Toward a cultural contingency model of leadership.

To succeed in today's economy, multinational and transnational organizations must have strong leaders who are versed in global leadership principles. Unfortunately, 85% of Fortune 500 executives report that their firms lack enough competent global leaders. Relying on leadership theories based solely on North American experiences will unlikely ameliorate this shortfall. Accordingly, the authors integrate the Project GLOBE cultural imperatives with mainstream leadership dimensions to produce global leadership prescriptions. Examples of regional leadership styles based on regional cultural determinants are also provided. This prospective framework serves as a springboard to help guide and develop leaders who wish to transcend geographical boundaries and effectively lead in a culturally diverse, global context.

Keywords: leadership; global leadership; management styles; situational leadership

**********

Until recently, most of the post-World War II leadership literature has been generated by American scholars (Koopman et al., 1999; Nadler, 2002). Yet the global leadership construct should not be a particularly American one, if for no other reason than the world is rapidly becoming a global economic village, characterized by multinational and transnational firms. A survey of Fortune 500 executives showed that having competent global leaders was the most important factor in business success and that 85% of the executives did not think they had an adequate number of competent global leaders (Javidan & House, 2001). Because organizational cultures are influenced by national cultures, leadership approaches might be effectively tailored to align with national cultures. This is only possible if leadership theory is presented in a global contingency framework.

Since the close of World War II, for example, democratic values have permeated most U.S. institutions even though unqualified support for democratic leadership is not always justified on the basis of research evidence (Muczyk & Reimann, 1987; Muczyk & Steele, 1998). Democratic values, on the other hand, have not been as prevalent around the globe. In the Middle East, with the exception of Israel, there are no democratic traditions, and we should not be surprised. After all, democracy is a European invention dating back to the ancient Greek city-states. And modern Israel was founded by Europeans--the Ashkenazi Jews--who brought the European parliamentary system with them. In the rest of the Middle East, the legacy established by the early Caliphs--successors to Mohammed and his close friends or relatives--set expectations for posterity. An autocrat ruled so long as he was on good behavior. In other words, if he treated his subjects in an evenhanded way, honored their traditions, did not publicly flout the Koran, and did not levy onerous taxes, he was expected to rule for life. All along, the touchstone of good leadership in that part of the world seems to have revolved around the concept of justice, not democracy. Inevitably, such a pervasive tradition spills over into the world of work (Muczyk, 2003). In a global economy, the differences that emerge cannot be ignored, especially when one considers a region like the Middle East, which encompasses close to 300 million people, contains 60% of the world's oil reserves, and has 40% of the world's natural gas reserves.

Similarly, other economic colossi warrant significant attention. China is rapidly becoming the next economic center. Moreover, U.S. firms are attempting to penetrate this huge market by (a) outsourcing numerous economic activities to Chinese firms and (b) importing a variety of products from China. Clearly, there is no democratic tradition in China, and that includes the workplace (Batson, 2007). Consequently, the prevalent U.S. leadership style may not be suited for this culture. India is another emerging economic powerhouse that has much stronger democratic traditions. In fact, the British Raj (1858-1947) left India as the most populous democracy in the world. It is doubtful, however, that those traditions extend to the workplace because democracy was not introduced into the workplace (Mines & Gourishankar, 1990).

From a more theoretical perspective, the need to align leadership and culture can be explained with social exchange theory. Put simply, social exchange theory suggests that a person feels a moral obligation to repay any benefits that he or she is provided by another (Blau, 1964). Social exchanges occur frequently between employees and their leaders. It would be reasonable to expect employees to perform in ways that help the leader facilitate organizational performance when the leader offers benefits that induce a sense of obligation (i.e., aligning benefits with individuals' expectations or values). Empirical evidence has supported this theory, suggesting that this sense of obligation is present across cultures (Deluga, 1992; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999).

