Upload
marvin
View
20
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP: Key Concepts for International Researchers. Iván C. Balán, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry) Columbia University Adjunct Faculty Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy The New School. Research & Leadership. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP:Key Concepts for International Researchers
Iván C. Balán, Ph.D.Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry)
Columbia University
Adjunct Faculty Robert J. Milano School of Management and Urban Policy
The New School
Research & Leadership
RESEARCH
RESEARCHER
-Recruitment-Data Collection-Assessments-Intervention-Data Analysis-Publications-Dissemination-Implementation
LEADER
-Leader vs. boss-Inspire-Motivating-Team Cohesion- Team Engagement- Retain Talent- Organizational Change
Levels of Cultural Difference
Individual
Team
Professional Discipline
Organizational Culture
National Culture
Goals of the presentation
• Highlight the importance of leadership in conducting research
• Provide a framework for understanding cultural differences• Identify how cultural differences affect the conduct of
research, through:– leadership styles– team cohesion – motivation and commitment
• Discuss the development of intercultural competency
The GLOBE Study House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M.,
Dorfman, P.W., and Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 societies
Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., and House,
R.J. (2007). Culture and Leadership Across the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth Studies of 25 Societies
Leadership Defined
“The ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members”
(the GLOBE Study)
GLOBE Overview• Funding: U.S. Dept. of Education , National Science Foundation• Begun in 1993 with grant proposal and lit review• Over 150 Co-investigators• Requirements for participation
• Domestic companies, no foreign multinationals • At least two industries from each society (ie., financial, food
processing, telecommunications)• multiple respondents had to be obtained from each organization • respondents had to be middle managers
Some key questions• Are there leader behaviors, attributes, and organizational
practices that are accepted and effective across cultures?• How do attributes of societal and organizational cultures
affect the kinds of leader behavior and organizational practices that are accepted and effective?
• What is the effect of violating cultural norms relevant to leadership and organizational practices?
• What is the relative standing of each of the cultures studied on each of the nine core dimensions of culture?
GLOBE Dimensions• Performance Orientation• Future Orientation• Gender Egalitarianism• Assertiveness• Individualism and Collectivism
– Institutional– In-Group
• Power Distance• Humane Orientation• Uncertainty Avoidance
Data Collection• Qualitative• Quantitative
– Societal and Organizational Culture• Society vs. Organization and As it is vs. As it should be• The economic system in this society is designed to maximize 1 2 3 4 5 6 7individual interests collective interests
– Leadership Questionnaire
GLOBE Participants
• 17,370 middle managers, from 951 organizations in 62 countries• Number of participants per country ranged from 27 to 1,790, avg. 251• More than 90% of the societies had sample sizes of 75+ participants • 74% of respondents were men• Mean F/T work experience of 19.2 years; Mean 10.5 yrs. as manager• Participants had worked for their organizations an avg. of 12.2 years• 51% had worked for a multinational corporation
Core Dimensions of Culture
Performance Orientation
Higher Performance Orientation Lower Performance Orientation
Value training and development Value societal and family relationships
Emphasize results more than people Emphasize loyalty and belonging
Reward performance Have high respect for quality of life
Value and reward individual achievement Emphasize seniority and experience
Feedback as necessary for improvement Feedback as judgmental and discomforting
Value being direct, explicit, and to the point in communications
Value ambiguity and subtlety in language and communications
Value what you do more than who you are Value who you are more than what you do
Have a sense of urgency Have a low sense of urgency
The extent to which a community encourages and rewards innovation, high standards, and performance improvement.
