Western and Non-Western Leadership Theories - Research Paper Example

The Cultural Dimension of Leadership: An Exploration of Western and Non-Western Leadership Theories Introduction As argued by Hofstede (1993 as cited in Goleman 1998), leadership theory and research manifest cultural attributes of the researchers as well as those of the issue and the subjects. A comprehensive research programme carried out by Jyuji Misumi of Japan studied the dynamics and composition of effective leadership. The stress of the Far Eastern on long-term, tolerant models of organisational problems is shown in the durability and consistency of Misumi’s programme of research (Kuhlman 2010). A thorough examination of existing literature on leadership theory would show that most of the knowledge or empirical evidence came from investigations carried out in North America and Western Europe. Apparently, leadership is never an exclusive territory of industrialised, contemporary, and western societies (Kuhlman 2010). It is justifiable to investigate whether the common premises or particular features of leadership mechanisms are influenced by differences in culture or subculture. The major issue of this essay regards whether there is adequate difference across groups to merit attention with the generalisability of Western theories. As reported by Marisa Zavalloni in her study of cultural differences the members of every society, organisation, or group demonstrate differences among themselves (Russette, Scully & Preziosi 2008). Nevertheless, when differences between groups are adequately greater than the intra-group differences, it is logical to investigate whether such differences in a group show considerable effects on psychological mechanisms (Russette et al. 2008). Punnett and Ronen (1984 as cited in O’Toole 2009) analysed 25 empirical findings that revealed national disparities in occupational values and behaviours. They revealed that three-fourths of the studies illustrated considerable cultural or national variations clarifying between 63% and 15 of the difference in individual responses (ibid, p. 2). The biggest challenge confronting humanity, for most of world history, was thriving adaptation to the outside environment with regard to economic continued existence. External environments affected and constrained possible adaptive behaviours. Disease vectors, rainfall, natural resources, arable land, and such forces contributed to the formation of potential survival patterns, like hunting and gathering, agriculture, and husbandry (Judge 2001). Consequently, the human needs that these economic behaviours created affected the internal integration processes. Survival mechanisms founded on hierarchical power systems calling for dependable and submissive labourers tended to build political and religious structures compatible with the principles that would sustain those needs (Judge 2001). Over time, the survival behaviours became customs transmitted from one generation to another, establishing the values, norms, and institutions that sustain the structure. Geert Hofstede (1984 as cited in Goleman 1998) defined culture as the “collective mental programming that distinguishes groups of people” (p. 95) and weighed the function of culture in groups against the function of character in the individual, specifically, the aggregate of traits that make up the response of individuals to the external environment. Harry Triandis (1993 as cited in Holt, Bjorklund & Green 2009) used a parallel analogy arguing that: Culture is to society what memory is to individuals. It is the institutional memory of what has worked in the past, what was adaptive; these memories are widely shared, and become unstated assumptions about what is right or wrong, about how people should think, feel, and behave (ibid, p. 71). Triandis and Hofstede highlighted, from somewhat dissimilar though attuned points of view, the adaptive function of culture and their dominance in theory and practice, specifically in the area of leadership. This essay is an attempt to discuss culture-specific leadership behaviour or, more particularly, western and non-western leadership theory. Critical Analysis: Western and Non-Western Leadership Perspective Misumi was encouraged by the pioneering research of Lewin and colleagues (1939) and Bales (1950). Misumi thought that there should be central roles that are present in all leadership attempts, although they demonstrate themselves in different ways across particular circumstances (Kuhlman 2010). The two roles classified were the performance role, which requires building and achieving group objectives, and the maintenance role, which requires sustaining social stability in a group (Russ 1993). The discovery that the finest Japanese leaders integrate task-oriented behaviours with thoughtful, interpersonally oriented conduct is in agreement with similar outcomes revealed for Indian managers (Sinha 1990) and Iranian managers (Ayman & Chemers 1983). A large number of leadership theories was created in the United States consider these two roles as separate, if not really equally opposing. The reason for this variance across cultures may rest in the diverse values that direct minor opportunities and needs in these cultures (Schneider & Demeyer 1991). In the rather democratic and exceptionally individualistic culture of the United States, a vast number of minority members have intense needs to take part in decision making and to have independence over their personal work-related roles (Schneider & Demeyer 1991). Innate motivation is assumed to stem from the prospect of acquiring major self-esteem-enhancing response from independent task. The extremely directive and authoritarian styles of an American leader would prevent a follower’s view of the leader as also sympathetic and unquestioning (Hunt & Peterson 1997). On the contrary, in the extreme Power Distance, communalist cultures of Japan, India, and Iran followers have less desire for personal self expression through independent accomplishment