. The center made the decision to renovate their old building based on feedback received during community forums. This renovation aimed to create more space for offices and community programs such as educational programming, cultural competence and leadership training, and legal services. Despite needing significant renovations, the building was purchased from River City for $1 as it was an old fire station that had been unused for 15 years but its location in the heart of the Hispanic community made it ideal.
To finance this renovation project, the board initiated a citywide capital campaign.
The campaign aimed to generate $1.4 million, which is the estimated cost for a comprehensive and high-quality renovation of the building. Mary and Jose enthusiastically took on the fundraising campaign, while also managing their regular jobs. Within a span of 6 months, utilizing their diverse skills, they effectively secured $1.3 million for the project, primarily through contributions from private foundations and corporations. Only $100,000 remained to be raised, sparking enthusiasm among the leaders and certain board members regarding the potential of the upcoming community center.
The anticipation grew stronger as the newly renovated building was set to be built using cutting-edge green building methods. These methods not only prioritized the environment but also embraced healthy and highly efficient construction models. Mary and Jose presented a fresh set of fundraising ideas to gather the remaining $100,000, which would primarily target smaller donors (e.g., those contributing $10, $20, or $30) from the Hispanic community. To commence a series of events, they suggested hosting a formal gathering at a nearby hotel, where tickets would be priced at $75 per person.
Prior to this event, Mary and Jose faced opposition and realized they needed to temper their excitement for the renovation. At a board meeting, some members expressed concerns about recent fundraising efforts. Some questioned the decision to target the Hispanic community for donations, suggesting that Hispanics typically donate to churches rather than charities. Others doubted the ticket prices for fundraising events, which aimed for $75 from small donors. These members argued for a lower admission fee of $20 to be more inclusive. As the discussion continued, other board members expressed dissatisfaction with the extravagant plans for the new green building. They believed the renovation was becoming a pet project of a few ambitious visionaries, turning it into a special interest project. Additionally, there were questions raised about the direction of the Hispanic Center under Mary and Jose’s leadership.
The board members expressed their frustrations regarding the new goals of the center and the progress being made. There was a feeling that the request for community-based support was unreasonable and clashed with cultural norms. Previously, the center had a gradual approach to change, with a primary focus on providing emergency services to the local community. Change was introduced incrementally, without aggression or trouble. However, under the leadership of Mary and Jose, there was a perception that the new center and programs were overly extravagant and sophisticated for the community they aimed to serve.
The vision for the new center appeared to surpass the common work and people-oriented values of the center. There are several questions to consider regarding Mary’s and Jose’s leadership on this project: 1) What are their strengths and weaknesses? 2) Is there a problem with targeting part of the fund-raising campaign towards the Hispanic community? 3) How does their leadership compare with the Latin America profile, which values team-oriented leadership? Additionally, the resistance towards the renovation project can be explained by Hispanic cultural dimensions. As Mary or Jose, it is important to temper excitement about the new fire station. It is worth noting that culture and leadership are distinct concepts and are measured separately, with no current measures that assess both simultaneously.
Questionnaires that measure culture, such as Hofstede’s Culture in the Workplace™ questionnaire, and various measures of leadership are discussed in the book. Hofstede’s questionnaire assesses cultural preferences in four dimensions: individualism, power distance, certainty, and achievement. Individuals can use their profiles on these dimensions to gain self-awareness and compare themselves with individuals from other cultures. The Dimensions of Culture questionnaire presented here is a condensed version of the original questionnaire used in the GLOBE studies.
This questionnaire is provided in the chapter as an example and should not be used for research purposes. The scores obtained from this questionnaire are individual-level scores and not representative of societal or organizational scores. Researchers who wish to use the GLOBE scales for their research should refer to the complete questionnaire.