Performance OrientationBAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3
Switzerland 4.94 Egypt 4.27 Namibia 3.67
Singapore 4.90 Germany (W) 4.25 Argentina 3.65
Hong Kong 4.80 India 4.25 Bolivia 3.61
S. Africa (B) 4.66 Zimbabwe 4.24 Portugal 3.60
Iran 4.58 Japan 4.22 Italy 3.58
South Korea 4.55 S. Africa (W) 4.11 Qatar 3.45
Canada (Eng) 4.49 Mexico 4.10 Russia 3.39
USA 4.49 Brazil 4.04 Venezuela 3.32
China 4.45 Spain 4.01 Greece 3.20
Austria 4.44 Morocco 3.99
Australia 4.36 Nigeria 3.92
Netherlands 4.32 Turkey 3.83
Sweden 3.72
El Salvador 3.72
Future Orientation
Higher Future Orientation Lower Future OrientationHave a propensity to save for the future Have a propensity to spend now rather than
save for the future
Have individuals who are more intrinsically motivated
Have individuals who are less intrinsically motivated
Have organizations with a longer strategic orientation
Have organizations with shorter strategic orientation
Value the deferment of gratification, placing greater value on long term success
Value instant gratification and place higher priorities on immediate rewards
Emphasize visionary leadership that can see patterns in the face of chaos and uncertainty
Emphasize leadership that focuses on repetition of reproducible and routine sequences
The degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards future-oriented behaviors such as planning and delaying gratification
Future Orientation
BAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3 BAND 4
Singapore 5.07 Sweden 4.39 Zimbabwe 3.77 Poland 3.11
Switzerland 4.73 Japan 4.29 China 3.75 Argentina 3.08
S. Africa (B) 4.64 India 4.19 Iran 3.70 Russia 2.88
Netherlands 4.61 U.S. 4.15 Zambia 3.62
Austria 4.46 S. Africa (W) 4.13 Costa Rica 3.60
Denmark 4.44 Nigeria 4.09 Namibia 3.49
Canada (Eng) 4.44 Hong Kong 4.03 Thailand 3.43
South Korea 3.97 Kuwait 3.26
Germany (W) 3.95 Morocco 3.26
Mexico 3.87 Italy 3.25
Israel 3.85 Guatemala 3.24
Brazil 3.81 Hungary 3.21
Gender Egalitarianism
More Egalitarian Less EgalitarianHave more women in positions of authority Have fewer women in positions of authority
Accord women a higher status in society Accord women a lower status in society
Afford women a greater role in community decision making
Afford women no or a smaller role in community decision making
Have higher percentage of women in the labor force
Have lower percentage of women in the labor force
Have less occupational sex segregation Have more occupational sex segregation
Have higher female literacy rates Have lower female literacy rates
Have similar levels of education of females and males
Have lower levels of education of females relative to males
The degree to which the differentiation between male and female roles is stressed.
Gender Egalitarianism BAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3
Hungary 4.08 Switzerland 3.42 Kuwait 2.58
Russia 4.07 Australia 3.40 South Korea 2.50
Denmark 3.93 U.S. 3.34
Namibia 3.88 Brazil 3.31
Singapore 3.70 S. Africa (W) 3.27
Colombia 3.67 Japan 3.19
England 3.67 Taiwan 3.18
S. Africa (B) 3.66 Germany (E) 3.06
France 3.64 China 3.05
Mexico 3.64 Zimbabwe 3.04
Venezuela 3.62 Nigeria 3.01
Malaysia 3.51 India 2.90
Argentina 3.49 Zambia 2.86
Hong Kong 3.47 Morocco 2.84
Assertiveness
High Assertiveness Low Assertiveness
Value assertiveness, dominant, and tough behavior for everyone in society
View assertiveness as socially unacceptable and value modesty and tenderness
Have sympathy for the strong Have sympathy for the weak
Value competition Value cooperation
Believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard enough
Associate competition with defeat and punishment
Value direct and unambiguous communication Speak indirectly and emphasize “face-saving”
Value expressiveness and revealing thoughts and feelings
Value detached and self-possessed conduct
Stress equity, competition, and performance Stress equality, solidarity, and quality of life
Try to have control over the environment Value harmony with the environment
Value taking initiative Emphasize integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are assertive, tough, dominant, and aggressive in social relationships.
AssertivenessBAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3
Albania 4.89 France 4.13 Switzerland (FR) 3.47
Nigeria 4.79 Ecuador 4.09 New Zealand 3.42
Germany (E) 4.73 Zambia 4.07 Sweden 3.38
S. Africa (W) 4.60 Italy 4.07
U.S. 4.55 Ireland 3.92
Morocco 4.52 Namibia 3.91
Mexico 4.45 Guatemala 3.89
Spain 4.42 Indonesia 3.86
S. Africa (B) 4.36 Denmark 3.80
Australia 4.28 China 3.76
Argentina 4.22 India 3.73
Brazil 4.20 Russia 3.68
Singapore 4.17 Thailand 3.64
England 4.15 Japan 3.59
In-group Collectivism
Collectivism Individualism
Individuals are integrated into strong cohesive groups
Individuals look after themselves and their immediate families
The self is viewed as interdependent with groups The self is viewed as autonomous and independent of groups
Group goals take the precedence over individual goals
Individual goals take precedence over group goals
More extended family structures More nuclear family structures
People emphasize relatedness with groups People emphasize rationality
Communication is indirect Communication is direct
Individuals are likely to engage in group activities Individuals are likely to engage in activities alone
Individuals make greater distinctions between in-groups and out-groups
Individuals make fewer distinctions between in-groups and out-groups
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and interdependence in their families
In-group CollectivismBAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3
Philippines 6.36 Costa Rica 5.32 Canada (E) 4.26
Iran 6.03 Greece 5.27 U.S. 4.25
India 5.92 Brazil 5.18 Australia 4.17
Morocco 5.87 Ireland 5.14 England 4.08
Zambia 5.84 S. Africa (B) 5.09 Finland 4.07
China 5.80 Austria 4.85 Germany (W) 4.02
Colombia 5.73 Israel 4.70 Switzerland 3.97
Singapore 5.64 Japan 4.63 Netherlands 3.70
Russia 5.63 Namibia 4.52 New Zealand 3.67
Zimbabwe 5.57 Germany (E) 4.52 Sweden 3.66
Nigeria 5.55 S. Africa (W) 4.50 Denmark 3.53
Venezuela 5.53 France 4.37
Argentina 5.51
Slovenia 5.43
Institutional Collectivism
Collectivism Individualism
Members assume high interdependence with the organization; and make personal sacrifices to fulfill their organizational obligations
Members assume they are independent of the organization ; believe it is important for them to bring their unique skills and abilities to the organization
Organizations take responsibility for employee welfare
Organizations‘ interest is in the work that employees perform, not their personal or family welfare
Important decisions are made by groups Important decisions are made by individuals
Selection can focus on relational attributes of employees
Selection focuses primarily on employee’s knowledge, skills, and abilities
Motivation is socially oriented and based on commitment to the group
Motivation is individually oriented and based on one’s needs, interests, and capacity
Use avoiding, obliging, compromising, and accommodating to resolve conflict
Direct and solution-focused approaches to conflict resolution
Accountability for organizational successes and failures rests with groups
Accountability for organizational successes and failures tests with individuals
The degree to which institutional practices at the societal level encourage and reward collective action
Institutional Collectivism
BAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3
Sweden 5.22 Indonesia 4.54 Portugal 3.92
South Korea 5.20 Poland 4.53 Ecuador 3.90
Japan 5.19 Russia 4.50 Morocco 3.87
Singapore 4.90 Israel 4.46 Spain 3.85
New Zealand 4.81 Netherlands 4.46 Brazil 3.83
Denmark 4.80 S. Africa (B) 4.39 Germany (W) 3.79
China 4.77 Canada (E) 4.38 Italy 3.68
Ireland 4.63 India 4.38 Argentina 3.66
S. Africa (W) 4.62 U.S. 4.20 Germany (E) 3.56
Zambia 4.61 Nigeria 4.14 Hungary 3.53
Malaysia 4.61 Namibia 4.13
Taiwan 4.59 Zimbabwe 4.12
Mexico 4.06
France 3.93
Power Distance
High Power Distance Low Power Distance
Society differentiated into classes on several criteria
Society has a large middle class
Power is seen as providing social order, relational harmony, and role stability
Power is seen as a source of corruption, coercion, and dominance.
Limited upward social mobility High upward social mobility
Information is localized Information is shared
Different groups have different involvement and democracy does not ensure equal opportunity
All groups enjoy equal involvement and democracy ensures parity in opportunities and development for all
Civil liberties are weak and public corruption high Civil liberties are strong and public corruption low
Power bases are stable and scare (ie. land ownership)
Power bases are transient and sharable (ie. skill, knowledge)
The degree to which a community accepts and endorses authority, power differences, and status privileges
Power DistanceBAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3 BAND 4
Morocco 5.80 Germany (W) 5.25 Qatar 4.73 Netherlands 4.11
Nigeria 5.80 Mexico 5.22 Israel 4.73 S. Africa (B) 4.11
El Salvador 5.68 Taiwan 5.18 Albania 4.62 Denmark 3.89
Zimbabwe 5.67 S. Africa (W) 5.16 Bolivia 4.51
Argentina 5.64 England 5.15
Thailand 5.63 Kuwait 5.12
Germany (E) 5.54 Japan 5.11
Russia 5.52 China 5.04
Spain 5.52 Austria 4.95
India 5.47 Egypt 4.92
Iran 5.43 U.S. 4.88
Brazil 5.33 Sweden 4.85
Zambia 5.31 Canada (E) 4.82
Namibia 5.29 Costa Rica 4.74
Humane Orientation
High Humane Orientation Low Humane Orientation
Others are important Self-interest is important
Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love and generosity have high priority
Value of pleasure, comfort, self-enjoyment have high priority
Need for belonging and affiliation motivate people Power and material possessions motivate people
People are urged to provide social support to each other
People are expected to solve personal problems on their own.