or involvement in decision making, and a challenging and a controlling leader who is also sociable and selfless suggests the view of both the perfect leader and compassionate paternalism (Hunt & Peterson 1997). The resemblance of the primary principles of performance-maintenance theory to those of several European and American theories generates issues about the generality of core leadership ideas and the universality of their dimension (Betts & Santoro 2007). Smith and colleagues (1989 as cited in Bass & Avolio 1993) conducted a cross-cultural evaluation of Misumi’s ideas. Smith and colleagues (1989 as cited in Bass & Avolio 1993) conducted a survey of shop-floor employees and their direct superiors in Hong Kong, Japan, United States, and Britain. The survey included 20 entries from the Performance-Maintenance tool and 36 specifically created entries that identified quite particular behaviours addressing the specific way where in the superior dealt with actual problems, for instance, “When your superior learns that a member is experiencing personal difficulties, does your superior arrange for other members to help with the person’s workload?” or “How much of the information available to your superior concerning the organisation’s plans and performance is shared with the work group?” (Bass & Avolion 1993, 113). The outcomes are very interesting. Factor analyses of the scales, at the most general level, produced the two-factor result, with a maintenance/consideration factor and a performance/task factor, in all studied countries (Holt et al. 2009). Nevertheless, the particular entries from the Performance-Maintenance survey that filled each factor were not consistently identical in all studied countries (Holt et al. 2009). Several entries, like ‘Does your superior treat you fairly?” were found in all countries, and an entry such as “Does your superior urge you to complete work within a specified time?” filled the Performance factor in every studied country (ibid, p. 152). Yet, other entries, like “Does your superior let you know about plans and tasks for your day-to-day work?” got much higher filling on the Performance factor for employees from western cultures than for those from the oriental cultures (Holt et al. 2009). Moving to the particular behaviours, the effect of cultural variations was more remarkable. Merely 8 of the 36 particular behaviours filled in the common factors in all four countries (Bass & Avolion 1993). It was more frequent for the behaviours to be linked quite significantly with each factor in various cultures, and at times for behaviour really to be linked with various factors in various countries (Bass & Avolion 1993). For instance, among Asian respondents, a significant Maintenance behaviour was identified for the superior to talk about the poor performance of an employee with other group members instead of dealing directly with the employee. Yet, that behaviour was an unfavourable case of Maintenance for the Western countries (Holt et al. 2009). For instance, the manager in China was one who diplomatically settled personal conflicts in an indirect way, whilst the manager in the United States and Britain was one who communicates occupational information with employees (Holt et al. 2009). In a study theoretically analogous to the leader behaviour research of Smith and colleagues (1989), Schmidt and Yeh (1992 as cited in Betts & Santoro 2007) carried out a cross-national evaluation of influence strategies. Schmidt and Yeh employed the Schmidt and Kipnis (1982) matrix of ‘influence strategy usage’ to Taiwanese, Japanese, Australian, and English samples of managers. Factor analyses of the responses resulted in a factor composition fairly resembling that of the findings for American managers. Nevertheless, the specific strategies that filled in each factor differed throughout cultures and showed the disparities in values between the samples of countries (Betts & Santoro 2007). For instance, for samples in Asia, several of the more authoritarian strategies that usually fill in the Assertiveness item in American research, arose on the Reason item. The researchers cited the Chinese saying of leadership guidance, “Give benefit, but show authority,” (ibid, p.3) which shows the suitability and acceptability of controlling features of leadership for ‘high Power Distance cultures’. The assumptions to be obtained from this study of influence strategies and leadership behaviour could be that the core roles of leadership are, certainly, ubiquitous. Leadership requires a task to be accomplished and individuals with whom to accomplish it. Hence, it seems apparent that the leader should deal with these two components. There are sufficient general aspects in task effectiveness, such as the task should be done in a sensible length of time, and in interpersonal affairs, such as managers who are unreliable are not likely to be valued by individuals who rely on them, so that when general issues about effective leadership are raised, similarities surface. It is also evident, nonetheless, that cultural difference in expectations, needs, and values, guarantees that the means where in these two roles are most successfully carried out will differ remarkably across cultures. The cross-national studies of influence strategies and leader behaviours also indicate that the comparative generality of a leadership theory relies on the degree of analysis. At the point of the core roles of leadership, cross-cultural universality appears merited, but when a thorough grained analysis is used, such as influence strategies or specific behaviours, cultural variability become more pronounced. With their stress on the situational background, contingency theorists might offer a useful point of analysis for studying issues of cross-cultural universality (Bass 1996). As argued by Triandis (1993 as cited in Goleman 1998), “Contingency theories, of course, acknowledge the role of situational moderators, and culture is the greatest of all moderators” (p. 97). The Contingency Model Chemers (1991 as cited in Goleman 1998), in a recent study of ‘cultural generalisability’ of modern leadership theory, examined the relevance of cultural factors for the core contingency theories and normative decision theory. Chemers claimed that every contingency theory is ruled by the notion of complement between situational factors and leader behaviours (Goleman 1998). Nevertheless, quite a few different features of complement are found in these theories. In the contingency model, for instance, there is the complement between the style, self-concept, and values of a leader with the level of control and certainty in the situation that influences the confidence, reassurance, and sense of ease of a leader (Holt et al. 2009). In the path-goal model, the major type of complement is between the behaviour of the leader and the needs of the followers (O’Toole 2009). In the normative decision theory, the major feature of complement is between the decision-making behaviour of a group and the task environment’s demands. Each of these types of complement may be varyingly vulnerable to cultural influences (O’Toole 2009). If leadership complement is understood subjectively, specifically, leaders who have a fine match between the condition and their orientation will acquire more encouraging affective states, such as an optimistic mood, passion, confidence, that build an environment favourable to efficiency and satisfaction, complement becomes an agent of an innate psychological state (Spreitzer, McCall & Mahoney 1997). Influences on innate psychological states could have a general relevance in that cultural standards could be less important to individually experienced situations. Several findings substantiate this assumption. Chemers and colleagues (1985 as cited in Russette et al. 2008), in a study of managers in the United States, discovered that in-match leaders revealed less stress-related health problem than out-of-match leaders. The same study has been directly repeated by Sanshiro Shirakashi (1991 as cited in Russette et al. 2008) with a sample of managers in Japan. The findings were remarkably comparable to those attained in the United States, in spite of the enormous difference in cultural ideals between Japan and the United States. The difference between external and internal influences of leadership has been studied in a sequence of investigation by Chemers and Ayman originally carried out to verify the cross-cultural strength of contingency theory. An initial study used the classic situational control and LPC (least preferred co-worker) tools with a sample of Iranian managers (Russette et al. 2008). The outcomes of match were evaluated through subordinate rankings of leader performance and job fulfilment and leader rankings of group performance. Match outcomes were in the path projected by contingency theory, but were non-significant and questionable (Russette et al, 2008). Ayman and Chemers assumed that a communalist culture such as Iran would have extremely rigid normative rules for proper leadership performance, and the articulation of leader behaviour may have been hampered in the interest of compliance to prospects (Betts & Santoro 2007). To verify this likelihood, Ayman and Chemers added the Self-monitoring measure in a sequence of follow-up investigations. The Self-monitoring tool appraises the level to which an individual is receptive and open to social expectations (Betts & Santoro 2007). Those who have low self-monitors are directly influenced by their individual outlooks and beliefs are more apt to permit their personal values and style to influence their leadership performance than those who have high self-monitors who persevere to satisfy social expectations (Betts & Santoro 2007). Chemers and Ayman (1985 as cited in Goleman 1998), in one study, surveyed 100 Mexican managers, after gathering responses to the Self-monitoring and LPC tools. Analyses showed that low self-monitors exhibited quite evident disparities between relationship-focused leaders and task-focused leaders (Goleman 1998). Among those who have high self-monitors, no disparities surfaced between relationship-oriented and task-oriented leaders, both of whom defined the excellent leader in terms that involved both relational and directive features (Hunt & Peterson 1997). High self-monitors were granting the generally recognised blueprint of an effective leader. Employing organisational questionnaires in a number of Mexican firms, Ayman and Chemers (1991 as cited in Russette et al. 2008) gathered information from middle managers and their subordinates and bosses. The main managers answered the Self-monitoring survey aside from the classic contingency model tool. The influences of individual-situation match on subordinate satisfaction and leader efficiency were discerned only for the self-monitoring leaders (Russette et al. 2008): “High self-monitors were unaffected by the situation, performing at moderately high levels in situations hypothesised to be ‘in-match’ or ‘out-of-match’ for them’ (p. 49). An uncertain finding of these studies in Mexico, Japan, and the United States is that the inner states stemming from situation-individual match are universal, but the expressions of those states are influenced by expectations and values. The Path-Goal Model The subordinate’s work-related need for order, in the path-goal model, is assumed to moderate subordinate responses to the leader’s empathic or controlling behaviour (Spreitzer et al. 1997). Nevertheless, Griffin (1981 as cited in Goleman 1998) showed that subordinate character further regulated the impacts of behaviour. Triandis (1993 as cited in Goleman 1998) and Hofstede (1984 as cited in Goleman 1998) were somehow decisive that, similar to personality attributes, cultural norms can significantly influence subordinate responses, expectations, and needs. The outcomes of leader consideration or directiveness may vary depending on the norms that affect follower needs. In high Power Distance societies, for instance, followers anticipate high degrees of directive, domineering leadership and should be more eager to recognise that sort of behaviour across a broad array of situations (Kuhlman 2010). Followers’ bigger need for order and certainty, in high Uncertainty Avoidance cultures, would heighten their need for the leader’s directive (Kuhlman 2010). Markus and Kitayama (1991 as cited in Judge 2001) argued that in firmly communalist cultures, individuals have a higher desire for interpersonal balance and direct relationships with others. The emphatic behaviour of a leader, which expresses concern and affinity for followers, should be greatly favoured in such communalist societies. Triandis (1993 as cited in Goleman 1998) expounded this argument and pointed out that some degree of considerate behaviour from the leader is an element of effective leadership in every communalist culture. It can also be assumed that the assertion and recognition of emphatic and considerate behaviour would be more apt in feminine societies than would be the similar deeds for subordinates with a more masculine leaning (Kuhlman 2010). Consequently, the cultural norms theories create decisive assumptions about the relative success of leadership behaviour. The Normative Decision Model The decision-making model of Vroom and Yetton (1973 as cited in Kelley & Worthley 1981) provides prescriptive recommendation on the suitable decision techniques for groups to exercise under different requirements of organisational support and task precision. One may think that the neutral features of the task environment would have general repercussions for suitable decision procedures (Kelley & Worthley 1981). The rationale for this claim lies in the idea that a volatile, complicated, and indecisive decision environment, as may be the situation in highly competitive markets, would necessitate the same organisational and leadership strategies notwithstanding the cultural setting where in they took place. However, in disagreement to that assumption, it has been observed that thriving organisations in Japan and the United States vie in the same industries with the same products and/or services employing considerably diverse leadership strategies. Conclusions Therefore, the leadership behaviours, tendencies, or decision tactics that will be most favourable to superior performance may differ from culture to culture, regardless if the neutral features of the situation are somewhat identical. General cultural practices may also influence the level of acceptance and compliance the leader acquires, the level of legitimacy and power usually given to positions, and other aspects significant to contingency creations. The influence of culture on the understanding of situational limitations is an arena ready for prospective research. All of the theories reviewed and discussed in this essay which examined the function of culture seem of one mind. The primary roles of teamwork and leadership, such as morale sustenance and task goal cultivation, have general relevance, but the specific manners where in relationships are ordered and behaviours are understood will be directly influenced by cultural differences. The occupational values that individuals embrace influence their responses to leadership. Values establish the particular behaviours and personalities that form the blueprint of a successful leader. They affect the expectations and needs that individuals carry to the relationship between a leader and subordinate. Ultimately, they influence the ways where in the features of the organisational environment are understood and dealt with. The already complicated enigma of successful leadership puts in another relevant element with the insertion of culture. References Allport, G. & Ross, J., 1967. Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443. Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J., 1993. Transformational Leadership and Organisational Culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112+ Bass, B.M., 1996. Is there universality in the full range model of leadership? International Journal of Public Administration, 19(6), 731-761. Betts, S.C. & Santoro, M.D., 2007. Integrating Leadership Theories and Team Research: A Conceptual Framework Based on Level of Analysis and Type of Control. Journal of Organisational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 11(1), 1+ Goleman, D., 1998. What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 93-102. Holt, S., Bjorklund, R. & Green, V., 2009. Leadership and Culture: Examining the Relationship between Cultural Background and Leadership Perceptions. Journal of Global Business Issues, 3(2), 149+ Hunt, J. & Peterson, M., 1997. Two scholars’ views of some nooks and crannies in cross-cultural leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 343-354. Judge, W.Q., 2001. Is a Leader’s Character Culture-Bound or Culture-Free? An Empirical Comparison of the Character Traits of American and Taiwanese CEOs. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(2), 63+ Kelley, L. & Worthley, R., 1981. The role of culture in comparative management: A cross-cultural perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 24(1), 164-173. Kuhlmann, A., 2010. Culture-Driven Leadership. Ivey Business Journal Online, 1+ O’Toole, J., 2009. Connecting the Dots between Leadership, Ethics and Corporate Culture. Ivey Business Journal Online, 1+ Russ, G.S., 1993. Organisational Culture and Leadership. Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 919+ Russette, J.W., Scully, R.E. & Preziosi, R., 2008. Leadership across Cultures: A Comparative Study. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 47+ Schneider, S. & Demeyer, A., 1991. Interpreting and responding to strategic issues: The impact of national culture. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 307-320. Spreitzer, G., McCall, M. & Mahoney, J., 1997. Early identification of international executive potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 6-29. Read More