Human Resources Development and Leadership - Essay Example

According to the findings of the GLOBE study, diverse cultures interpret the nature and qualities of effective leadership differently. s Name Submitted by Names: Tutor: Date Introduction The culture that human beings are embedded in has an inevitable impact on opinions of leadership and in order to understand different forms of cultural influence the three cultures model can be used (Mendonca & Kanungo, 2007). This model suggests three cultural influences including personal, national and organization culture at work in corporations (Phiri, 2009). The model is founded on work in global corporations; however, it captures the influence of culture in both global and non-global corporations. Personal culture can be considered as the shared combination of the traits, skillsets and personality of a particular individual that are developed within the context of racial, ethnic, or educational setting with each individual having an exclusive personal culture. On the other hand, national culture can be considered as shared understanding that originates from a set of beliefs, perceptions and values that provide a foundation for a nation’s heritage. Even though national culture is a communal understanding, people in a nation continue to have a broad variety of beliefs concerning their country. Corporate culture is a blend of broadly shared institutional principles, morals and the guiding philosophies of the organization that is typically highlighted in its mission and vision statements. Organizational culture has similarities to the national culture in that individuals in the firm usually perceive their firms differently (Witte & Muijen, 1999). These differing perceptions usually align themselves with the level of the individual in the hierarchy of the firm. It produces leaders who have varying views of their corporate culture in comparison to those who are in lower levels of the firm. Understanding the manner in which these perceptions differ is a significant aspect of the job of every leader. Culture is not an external aspect as it exists within the person and cannot be separated from other learned skills (Matsumoto & Juang, 2004). Therefore, the development of multicultural awareness, understanding and competencies should be considered as a professional responsibility and an opportunity for any leader. With billions of workers residing and working in diverse environments, there are numerous opportunities for nurturing cultural awareness, understanding and skillsets. People living in unfamiliar cultures have a higher likelihood of becoming more multicultural in their understanding of alternative morals, traditions and ways of life, which were initially odd and unfamiliar (Ford, 1999). In some instance, they have learnt to adopt even more intensely and effectually than they have realized themselves and in the process have learnt to react in exceptional ways to initially unfamiliar occurrences in order to develop the correct answers without a constant awareness of their own adjustment process. Changes in demography have made the appreciation of culture be associated with great ramifications locally and globally (Martinez-Fernandez et al., 2012). Leadership in different cultures Research in organizational leadership has gone through changes from the traits, contingency and behavioral aspects to neo-charismatic theories associated with leadership (Dierkes, 2001). The most broadly documented neo-charismatic theories include the theory of charismatic leadership, the full range theory as well as the strategic theory of charismatic leadership. Two styles are identified by the full range theory of leadership, which are transformational and transactional. Transactional leaders are considered as those who utilize contingent rewards as a means of positive reinforcement when specific standards are attained or punishment in the event problems arise (Schyns & Hansbrough, 2010). On the other hand, transformational leaders have an ability to influence their followers to go beyond their self-interest so that they can release their full potential in an attempt to achieve the objectives of the organization. Transformational leadership can be achieved through charisma or idealized influences, individualized consideration or inspirational motivation among others. In the context of transformational leadership, idealized influence denotes the charismatic actions of leaders, which are founded in ideals, principles and sense of mission. Identifying with leaders is a significant aspect of idealized influence with its most common consequences being respect and trust from the followers as well as an identification with the leaders and the mission and vision of the company (Hickman, 2010). Inspirational motivation, which is the capacity of the leader to express values and objectives to result in the followers transcending their self-interests, allows the followers to identify with the leaders so that they can put forth efforts that will result in achievement of mutual goals promoted by the leader. Leaders should be able to summon inspirational motivation through giving the followers challenges and a meaning for engaging in mutual objectives and endeavors along with future opportunities. Leaders should show high confidence, hopefulness and sanguinity in their followers through encouraging them to be buoyant, self-reliant and sanguine too (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Leaders with cross-cultural and communicative competence are able to develop an interpersonal connection with foreign nationals through effective exchanges at verbal and nonverbal degrees of behavior (Mendenhall, Kühlmann & Stahl, 2001). In the past, research has identified a variety of aspects that constitute competence in cross-cultural communication such as relationship, communication and personal skills like a