Children should be obedient Children should be autonomous
Members of society are responsible for promoting well-being of others: The state is not actively involved
State provides social and economic support for individuals’ well-being
Close circle receives material, financial, and social support, concern extends to all people and nature
Lack of support for others; predominance of self-enhancement
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous,
caring, and kind to others.
Humane Orientation
BAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3 BAND 4
Zambia 5.23 Indonesia 4.69 U.S. 4.17 Italy 3.63
Philippines 5.12 Ecuador 4.65 Taiwan 4.11 Poland 3.61
Ireland 4.96 India 4.57 Sweden 4.10 S. Africa (W) 3.49
Malaysia 4.87 Kuwait 4.52 Nigeria 4.10 Singapore 3.49
Thailand 4.81 Zimbabwe 4.45 Israel 4.10 Germany (E) 3.40
Egypt 4.73 Costa Rica 4.39 Argentina 3.99 France 3.40
China 4.36 Mexico 3.98 Hungary 3.35
S. Africa (B) 4.34 Russia 3.94 Greece 3.34
Japan 4.30 H. Kong 3.90 Spain 3.32
Australia 4.28 Slovenia 3.79 Germany (W) 3.18
Venezuela 4.25 Austria 3.72
Morocco 4.19 England 3.72
Georgia 4.18 Brazil 3.66
Uncertainty Avoidance
High Uncertainty Avoidance Low Uncertainty Avoidance
Tendency toward formalizing interactions with others
Tendency toward being more informal in interactions with others
Document agreements in legal contracts Rely on word of others they trust vs. written contracts
Orderly, meticulous record keeping Less concerned with orderliness
Rely on formalized policies and procedures Rely on informal norms vs. formal policies
Take more moderate calculated risks Less calculating when taking risks
Stronger resistance to change Less resistance to change
Stronger desire to establish rules to guide behavior Less desire to establish rules to guide behavior
Less tolerance for breaking rules Greater tolerance for rule breaking
The degree to which members of collectives seek orderliness, consistency, structure, formalized procedures, and laws to cover
situations in their daily lives.
Uncertainty AvoidanceBAND 1 BAND 2 BAND 3 BAND 4
Switzerland 5.37 England 4.65 Japan 4.07 Venezuela 3.44
Sweden 5.32 S. Africa (B) 4.59 Egypt 4.06 Olivia 3.35
Singapore 5.31 Canada 4.58 Israel 4.06 Guatemala 3.30
Denmark 5.22 France 4.43 Spain 3.97 Hungary 3.12
Germany (W) 5.22 Australia 4.39 Philippines 3.89 Russia 2.88
Austria 5.16 Taiwan 4.34 Costa Rica 3.82
Germany (E) 5.16 Nigeria 4.29 Italy 3.79
Finland 5.02 Kuwait 4.21 Iran 3.67
Switzerland 4.98 Namibia 4.20 Morocco 3.65
China 4.94 Mexico 4.18 Argentina 3.65
Malaysia 4.78 Zimbabwe 4.15 El Salvador 3.62
New Zealand 4.75 U.S. 4.15 Brazil 3.60
Zambia 4.10 South Korea 3.55
S. Africa (W) 4.09
Culture and Leadership
Assessment of Desired Qualities
• 112 characteristics and behaviors – Sensitive- Aware of slight changes in moods of others– Motivator- Mobilizes, activates followers
• On a scale from 1-7, asked how much each item inhibits or contributes to effective leadership
• Factor analyses yielded 6 global leader behavior dimensions
Leader Dimensions• Charismatic/value-based: ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high
performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core values. • Team-oriented: emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a
common purpose or goal among team members. • Participative: Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making
and implementing decisions. • Humane Oriented: Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also
includes compassion and generosity. • Autonomous: Independent and individualistic approach to leadership. • Self-protective: Ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group
member; emphasizes procedures, status-consciousness, and 'face-saving‘
Charismatic/ Value Based
Team Oriented
Participative Humane Oriented
Autonomous Self-Protective
HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH
Anglo Germanic Nordic SE Asian L. European L. American
SE Asian Confucian A.L. American E. European African L. European Nordic Anglo Middle Eastern Germanic
Germanic Anglo Nordic
SE Asian Anglo African Confucian A.
