Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 479–482
Leadership in a global context: New directions in research and theorydevelopment
Richard M. Steers a,*, Carlos Sanchez-Runde b, Luciara Nardon c
a Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97405, USAb IESE, University of Navarra, 08034 Barcelona, Spainc Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa K1S 5B6, Canada
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Culture
Gender
Global leadership
Global teams
GLOBE
Humanistic leadership
Leadership
Organizational culture
Positive global leadership
Servant leadership
Strategic leadership
Transformational leadership
A B S T R A C T
The goal of this special issue is to present a set of articles that, collectively, explores the interrelationships
between national culture, leadership, and organizational behavior. Our hope is that these articles will
summarize where the field currently stands, as well as suggest new directions for future research and
theory development on this important topic. To achieve this, we include 14 articles from authors
representing 13 countries. The methodologies used here include meta-analyses, case studies, and
interview studies, although the majority represents conceptual model building based on critical analyses
of existing theories and research. Management implications are discussed.
� 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of World Business
jo u r nal h o mep age: w ww.els evier . co m/lo c ate / jwb
1. Introduction: the leadership challenge
When British-born Howard Stringer became CEO of Sony, hischarge was to revolutionize the company and return it to its formercompetitiveness. The company required new leadership, and hehad proven himself before in previous executive positions. Uponarriving in Japan, however, Stringer quickly realized that hisleadership had limits. ‘‘I don’t want to change Sony’s culture to thepoint that it’s unrecognizable from the founder’s vision,’’ heobserved (Kane & Dvorak, 2007, p. A1). ‘‘That’s the balancing act.You can’t go through a Japanese company with a sledgehammer.’’The irony here is that, in a previous position as an American CEO, hecould.
Therein lies the challenge for global leaders. Whether in Japanor the U.S., Germany or Mexico, Russia or Thailand, global leadersup and down the hierarchy face the same challenge: how to adapttheir leadership style to fit local circumstances in order to achievecorporate objectives. Yet when we turn to the myriad of materialswritten on the topic, we are often hard-pressed to find meaningfulanswers.
Consider: more articles and books have been written aboutleadership than any other topic in the field of management. Many
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.M. Steers), [email protected]
(C. Sanchez-Runde), [email protected] (L. Nardon).
1090-9516/$ – see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.001
of these examine various theories of leadership, comparing therelative advantages and disadvantages of each. Others representserious empirical studies of actual leader behavior. And still othersare popular works that seem to offer a secret elixir designed totransform ordinary managers into extraordinary leaders. Whatmost of these materials fail to do, however, is recognize thatleadership processes can vary significantly across geographicregions. That is, much of what is written discusses or proposes aparticular leadership model that has been constructed based onlargely Western beliefs, values, and cultures, and then offers thismodel to the world as an accepted strategy for managerial andorganizational effectiveness.
In this regard, a noted U.S. leadership expert recently observed‘‘leadership is like beauty; it’s hard to define, but you know it whenyou see it’’ (Bennis, 1989). Unfortunately, both empirical studiesand personal experiences suggest otherwise (Chen & Lee, 2008;Dickson, Den Hartog, & Castano, 2009; Osland, Taylor, &Mendenhall, 2009). That is, research has consistently demonstrat-ed that some cultures (e.g., Russia, USA) prefer leaders who aretake-charge, visible, and assertive, while others (e.g., Norway,Japan) prefer leaders who are much less visible, relativelyspeaking, and move behind the scenes to accomplish things. Somecultures (e.g., Mexico, Spain) prefer leaders who stand above thecrowd and command respect, while others (e.g., Malaysia, Laos)prefer leaders who are humble and remain part of the crowd(Aycan, 2008; Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007). As managers around theglobe increasingly face the challenges of leading employees from
R.M. Steers et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 479–482480
different cultural backgrounds with divergent expectations abouthierarchy, power, and interpersonal relations, it becomes impor-tant for them to understand how cultural dynamics can influenceeffective leadership.
2. Contemporary approaches to leadership
Much of the confusion limiting our understanding of leadershipprocesses in different countries can be traced to the initialassumptions we make about the topic. These assumptions guidewhat we choose to focus on. As we know from research oncognition and selective perception, people typically discoverthings based on what they are looking for. So perhaps the bestplace to begin is with the assumptions we typically have going intoa search for the essence of global leadership. In our experience,managers—and to some extent researchers—often approach thisissue in one of three different ways (see Exhibit 1).
2.1. Universal approaches
Some people consider leadership to be a generalizable, oruniversal, behavior regardless of where it is exercised. In otherwords, leadership is leadership is leadership. This approach isconsistent with the ‘leadership as beauty’ notion mentionedpreviously. We refer to this as the universal approach. Underlyingthis approach is the belief that leadership traits and processes arerelatively constant across cultures. To the extent that this iscorrect, the goal of managers is to adopt a leadership model, suchas charismatic leadership, under the assumption that its applica-bility is universal regardless of location.
