Contingency Models of Leadership - Managing the Differences between Western and Asian Cultures - Literature review Example

? BUSINESS FINAL REPORT The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze the diversity of Asian leadership models in comparison with their Western counterparts to identify the reasons behind the existence of such drastic differences. The paper aims to present two varying arguments on the aspects of Asian and Western leadership to evaluate the practical implications of the application of such leadership models in real-world business scenarios and operations. According to Dorfman et al. (1997) leadership is generally believed to be a phenomenon that is a contingency approach, which means that aspects related to leadership cannot be applicable on a global basis. As Robbins et al. (2010) report that the establishment of approaches such as Hofstede’s Framework for Assessing Cultures and The Globe Framework for Assessing Cultures is suggestive of a realization that cross-cultural factors are highly variable therefore, effective leadership must be assessed on the basis of cultural dimensions, this view is also advocated by Ashkanasay (2002) whose study based on a sample of 61 countries that were combined in 3 clusters namely, ‘Anglo culture’, ‘Southern Asia’ and ‘Confucian Asia’ concluded that an integral component of leadership which is known as participative leadership varies in its presence across the three clusters, where the Western or Anglo culture observably places greater value upon participation to assist leadership in comparison with both of the remaining groups comprising of Asian countries. Swierczek (1991) however, negates this notion as per his research findings based on a sample of exclusively Asian managers who appreciate and favor participation over direction as leadership behaviors. Adler (1991) suggested that leadership models developed in the West and particularly in the United States have failed to address cross-cultural leadership dilemmas which has greatly diminished their applicability on a universal scale, this brings us to the perspective presented by Bass (1990) who claimed that commentators and researches must learn to identify the distinction between leadership models that are specific to the dimensions of a culture compared to those that can be applied on a global scale. This suggests that the specificity of Western models of leadership is not an indicator of their effectiveness or ineffectiveness but a measure of their applicability. Dorfman et al. (1997 pp.233-234) concluded that despite of the common belief that the universality of leadership models and behaviors is very weak or in some cases non-existent, three distinct leadership behaviors; contingent reward, supportive and charismatic displayed their subsistence on a global scale, while, participative, contingent punishment and directive approaches to leadership were found to exist only in particular cultures. Similarly, the cultural specificity of participative leadership behavior was also found by Ashkanasay (2002) while, the findings of Bass & Avolio, 1993) also reported that the application of leadership models on a cross-cultural basis is a possibility. Mills (2005) adopts a neutral stance in his analysis of Asian and Western leadership models, acknowledging that while both approaches are fairly distinctive from each other they also carry a certain extent of resemblance. In understanding why certain aspects of Asian leadership models are so dramatically different from their Western counterparts, Mills (2005) asserts that in an Asian business setting family and political associations are more prevalent than in Western organizations, Chu (2011) notes that a majority of large corporations in Asia are in fact family business. Moreover, it is also speculated whether culture actually is the principle factor in assessing the difference between Asian and Western leadership models or is it the varying economic, corporate and social development stages of the organizations existing in the two regions (Mills, 2005). Mills (2005) argues that from a Western point of view, CEOs of organizations operating in countries such as America have lesser independence and more external pressure to excel and generate exceptional results in comparison with Asian corporations. This pressure comes largely from the reliance of Western firms on their capital markets. The second aspect in discussion, when commenting on the reasons why Western leadership models have been developed in a different manner than Asian leadership models postulates that giant corporations in countries such as America stand at a much later stage of corporate development, having experienced the transition from operating under the exclusive control of the creator’s family to qualified management (Mills, 2005). Dorfman (1997) noted that Western leadership models reflect the implementation of contingency frameworks and theories to leadership such as the Path-goal theory presented by House. Bartol and Martin (1991) note that the Path-goal theory encompasses four primary leader behaviors (directive, supportive, participative and achievement-oriented) the practical implication of this leadership model is governed by its flexibility, which helps leaders identify how their behavior can effect critical aspects related to employee job performance and drive to achieve a goal. Resick et al. (2011) reported that in Asian countries such as China, leadership models have been emerging to promote ethics in leadership however, the application of such a framework falls under the category of paternalistic behavior rather than a completely different leadership dimension as practiced by Western frameworks. A study conducted by Jung and Takeuchi (2010) analyzed aspects related to the leadership of senior management in SEMs in Japan, by implementing two causal models. The models were based on the application of feed-forward and feedback control, where the first model was responsible for the creation of a community-based culture through the implementation of supportive leadership while, the second model worked in an opposite manner as a community-based culture was responsible for the creation of a supportive leadership. The research findings concluded that the second model proved to be highly