desire for knowledge. Competence in cross-cultural communication involves knowledge of the culture and language as well as behavioral and effective skills like responsiveness, charm and a capacity to deal with uncertainty and anxiety (Lázár & Čaňková, 2007). Some contend that competence in cross-cultural communication needs adequate knowledge, skilled actions and appropriate motivation in order to make a person competent at interactions. Transformational-transactional leadership is a global concept and in various cultures, the idea of leadership that people hold is generally transformational (Ahlstrom & Bruton, 2010). GLOBE studies have revealed that worldwide transformational aspects of ideal leadership and those that reflect cultural specificity in and between six clusters that it proposes (Kessler & Wong-MingJi, 2009). Middle managers in sixty two cultures were supposed to report on cultural practices and principles in the societies they led and rate the practices that lead to effective leadership (Robbins, Bergman & Stagg, 2014). The concept of culturally endorsed inherent leadership theories may be used to list the conduct and qualities of leaders which have been universally accepted as contributing to effective leadership, and the degree to which qualities and conducts are connected to cultural attributes. GLOBE used six universal leadership dimensions to develop the profiles for six clusters that included charming, team-oriented, hands-on, humane-oriented, independent and self-protective. The charming based leadership element is comprised of the greatest number of attributes globally considered as contributors to operational leadership but the quality of self-sacrifice, which involves risk taking is not globally accepted (Miner, 2005). In the nations of Eastern Europe such as Russia, visionary and inspirational charm, truthfulness, authoritativeness, diplomacy and collective team orientation are preferred as the key outstanding leadership aspects. In the region, the documented key aspects of effective leadership are comprised mostly of transformational leadership that is generally team-oriented. The leaders who command the most respect are those who are visionary, inspiring and influential. The participative form of leadership has replaced the authoritarian form of leadership that had initially dominated the Eastern Europe region with the leaders associated with truthfulness and building teams being regarded highly. Even though studies in transformational leadership have targeted the Anglo-Saxon context, studies that cover the context of Eastern Europe along with Russia also exist. There have also been assessments of the values of orientations as well as conducts of leaders in executives in Australia, Japan, and China. The executives who have values that are based on important human activities like kindness and trustworthiness while maintaining a need for personal fulfillment and success, have a close association with transformational leadership behavior. The connection between the style of leadership and value of orientations demonstrates a strong positive relationship between transformational leadership behavior and the value that motivate individual and professional development. The GLOBE Research The research done by GLOBE project team can be considered as the most detailed research to date concerning dimensions of national culture. The team is comprised of one hundred and seventy researchers who gathered data on cultural ideals, principles and leadership characteristics through seven years from eighteen thousand managers in sixty-two nations that represented a broad array of industries and firms of different sizes (McKee, 2014). The team pointed out nine cultural aspects that distinguished one society from another while having an influence on managers. Some of the dimensions that were pointed out by the GLOBE team, including, in-group collectivism, collectivism vs individualism of institutions, power distance as well as uncertainty avoidance overlapped with the dimensions identified by Hofstede. The other five dimensions pointed out by GLOBE differ from the ones identified by Hofstede including: Assertiveness refers to the degree to which a society provides encouragement for individuals to become hard-hitting, argumentative, insistent and competitive against being unassertive and affectionate (Daft, 2010). Examples of extremely assertive nations are Austria and Germany as they value competition as compared to Sweden and New Zealand that favor cooperative and warm relationships that are harmonious. Future orientation is the degree of significance a society attaches to future oriented behavior and activities like plans, investments and the delay of gratification (Cullen & Parboteeah, 2009). According to the GLOBE research, Singapore and Switzerland posted high scores as far as this dimension was concerned, and this demonstrates their likelihood to save for the future and have a prolonged time horizon when it comes to making decisions. This is in comparison to Russia and Argentina, which are countries that have a tendency to have shorter horizons of time for making decisions while placing more emphasis on instantaneous gratification. Performance orientation is utilized in measuring the level to which a society can encourage the reward member of specific groups for improvements in their performance and brilliance (Bik., 2011). The US, Singapore as well as Hong Kong scored highly on this aspect signifying the value of training development, taking of initiatives and inclination towards a direct and explicit approach to communication. States such as Argentina, Italy and Russia posted lower scores on this dimension, denoting their emphasis on trustworthiness and a sense of belonging. They place a higher degree of value on an individual’s family and background instead of their performance with feedback being seen as