Germanic E. European Confucian A.Nordic SE Asian Anglo African Middle Eastern L. European L. American
Middle Eastern Confucian A.SE Asian L. American E. European
Confucian A.African E. European
L. European L. American African
Germanic Middle Eastern L. American E. European
African L. European
Middle Eastern E. European SE Asian Confucian A. Middle Eastern
L. European Nordic
Anglo Germanic Nordic
Intercultural Competence:
The Key to Bridging Cultural Differences
“The critical element in the expansion of intercultural learning is not the fullness with which one knows each culture, but the degree to which the process of cross-cultural learning, communication, and human relations has been mastered.”
(Hoopes)
Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity Milton Bennett, Ph.D.
.• Theory posits a developmental approach to cultural sensitivity• A continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with cultural
difference, moving from ethnocentrism to enthnorelativism• Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, making this a proposal as
to how to change “natural” behavior• Focuses on how an individual experience cultural differences
Experience of Difference
Development of Intercultural Sensitivity
Denial Defense Minimization Acceptance Adaptation Integration
ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES ETHNORELATIVE STAGES
Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• Assuming that the worldview of one’s own culture is central to all reality
• Similar to egocentrism• Basis for ethnocentric processes such as racism, negative
evaluation of other cultures, and in-group/out-group distinctions
Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A denial of difference is the purest form of ethnocentrism• A rather benign stage since conflict is avoided. For conflict to
exist a recognition of difference has to exist• People of oppressed groups tend to not experience denial
since non-dominant groups are often inundated with reminders they are different
• Two stages of Denial: – Isolation: Found in areas where everyone is similar – Separation: Purposeful separation from other who are different
Ethnocentric Stages-----Ethnorelative Stages Denial--Defense--Minimization------Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• A posture intended to counter the impact of specific cultural differences perceived as threatening
• Threat is to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity • Rather than denying differences, as seen in the previous
stage, cultural differences are recognized, and specific defenses are created against them
• Because cultural difference is recognized, it is growth from denial, though often more problematic since it is conflictual
• Three forms of Defense: Denigration, Superiority, and Reversal
Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• The most advanced level of ethnocentrism • We are all alike…they are all like me!!• Cultural differences are glossed over and trivialized:
– “being one of the guys” “The Golden Rule”
• Minimization quickly degenerates into defense when interactions based on assumed similarities are not met.
• Two aspects to minimization: – Physical Universalism: Because we must all eat, breathe, and die
we are basically the same– Transcendent Universalism: “We are all God’s children”; everyone
values capitalism
Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• The assumption that cultures can only be understood relative to one another and that particular behavior can only be understood within a cultural context
• There is no absolute standard of rightness or “goodness” that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference is neither good nor bad, it is just different
• One’s culture is not any more central to reality than any other culture, although it may be preferable to a particular group or individual
• The ethnorelative experience of difference is not threatening, but most likely to be enjoyable
Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--Integration
• Cultural difference is acknowledged and accepted• The existence of difference is a seen as a necessary
and preferable human condition• Two forms of development occur at this stage:
– Respect for Behavioral Differences– Respect for Value Difference
Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--
Integration
• New skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired • Old skills are not replaced, new skills are added so it is
adaptation and not assimilation• You function from the standpoint of your culture, going into
another culture when necessary then returning to yours • Major aspect is developing alternative communication skills• Two phases to adaptation:
– Empathy: an attempt to understand an experience by imagining or comprehending it from another’s perspective
– Pluralism: the internalization of two or more fairly complete cultural frames of reference.
Ethnocentric Stages------Ethnorelative Stages Denial--Defense--Minimization-----Acceptance--Adaptation--
Integration
• “a person whose essential identity is inclusive of life patterns different from his own and who has psychologically and socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (Adler, 1977).
• In adaptation there is a sense of a primary culture and others added to differing degrees. In integration, the primary culture is lost
• Two forms of integration exist: – Contextual Evaluation: An evaluation of a situation based on the
cultural context in which it occurs– Constructive Marginality: There is no natural cultural identity; the
experience of one’s self as a constant creator of one’s own reality
Key Points• Differences in values can affect:
– Leadership styles– Approaches to work– Success of workteams– Intervention approaches– Attainment of research goals and aims
• Intercultural leadership requires that we step out of our culture and function within the other culture. – what works well at PI in NY in U.S.A, may not always be effective
elsewhere—and can interfere with team functioning.
Key Points
• Intercultural competency and effective leadership require active thinking and energy….but are essential to the successful international research.
Thank you!