successful in positively impacting variables such as employees’ productivity and turnover (Jung & Takeuchi, 2010). This view is a reflection of the need to develop an employee-centered approach in the implementation of leadership models that has proved to automatically impact the behavior of top management to enhance the performance of its personnel. Kakar et al. (2002) presented an interesting aspect of business leadership by assessing ‘hybrid’ Indian organizations that welcome diversity in both their operations and leadership practices by adopting both Western and Asian leadership models. Kakar et al. (2002) noted that of the five dimensions of the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI), Indian managers scored better than their Western equivalents on all factors except for one which was encouraging. The practical implication of this study is that the researchers were able to conclude that Indian culture played an integral role in shaping the outcomes of the research. This understanding suggests that in many Asian countries such as India, leaders are held in extremely high regard by their followers to the extent that this glorification inspires the top management to deliver high performance and show even greater organizational commitment (Kakar et al. 2002) which is another reason why Asian leadership models differ drastically from Western models as leader idealization seldom flourishes in a Western context. Contemporary theories and models of leadership such as the concept of Transformational leadership have garnered positive acclaim in recent times. Robbins et al. (2010) described Transformational leaders as ones who motivate their subordinates to surpass their self-interest such that they leave a meaningful impact on their followers. Palrecha et al. (2012) noted that the most popular leadership model in Western nations is that of transformational leadership, this view was previously negated by Jung et al. (1995) as it was suggested that the premise of Transformational leadership allows the approach to work most successfully in collectivistic societies rather than in Western societies that exude individualistic tendencies, Schaubroeck et al. (2007) too observed that the incidence of high power distance and collectivism allowed teams led by transformational leaders to thrive the most. Palrecha et al. (2012) however disagree with this notion as their study identified that transformational leadership received the least amount of support, in the context of an Asian collectivistic society such as India where locally developed models namely, the organization-specific leadership model and the nurturant-task leadership model garnered successful results. On the other hand, Bai, Li, and Xi (2012) found that transformational leadership increased and enhanced subordinate performance in upper tiers of management in the context of Chinese workers. Mills (2005) appears optimistic that the greater part of Asia is on the path towards economic development to follow nations such as China and Japan, this prediction asserts that economic development in Asian nations will lead to the wide-spread adoption of leadership models focusing on subordinate, employee empowerment and participative management. Datta et al. (2005) report that leadership based on participative management has the capacity to influence variables such as labor productivity and stock returns in a positive manner. Javidan et al. (2006) aimed to understand the practical implications of leadership models and noted that the diversity of Asia nations is reflected in how each culture and society seeks to adopt its own approach to leadership. Dorfman et al. (1997) and Resick et al. (2011) identified that leadership models in both Japanese and Chinese organizations promoted high performance orientation but balanced their expectations from employees by presenting a traditionally paternalistic approach to leadership, this means that organizations tend to focus on a consideration as well as an initiating structure without showing preference of one over the other (Javidan et al. 2006). This view postulates that Asian leaders are more likely to adopt a mentoring role in comparison with their Western counterparts (Chen, 1995). Asian nations of Taiwan, South Korea and India have consistently emerged to be high on collectivism (Hofstede, 1980) (Javidan et al. 2006) a practical implication of which is that charismatic leadership models and the attribution theory of leadership might be applicable in this scenario. As suggested by Kakar et al. (2002) the high rating of Indian managers on the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) suggests that nations with high power distance and collectivism will favor leaders with desired leadership attributes as postulated by the attribution theory of leadership. On the contrary, Western leadership models cater nations that project high individualism (Hofstede, 1980), task-orientation and initiating structure while being low on power distance. This view suggests that the practical implication of an understanding of Western leadership models is that participative behavior is highly valued in countries such as America, United Kingdom and Germany; therefore, business operations in the West should be led by leaders who firmly believe in promoting participative management, employee empowerment and employee involvement in the organization (Ashkansay, 2002). Another important implication of the discussion is that the application of contingency models of leadership will perhaps work most effectively in managing the differences between Western and Asian cultures (Ashkansay, 2002). Henceforth, leaders should learn to incorporate approaches such as the normative leadership model by analyzing the situational factors to determine the extent to which they should engage their employees in decision-making (Vroom & Jago, 1988) and to conclude the degree to which they should incorporate participative management as a leadership behavior. In an increasingly globalized world, understanding the practical implications of leadership across cultures and regions is becoming highly significant. Most importantly when several Asian economies are moving towards the path of economic development and prosperity, the management must be able to comprehend, recognize