uncomfortable for the people who come from lower performance oriented nations. The degree to which a society is able to encourage and reward people for their fairness, care, generosity, kindness and altruism is referred to as humane orientation (Okazaki, 2012). Ireland, Egypt, The Philippines and Egypt had the highest score in this aspect demonstrating an emphasis on sympathy and support for the weak members of the society. On the other hand, the nations with the lowest scores were the former West Germany, France and Spain, which showed more significance given to power, material possession and self-enrichment. Gender differentiation, denoting the degree to which a society make the most of the different in gender roles is an aspect that is uncommon in Denmark, Hungary and Poland, implying that women are accorded a higher status and part in making decisions (Robila, 2014). Women and men in the cultures characterized by low gender differentiation are likely to possess the same degree of education, and a higher fraction of women is in authoritative positions. This is in comparison to the nations that score highly on this aspect like China, South Korea and Egypt where the men are accorded higher social positions with few women being on authoritative positions (Aswathappa, 2010). Generally, research is not in a position to identify the cultural dimensions with the most importance for leadership behavior (Punnett & Shenkar, 2004). Individualism/collectivism has been considered among the most vital dimensions as far as cultural variation is concerned. Cultures associated with collectivism expect effective leaders to be sympathetic and protective, while the cultures characterized by individualism have likelihood of valuing a leadership that focuses on achievement and participation (Mumford, 2010). There have also been suggestions that power distance is principally important for leadership, where in lower power distance cultures, the subordinates expect to some consultation, while in the cultures characterized by a higher power distance, the expectations of the subordinates is that the leaders will act in direct and dictatorial ways. The results of research done by Hofstede and GLOBE team may be supportive to leaders who are faced with multicultural interactions (Needle, 2010). For instance, it may not be appropriate to train leaders in cultures with relatively high power distances on the use of participative decision making since leaders in this nations are obligated to have all the solutions. Through involving their subordinates, the leaders may be considered as weak and ineffectual. Additionally, the cultures that are characterized by long-term time orientations may have subordinates who have a higher likelihood of accepting development strategies with prolonged timeframes in comparison to the ones in cultures that are short-term oriented. Through development of awareness and the anticipation of cultural similarities and dissimilarities, a leader can nurture the familiarity, abilities and conduct required for interactions with dissimilar individuals in a manner that will result in mutual appreciation (Steers, Sánchez-Runde & Nardon, 2010). This form of appreciation can result in more dynamic and pleasant work environments for the employees. Leader’s conducts that produce positive results in one culture do not automatically produce similar results in different cultures. For instance, if the one of the first things that a chief executive does when he starts is job is meeting the workers in the cafeteria, he is likely to foster trust into the relations he has with his employees. This is applicable to cultures characterized by lower power distance such as the US; however, in the cultures with relatively high power distance such as Malaysia, this conduct has likelihood of making the relations between the leaders and the workers weaker. Development of intercultural sensitivity DMIS, which stands for developmental model of intercultural sensitivity, was developed as a theoretic structure to come up with an explanation of the reactions of people in regards to cultural differences (Elsen et al., 2007). It is comprised of six orientations with the first three being more ethnocentrically oriented, meaning that an individual’s culture is experienced as the foundation of reality. The other three orientations are considered as being more ethno-relative implying that the culture of an individual is seen in the background of other cultures. Ethnographic phases Denial of differences: The culture of an individual is seen as the only actual one and cultural differences are not recognized unless differences are seen as affecting the individual, in which case the individual acts in an aggressive manner in order to eradicate the difference (Kiemele, 2009). In extreme forms of denial, the people who are different are perceived as supportable or gullible and are often degraded. Defense vs Difference: As far as this phase is concerned, an individual’s culture is faced as the being the only viable one with other cultures being perceived negatively. The degree of threat perceived for other cultures is relatively higher compared to the one associated with the Denial phase since other cultures have recognition and the view is “Us” against “Them”. Differences: In this phase, the acceptance of artificial cultural differences is represented and people are perceived as similar biologically, ethically, religiously or parsimoniously. Global absolutes may make deeper cultural differences unclear and these results in the belittling and idealizing of other cultures. In the case of the people from the dominant cultures, minimization seems to obscure recognition of their personal cultures and privileges provided to members by their institutions. Ethno-relative phases Acceptance of difference: In this phase, the perception that an individual’s culture is perceived, as