Many Western theories of leadership are built on this premise.A good example of this can be seen in the ongoing debate in theWest over the relative merits of transformational and transactionalleadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Advocates of transformationalleadership, in which managers work to create a universallyaccepted vision of where the group or organization should go andthen use moral persuasion (and often charismatic leadership) toreinforce this mission, argue that such an approach is superior tothe transactional model, in which concrete exchange relationshipswith employees largely determine results. The problem here is thatrecent research in Japan, for example, found that neither of these
Exhibit 1. Contemporary approaches to global leadership.
approaches is very effective in that country (Ishikawa, in press).Transformational leaders are often seen as being too abstract,while transactional leaders are sometimes seen as being toomercenary—and both are criticized for being too manipulative.Instead, successful Japanese managers tend to prefer somethingcalled ‘‘gate-keeping leadership,’’ where they work to reduce thebarriers to successful performance among their subordinates. Hereis the problem: if these Western theories fail to work in Japan, onewonders where else they might also fail (e.g., Brazil, Russia, Egypt,India, etc.).
In this regard, it is unfortunate that despite decades of researchsupporting situational approaches to leadership effectiveness,companies still routinely sponsor leadership training programsthat stress a few ‘keys’ to successful leadership and ignore criticalvariations in local environments. One might suggest that many ofthese programs are doomed to failure from the outset.
2.2. Normative approaches
A second approach to thinking about leadership in a globalcontext is to focus on enduring personal skills and abilities that arethought to characterize effective global managers. These modelsare prescriptive in nature, and suggest how managers shouldapproach leadership in global settings. We refer to this as thenormative approach. The focus is on the leader as a global manager.It is assumed that certain sets of leader traits and abilities arecommon to all managers regardless of where they are working.Recent work on the ‘global mindset’ and ‘cultural intelligence’illustrate this approach (Earley & Ang, 2003; Javidan, Steers, & Hitt,2007; Mendenhall, Osland, Bird, Oddou, & Maznevski, 2008). Forexample, successful global leaders are thought by some to exhibitcosmopolitanism, cognitive complexity, mental inquisitiveness,honesty, humility, and personal resiliency. Leaders who possessthis cluster of skills and abilities are thought to be prepared tomanage effectively throughout much of the world. As a result, themanagement development question is how to instill these traitsand abilities into people who must work successfully around theworld in highly diverse cultural settings. However, whether thesetraits are indeed commonplace among successful managers indifferent parts of the world has yet to be demonstrated. This raisesquestions about the normative assumptions underlying the model.
2.3. Contingency approaches
The third approach, which we refer to as the contingency
approach, begins with the assumption that there are no universalsin describing effective leadership. That is, successful leaders inNew York may fail in Tokyo or Paris if they are unable to modifytheir behaviors to suit the unique local environments. Thisapproach looks at leadership as a culturally embedded process,not a series of personal traits of the manager or followers. Here thefocus is on the leader as a local manager, not a global one, and it isassumed that the characteristics for success will vary with thesituation.
A good example of this approach can be found in the GLOBEproject, a multinational study of culture and leadership in 62countries (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). Theprincipal finding of this study is that to a large degree leadership isculturally contingent; that is, the qualities of effective leaders oftenvary across cultures. For example, successful U.S. managers tend toscore higher than their Chinese counterparts on such character-istics as assertiveness, performance orientation, and individualism,while Chinese managers tend to score higher than Americans onpower distance and uncertainty avoidance. The important pointhere is that GLOBE was able to track systematic trends inleadership characteristics across cultures.
R.M. Steers et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 479–482 481
Another example of the contingency approach can be seen inthe commonplace use of symbolic leadership in Japan or Korea,where executives publicly and willingly accept both the responsi-bility and the consequences for corporate failures. Such behavior iscommonplace and often required in East Asia, but not necessarilyin other regions. Witness, for example, the testimony of ToyotaMotor Co.’s President and CEO before the U.S. Congress, in which heaccepted full responsibility for mechanical problems associatedwith the company’s cars. At the same time, and in similarcongressional testimony, BP’s British CEO worked diligently toavoid accepting similar responsibility following his company’s oilspill in the Gulf.
3. Limitations of contemporary models
While all three of these approaches add value to our efforts tounderstand leadership in a global context, it is our opinion thatthey all miss the mark in sufficiently explicating the leadershipconstruct as it relates to global diversity. As a result, our ability tohelp global managers prepare for overseas assignments remainssomewhat limited. In particular, we suggest that focusing moresquarely on two issues could advance our understanding ofleadership processes: (a) the meaning of leadership as a culturalconstruct and (b) the variations in local expectations regardingleader behavior. In short, in our view we must move beyondtraditional Western models of leadership and take a morecosmopolitan approach to the subject.
3.1. Leadership as a cultural construct
First and foremost, it is important to recognize that leadership isa cultural construct. Its meaning is embedded in the diversecultures where it is exercised, and changes accordingly. Mostimportant here, it is not a Western construct that is easilyexpanded to global dimensions. To understand this, consider asimple question: What is leadership? The difficulty in answeringthis question lies in the differing meaning of the construct itself indifferent cultures. In most Anglo-Saxon countries (e.g., U.K., U.S.,Australia), leadership generally has positive connotations. Leaderstend to be respected, admired, and, indeed, sometimes revered,whether they are in the political or business arena. Clearly, this isnot a universal truth. The opposite view of leaders can also befound in many countries (e.g., Mexico, Egypt, Romania), wherewidespread distrust and fear of power or the dislike of privilegeprevails.
Moreover, a direct translation of the word ‘leader’ into differentlanguages can invoke a variety of images, including dictator,parent, expert, and first among equals. Some of these terms havestrong connotations of highly directive or authoritarian styles ofleadership that many people reject. Leaders are not necessarily tobe trusted. We wonder about their motives and true goals or ofother potentially undesirable behaviors and characteristics. At thesame time, in many egalitarian societies, terms like ‘followers’ or‘subordinates’ are also seen as being inappropriate. For instance,subordinates in the Netherlands are frequently referred to ascoworkers (medewerkers) instead of subordinates, and leaders arecareful to avoid appearing condescending.
With such a diversity of opinions concerning the characteristicsof effective leaders, how is it possible to reach agreement on even asimple definition of leadership? Moreover, what does this diversityof views suggest about our ability to apply largely Western-basedleadership theories across borders? What does this say about ourability to build or implement leadership development programsthat can be used effectively in various regions of the world? Andwhat does this say about so-called leadership gurus who travel theworld with their packaged leadership programs?
To make matters even more complex, not only does the term‘leader’ translate differently across various cultural groups, butalso the meanings that are construed from these translations canalso differ, sometimes significantly. For example, in individualisticsocieties (e.g., the U.S., Canada, the U.K.), leadership typically refersto a single person who takes charge and ‘leads’ the organization totargeted performance. In more collectivistic societies (e.g., Korea,Japan, and China), however, leadership is often less associated withindividuals and more closely aligned with group endeavors. Inhierarchical societies (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Indonesia),leaders are often seen as being separate and apart from theirfollowers, while in more egalitarian societies (e.g., Sweden,Denmark), they are often seen as more approachable and lessintimidating. Indeed, the rather common Anglo-American cele-bration of the accomplishments of various leaders stands in starkcontrast to Lao Tzu’s ancient, but still widely cited observation that‘‘A leader is best when people barely know he exists, who talkslittle, and when his work is done and his aim fulfilled, people willsay, we did this ourselves.’’
3.2. Leadership expectations
The second concern with existing approaches to leadershipfocuses on the expectations surrounding the behavior of successfulleaders, including the cultural underpinnings of such expectations.These expectations arise from society at large, local circumstances,subordinates, coworkers, and the leaders themselves. The GLOBEstudy clearly contributes to this understanding, but more isrequired concerning the fundamental normative beliefs andprocesses underlying a leader’s behavior (House et al., 2004). Thatis, we need to better understand the ‘why and how’ underlying theprocess, not just the ‘what and who.’
If there is any doubt about the systematic variability in whatconstitutes effective leader behavior, we need look no further thanthe observations by various managers and employees fromdifferent countries. In the West, the French often expect theirleaders to be cultivated—highly educated in the arts andmathematics. The Dutch stress egalitarianism and are skepticalabout the value and status of leaders. Terms like ‘leader’ and‘manager’ can even carry a stigma in some organizations. AndAmericans are often schizophrenic in their choice of leaders; somelike leaders who empower and encourage their subordinates,while others prefer leaders who are bold, forceful, confidant, andrisk-oriented.
In the East, Chinese leaders are often expected to establish andnurture personal relationships, practice benevolence towardsubordinates, be dignified and aloof but sympathetic, and treatthe interests of employees like their own. Malaysians traditionallyexpect their leaders to behave in a manner that is humble, modest,and dignified. And Japanese leaders are often expected to focus ondeveloping a healthy relationship with their employees, in whichemployees and managers share the same fate. In short, expecta-tions concerning appropriate leader behaviors can vary consider-ably across cultures. This is a point not lost on experiencedexpatriates and frequent flyers, but sometimes ignored by theiracademic counterparts.