and implement several leadership models that are applicable in a wide range of business situations. While, it should be noted that certain leadership models have indeed projected universality, cultural implications suggest that there are limitations to the application of each and every model even when applying an approach to countries belonging to the same region. This concept is supported from two competing researchers by Palrecha et al. (2012) and Bai et al. (2012) in India and China respectively which gave conflicting views of the success of transformational leadership in both countries. As transformational leadership only generated minimal success in India while, Chinese firms reported better results. Moreover, from a Western point of view the abundance of research material available on leadership suggests that the dynamics of Western firms are changing as well such that larger corporations are moving towards maturity or decline owing to global economic downturns. Robbins et al. (2010) claims that the success of transformational CEOs such as Richard Branson of the Virgin Group and Andrea Jung of Avon reflects that inspiring and motivational leaders have a greater capacity to serve their employees in an unconventional manner as transformational leadership aims to transcend boundaries of traditional management to cater to a new crop of employees. Barling et al. (1996 pp. 827-832) found that the aspects related to transformational leadership are learnable henceforth, sufficient training can help develop managers into leaders who have the capability to positively influence their subordinates thereby, increasing worker productivity, enhancing employee job performance and improving job satisfaction. Certainly, the development of contemporary and universal leadership models provides businesses with greater options to tackle issues related to organizational behavior and leadership such as worker productivity, workplace deviance, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, deviance and absenteeism (Robbins et al. 2010). As Mills (2005) suggests that the increasing corporate development in Asian economies is bringing about a transitional phase in a vast majority of businesses and organizations who are seeking to incorporate the expertise of professional managers in their firms. While, leadership practices in the Asian economies of China and Japan have greatly impacted and consequently carved successful path for various organizations and firms what is needed is that the greater part of Asia also adopt the same practices and leadership tools. An evaluation of the practical implications of the dramatic differences between Asian and Western Leadership models would thereby indicate radical cultural differences between organizations and firms operating in the two regions which is translated into the workforce of the companies, moreover, differences in economic and social development in countries of the West and Asia also accounts for leadership based differences however, commentators such as Mills (2005) are hopeful of an overall economic and social improvement and development in more nations of Asia so that the universality of leadership models experiences an enhancement rather than their specificity, which seems to be the case in today’s business environment. BIBLIOGRAPHY ADLER, N.J. (1991). International dimensions of organizational behavior, 2nd ed. Boston: PWSKENT. BAI, Y., LI, P. P., & XI, Y. (2012). The distinctive effects of dual-level leadership behaviors on employees’ trust in leadership: An empirical study from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29 BARLING, J., WEBER, T., & KELLOWAY, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of applied psychology, 81(6), 827-832. BARTOL, K. M., & MARTIN, D. C. (1991). Management. New York, McGraw-Hill. CHEN, M. (1995). Asian management systems: Chinese, Japanese, and Korean styles of business. London: Routledge. CHU, W. (2011). Family ownership and firm performance: Influence of family management, family control, and firm size. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(4): 833–851. DATTA, D. K., GUTHRIE, J. P., & WRIGHT, P. M. (2005). Human resource management and labor productivity: does industry matter?. Academy of management Journal, 48(1), 135-145. 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. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 233-274. HOFSTEDE, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International dtflerences in work- related values Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. JAVIDAN, M., DORFMAN, P. W., DE LUQUE, M. S., & HOUSE, R. J. (2006). In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE. The academy of management perspectives, 20(1), 67-90. JUNG, D. I., BASS, B. M., & SOSIK, J. (1995). Collectivism and transformational leadership. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2, 3-18 JUNG, Y., & TAKEUCHI, N. (2010). Performance implications for the relationships among top management leadership, organizational culture, and appraisal practice: testing two theory-based models of organizational learning theory in Japan. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(11), 1931-1950. KAKAR, S., KETSDEVRIES, M. F., & VRIGNAUD, P. (2002). Leadership in Indian organizations from a comparative perspective. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2(2), 239-250. MILLS, D. Q. (2005). Asian and American leadership styles: How are they unique. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge. PALRECHA, R., SPANGLER, W. D., & YAMMARINO, F. J. (2012). A comparative study of three leadership approaches in India. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 146-162. RESICK, C. J., MARTIN, G. S., KEATING, M. A., DICKSON, M. W., KWAN, H. K., & PENG, C. (2011). What ethical leadership means to me: Asian, American, and European perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(3), 435-457. ROBBINS, S. P., CAMPBELL, T. T., & JUDGE, T. A. (2010). Organizational behaviour. Harlow [u.a.], Financial Times/Prentice Hall. SCHAUBROECK, J., LAM, S. S., & CHA, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1020-1030. SWIERCZEK, F. W. (1991). Leadership and culture: Comparing Asian managers. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 12(7), 3-10. Read More