In essence, global leaders should adapt, aligning leadership processes with cultural demands (Walumbwa, Lawler, & Avolio, 2007). Toward this end, we integrate the recent research on cultural imperatives derived from multinational samples with the mainstream leadership constructs developed from North American experiences. By doing this, we provide practitioners a springboard that can help them guide the selection, training, career development, and assessment of global leaders. Researchers may benefit from a speculative framework to test the antecedents and outcomes of leadership success in a global context.

Factors for A Global Contingency Model

There is considerable support for a global leadership contingency model. Laurent (1983), for instance, studied the attitudes and behaviors of managers in nine European countries, the United States, Japan, and Indonesia. His effort revealed unique managerial modus operandi in each country. Specifically, there were differences of opinion regarding the role of hierarchy, the acceptability of bypassing the chain of command, and the belief that managers possess precise answers to subordinates' questions. Ronen and Shenkar (1985) highlighted differences as they classified countries on attitudinal dimensions, developing nine clusters: Near Eastern, Nordic, Arab, Germanic, Far Eastern, Latin American, Latin European, Anglo, and Independent. More recently, Brodbeck et al. (2000) found that individuals from different regions valued different characteristics among leaders. Not all differences, however, are related to the exercise of leadership, and recommending concrete leadership styles on the basis of all or most of Laurent's, Ronen and Shenkar's, and Brodbeck et al.'s findings does not appear to be practical.

Thus, we turned to Hofstede (1983) and the research of Project GLOBE (Javidan & House, 2001) to guide us as we matched leadership styles with culture. Initially, Hofstede identified four dimensions that shaped leadership style: (a) uncertainty avoidance concerns the degree to which people are comfortable with ambiguous situations and with the inability to predict future events with accuracy; (b) masculinity-femininity represents the degree to which a culture emphasizes assertiveness, dominance, and independence; (c) individualism-collectivism refers to the tendency of a culture's norms and values to emphasize satisfying either individual or group needs; and (d) power distance indicates the degree to which members of a society accept differences in power and status among themselves. Several researchers have reinforced the importance of these four dimensions. Early (1993), for instance, highlighted the importance of the individualistic versus collectivistic dimensions in shaping a prescribed leadership style when a given culture is considered.

More recently, Project GLOBE researchers (Javidan, Dorfman, de Luque, & House, 2006; Javidan & House, 2001) have identified nine cultural attributes that have important managerial implications. These include (a) assertiveness, (b) future orientation, (c) gender differentiation, (d) uncertainty avoidance, (e) power distance, (f) collectivism versus individualism, (g) in-group collectivism, (h) performance orientation, and (i) humane orientation. Obviously, there is a considerable overlap between Hofstede's (1993) work and Project GLOBE (Javidan & House, 2001; Javidan et al., 2006). Furthermore, Project GLOBE incorporates the research of Trompenaars and Hamden-Turner (1998) and Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) where these research teams suggest how different managerial practices might be received in different cultures.

We also felt it would be prudent to capture the way a culture views the environment's influence over situations and how these views relate to leadership style in a global, contingency context. Trompenaars and Hamden-Tumer (1998) explain that societies differ on how they view the environment. They state that many societies believe that the things affecting individuals' lives reside within the individual; in these cultures, motivations and values are derived from within. Others, in contrast, view the environment as more powerful and influential, wherein the environment, rather than the individual, shapes outcomes. The Middle East (22 countries and approximately 300 million people) clearly demonstrates the latter view. In this region, many believe that everything is foreordained by God, as evidenced by the ubiquitous use of the term Insha'Allah, which means "If God wills it." We both have lived and worked in the Middle East recently, and we have firsthand experience with the motivational drawbacks associated with this collective attitude.

Table 1 summarizes the cultural factors that we feel guide recommendations for matching leadership styles on the basis of culture. As we have suggested, we have included attitudes toward the environment (Trompenaars & Hamden-Turner, 1998), terming these internal versus external environmental orientations. Also, Laurent's (1983) perceived role of hierarchy and the acceptability of bypassing the chain of command have been included because the expectations of workers regarding where decisions are to be made has a bearing on leadership. Hofstede's (1983) ideas have been implicitly incorporated through the Project GLOBE recommendations.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates