Culture and Leadership

At the turn of the 20th century, unprecedented advancements in technology ushered in the most significant transformation of the modern workplace in years. For the first time, a single, global labor market emerged, fueling an unforeseen corporate war for talent and a demand for a new style of workers who were more adaptable to rapid changes in a fluid organizational environment. As organizations began to expand globally, the need for understanding leadership as a cross-cultural concept intensified – that is, it is important to recognize how leaders in today’s global organizations lead across different cultures. In order to enhance professionals’ comprehension of cross-cultural leadership, the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) study were initiated (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). The goal of the study was to address how differences in culture were related to organizational and leadership practices (Muchinsky & Culbertson, 2016).

During the early 1990s, House and colleagues launched a major research effort which to date has measured the values and practices used by 18,000 managers in over 950 different organizations across numerous industries within 62 societies representing over 60 countries (House et al., 2004). At its roots, this research drew upon Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions (e.g., power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism) in order to understand whether cultural differences influenced leadership values, organizational practices, and perceptions of leader effectiveness/ineffectiveness.

As you can imagine, the results from House et al.’s (2004) massive cross-cultural study are complex; however, the research revealed many notable outcomes that continue to be applied in organizational practice today. For instance, House et al. (2004) determined that many leadership traits were culturally contingent – that is, acceptable in some cultures, yet undesirable in others (e.g., ambition is acceptable in some countries, but not in others). Other leadership characteristics like decisiveness, foresight, and integrity were universally desirable, while still others like irritability and ruthlessness were rejected universally across cultures (Brodbeck et al., 2000). In addition, it was determined that members of different cultures share common conceptions about what constitutes effective and ineffective leadership. Specifically, six leadership styles were identified – charismatic, team-oriented, autonomous, human-oriented, and self-protective (House et al., 2004). House et al. (2004) found that there were culturally-based differences in which leadership styles were considered to contribute to effective leadership. For example, Asian cultures were found to be more favorably inclined to human-oriented and self-protective leadership styles, while Nordic and Anglo-European cultures tended to see team-oriented and charismatic leadership styles as being most effective (Muchinsky & Culbertson, 2016). While House et al. (2004) determined a set of commonly endorsed leadership characteristics, future research is needed to determine if the specific behaviors linked to these characteristics are also universal across cultures. For example, integrity was universally accepted as a positive leader attribute; however, will the leader behaviors associated with integrity be the same across all cultures? That is, are the leader behaviors that demonstrate integrity in Asian cultures the same as those that reflect integrity in Nordic European cultures?

Launch in a separate window

With traits like integrity being considered universal to effective leadership, it is essential to note that today’s leaders are expected to ethically lead across different cultures. This being the case, it becomes crucial to acquire a better understanding of ethical leadership. Ethical leadership is “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making” (Brown, Trevino & Harrison, 2005, p. 120).

Given its importance, Kalshoven, Den Hartog, and De Hoogh (2011) developed a questionnaire to measure ethical leadership in organizations. The Ethical Leadership at Work (ELW) questionnaire assesses seven components of ethical leadership which include: integrity, fairness, ethical guidance, power-sharing, role clarification, people orientation, and concern for sustainability. Specifically, Kalshoven et al. (2011) found that these factors were predictive of important organizational outcomes, including increased employee job satisfaction, increased employee commitment, and increased organizational citizenship behaviors. Ethical leadership has also been shown to enhance workgroup performance and decrease workplace deviance (Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes & Salvador, 2009). Research and application of ethical leadership behaviors will undoubtedly continue, especially given what cases (e.g., Enron, Madoff) from the recent past have revealed about the severity of the consequences linked to unethical leader behavior.

Be sure to review this week’s resources carefully. You are expected to apply the information from these resources when you prepare your assignments.

References

Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., Akerblom, S., Audia, G., Bakacsi, G., Bendova, H., … & Castel, P. (2000). Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(1), 1-29.

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117-134.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. (2011). Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 51-69.

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. B. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1-13.

Muchinsky, P. M., & Culbertson, S. S. (2016). Psychology applied to work (11th ed.). Summerfield, NC: Hypergraphic Press.

Expand All

Collapse All

0 %0 of 7 topics complete

Show data table for This chart displays the number of completed topics versus the total number of topics within module Week 6..

List of Topics and Sub-Modules for Week 6