one of a variety is equally viable alternative is represented. The people who come from different cultures are considered different but equal, with the stage being marked with cultural relatively (Tirri & Nokelainen, 2011). Adaptation to difference: In this phase, communication skills are developed to allow interactions between people with cultural differences. People who are in this phase are empathetic and this enables them to get a perspective of people from other cultures. This phase represents the people who can shift their reference frame to appreciate and be appreciated across cultures. Integration of Difference: This phase is characterized by internalization of bicultural and multicultural reference frames where people understand their identities at the margins of more than one cultures (Tirri & Nokelainen, 2011). Eccentricity of culture may be in two forms including an encapsulated form where alienation is exists as a component of the separation as well as a constructive form, in which movement through cultures is a positive component of an individual’s identity. Integration is not essentially better than adaptations in the circumstances that require multicultural competencies; however, it signifies an increasing number of people. Knowledge is power, and if leaders appreciate their intercultural sensitivity, they may utilize this information in their assessment of their level of awareness in regards to multicultural characteristics. Conclusion Numerous nations and cultural categorizations exist that may lead to an awe-inspiring feeling of confusion concerning the one that is appropriate. Rather than having an overwhelming feeling, leaders who are aware that culture has an influence on assumptions of people understand that a successful leader is supposed to embrace the varying aspects of culture as opportunities to educate themselves on the numerous dimensions of culture and what this means for the leaders in multicultural environments. Multicultural development is a progressive learning process that is founded on the three stages of development with the awareness stage emphasizing assumptions concerning cultural differences and behavioral similarities, perceptions as well as beliefs. An increase in awareness provides increased freedom of choice to the people who wish to gain more awareness of their personal multiculturalism. In the Knowledge phase, facts and information concerning assumptions that are culturally learned are expanded while the skills stage involves a successful and effective action with individuals from different cultures based in the clarified assumptions of the participants as well as their accurate knowledge. Leaders are supposed to be trained in cognizance, familiarity, and abilities that will assist them to develop competence at a multicultural level. Bibliography Ahlstrom, D. & Bruton, G. 2010, International management, South-Western Cengage Learning, Australia. Aswathappa, K. 2010, International business, Tata McGraw Hill Education, New Delhi. Avolio, B. & Gardner, W. 2005, Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership, The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), pp.315-338. Bik., 2011, The behavior of assurance professionals. A cross-cultural perspective, Uitgeverij Eburon, Delft. Cullen, J. & Parboteeah, P. 2009, International business, Routledge, New York. Daft, R. 2010, Management, South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, Ohio. Dierkes, M. 2001, Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Elsen, B., Pollet, I., Develtere, P. & Debackere, K. 2007, Compass for intercultural partnerships, Leuven University Press, Leuven [Belgium]. Ford, T. 1999, Becoming multicultural, Falmer Press, New York. Hickman, G. 2010, Leading organizations, SAGE Publications, Los Angeles. Kessler, E. & Wong-MingJi, D. 2009, Cultural mythology and global leadership, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Kiemele, J. 2009, Culturally proficient leadership, Arizona State University. Lázár, I. & Čaňková, M. 2007, Developing and assessing intercultural communicative competence, Council of Europe Pub, Strasbourg. Martinez-Fernandez, C., Martinez-Fernandez, C., Kubo, N., Noya, A. & Weyman, T. 2012, Demographic change and local development, OECD Publishing, Paris. Matsumoto, D. & Juang, L. 2004, Culture and psychology, Wadsworth/Thomson, Australia. McKee, A. 2014, Management, Pearson, Boston. Mendenhall, M., Kühlmann, T. and Stahl, G. 2001, Developing global business leaders, Quorum Books, Westport, CT. Mendonca, M. and Kanungo, R. 2007, Ethical leadership,: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press, Maidenhead. Miner, J. 2005, Organizational behavior, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y. Mumford, M. 2010, Leadership 101, Springer Pub, New York. Needle, D. 2010, Business in context, South-Western Cengage Learning, Andover. Okazaki, S. 2012, Handbook of research on international advertising, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, U.K. Phiri, G. 2009, Social-cultural anthropology, Wipf and Stock Pub, Eugene, Or. Punnett, B. and Shenkar, O. 2004, Handbook for international management research, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Robbins, S., Bergman, R. and Stagg, I. 2014, Management, Prentice Hall of Australia, Sydney. Robila, M. 2014, Handbook of family policies across the globe, Springer, New York, NY. Schyns, B. and Hansbrough, T. 2010, When leadership goes wrong, Information Age Pub, Charlotte, N.C. Steers, R., Sánchez-Runde, C. and Nardon, L. 2010, Management across cultures, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tirri, K. and Nokelainen, P. 2011, Measuring multiple intelligences and moral sensitivities in education, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam. Witte, K. and Muijen, J. 1999, Organizational culture, Psychology Press, Hove, East Sussex, UK. Read More