4. Purpose of special issue
With these challenges and unresolved issues in mind, theeditors of JWB agreed to develop a special issue focusing on thetopic of leadership in a global context. The aim of this endeavor wasto collect, review, and publish papers that critically evaluatedexisting theory and research, as well as suggested future directionsfor theory building and research. The development of this proposalwas guided by the following five criteria. All papers should:
R.M. Steers et al. / Journal of World Business 47 (2012) 479–482482
� Contribute to the conceptual or theoretical development of thetopic of leadership within a global context.� Take a comparative or cross-cultural approach to leadership, as
opposed to single-country studies.� Focus on critical analyses of recent research on various aspects of
culture and leadership, push the topic in some new directionsbased on the specific expertise of the author, and end bysuggesting a focused future research agenda.� Take broad stroke and focus on major issues, as opposed to more
narrow or esoteric topics.� Include authors from a diverse array of cultures and countries to
add conceptual richness, accuracy, and perhaps greater authorityto the final papers.
The principal goal in compiling this special issue was to collect aset of papers that, taken together, represents an importantcontribution to the field. Ideally, this collection should representa gestalt of what we know and what we need to learn aboutleadership processes across cultures. To achieve this, we accepted14 papers from authors representing 13 countries. All papers wereindependently reviewed by two members of the JWB editorialboard and revised prior to acceptance. The methodologies used inthese papers vary considerably, including meta-analyses, casestudies, and interview studies, although most are conceptualmodel-building efforts based on critical analyses of publishedresearch.
The papers in this special issue represent a diversity ofperspectives on the topic of leadership across cultures. They alsoillustrate all three of the contemporary approaches to modelingglobal leadership, as discussed above. Some of these papers focuson the conceptual challenges of defining leadership within a globalcontext (Dickson, Castano, Magomaeva, and Den Hartog; Men-denhall, Reiche, Bird, and Osland). Others explore emergingtheoretical developments as they relate to leadership in a globalcontext, including positive, humanistic, transformational, andservant leadership (Youssef and Luthans; Davila and Elvira;Takahashi, Ishikawa, and Karnai; Mittal and Dorfman). One articlelooks back on twenty years of research on GLOBE, and suggests afuture research agenda (Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges, Dastmalchian,and House). Several papers focus on leader behaviors withinspecific regions of the world, including Latin America, the MiddleEast and North Africa (MENA), and East Asia (Davila and Elvira;Kabasakal, Dastmalchian, Karacay, and Bayaktar; and Takahashi
et al.). Others examine several specific aspects of leadership andorganization in the managerial world, including strategic leader-ship, leadership of global teams, leadership and organizationalculture, and the role of culture in the emergence of women asleaders (Wang, Waldman, and Zhang; Zander, Mockaitis, andButler; Shim and Steers; Toh and Leonardelli). The final paperexamines leadership competencies and the effectiveness ofdevelopmental programs aimed at facilitating this (Caligiuri andTarique).
We hope this collection of papers will stimulate new criticalthinking, research, and theory development on leadership in aglobal context. We are appreciative of the authors of this specialissue for their expertise, creativity, resolve in helping make thisproject a success. We are also grateful to the staff at JWB for theirsupport of this project. In the final analysis, organizations—publicand private—will stand or fall based on the quality of theirleadership. The more we can do as scholars to help understand thisphenomenon, and develop practical strategies for the developmentof global leaders, the more useful we become as change agents inan evolving and often turbulent world.
References
Aycan, Z. (2008). Cross-cultural approaches to leadership. In P. Smith, M. Peterson, & D.Thomas (Eds.), The handbook of cross-cultural management research (pp. 219–237).Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (Eds.). (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness throughtransformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Chen, C., & Lee, Y. (2008). Leadership and management in China. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.Dickson, M., Den Hartog, D., & Castano, N. (2009). Understanding leadership across
cultures. In R. Bhagat & R. Steers (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of culture, organiza-tions, and work (pp. 219–243). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Earley, P., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures.Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership,and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Javidan, M., Steers, R., & Hitt, M. (2007). The global mindset. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Kane, Y., & Dvorak, P. (2007). Howard Stringer, Japanese CEO. The Wall Street Journal,
March: A1.Mendenhall, M., Osland, J., Bird, A., Oddou, G., & Maznevski, M. (2008). Global leader-
ship: Research, practice, and development. London: Routledge.Osland, J., Taylor, S., & Mendenhall, M. (2009). Global leadership: Progress and
challenges. In R. Bhagat & R. Steers (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of culture, organiza-tions, and work (pp. 245–270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsui, A., Nifadkar, S., & Ou, A. (2007). Cross-national cross-cultural organizationalbehavior research. Journal of Management, 33(3): 462–468.
