Locate a current news article or case study on leadership or leadership development in another country of interest to you.? Using attached readings/articles and your own research, ident

http://jlo.sagepub.com

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

DOI: 10.1177/1548051808315551 2008; 14; 277 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

Jan P. Muczyk and Daniel T. Holt Toward a Cultural Contingency Model of Leadership

http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/4/277 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Midwest Academy of Management

can be found at:Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies Additional services and information for

http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/14/4/277 Citations

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

Volume 14 Number 4 May 2008 277-286

© 2008 Baker College 10.1177/1548051808315551

http://jlos.sagepub.com hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

277

Toward a Cultural Contingency Model of Leadership

Jan P. Muczyk Air Force Institute of Technology

Daniel T. Holt Air Force Institute of Technology

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 dimen- sions to produce global leadership prescriptions. Examples of regional leadership styles based on regional cultural deter- minants 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 lead- ership literature has been generated by American

scholars (Koopman et al., 1999; Nadler, 2002). Yet the global leadership construct should not be a particu- larly 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 impor- tant 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. institu- tions 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 behav- ior. 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 con- siders a region like the Middle East, which encom- passes 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 signi- ficant attention. China is rapidly becoming the next

Authors’ Note: Address correspondence to Daniel T. Holt, Graduate School of Engineering and Management, Air Force Institute of Technology, 2950 Hobson Way, Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433; phone: (228) 365-7928 (cell); e-mail: [email protected]

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

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). Conse- quently, the prevalent U.S. leadership style may not be suited for this culture. India is another emerging eco- nomic 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 fre- quently 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 lead- ership 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 differ- ences 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 Indepen- dent. More recently, Brodbeck et al. (2000) found that individuals from different regions valued different char- acteristics among leaders. Not all differences, however, are related to the exercise of leadership, and recom- mending 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 cul- ture. Initially, Hofstede identified four dimensions that shaped leadership style: (a) uncertainty avoid- ance concerns the degree to which people are com- fortable 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 dimen- sions. 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 attrib- utes that have important managerial implications. These include (a) assertiveness, (b) future orientation, (c) gender differentiation, (d) uncertainty avoidance, (e) power distance, (f) collectivism versus individual- ism, (g) in-group collectivism, (h) performance orien- tation, 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 incorpo- rates the research of Trompenaars and Hamden-Turner (1998) and Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) where

278 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

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-Turner (1998) explain that societies dif- fer on how they view the environment. They state that many societies believe that the things affecting individ- uals’ 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 environ- ment, 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 foreor- dained 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 orienta- tions. Also, Laurent’s (1983) perceived role of hierar- chy and the acceptability of bypassing the chain of command have been included because the expecta- tions 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.

Organizing The Leadership Construct

Before the contingency framework can be built, the concept of leadership must be clarified. The posi- tion we adopt sides with that of Mintzberg (1973), who considers leadership 1 of 10 managerial roles. Not to do so would run the risk of equating leadership

Muczyk, Holt / Cultural Contingency Model 279

Table 1 Factors to Consider When Selecting a Global Leadership Style

Based on Project GLOBE (Javidan & House, 2001) and Hofstede (1983) 1. Assertiveness—the extent to which a society encourages people to be tough, confrontational, assertive, and competitive versus

modest and tender. 2. Future orientation—the extent to which a society encourages and rewards future-oriented behaviors such as planning, investing

in the future, and delaying gratification. 3. Gender differentiation—the extent to which a society maximizes gender role differences. 4. Uncertainty avoidance—the degree to which members of a society seek orderliness, consistency, structure, formalized proce-

dures and laws to cover situations in their daily lives. 5. Power distance—the degree to which members of a society expect power to be unequally shared. The extent to which a commu-

nity maintains inequality among its members by stratification with respect to power, authority, prestige, status, wealth, and mate- rial possessions.

6. Collectivism versus individualism—the degree to which individuals are encouraged by societal institutions to be integrated into groups within organizations and the society as opposed to operating as independent agents.

7. In-group collectivism—the extent to which members of a society take pride in membership in small groups, such as their families and circles of close friends, and the organization in which they are employed.

8. Performance orientation—the degree to which a society encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence.

9. Humane orientation—the degree to which a society encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, generous, caring, and kind to others.

Based on Trompenaars and Hamden-Turner (1998) 10. Internal versus external environmental orientations—the degree to which a society believes the environment or the individual

controls events. Those cultures with an internal environmental orientation believe that individuals are masters of their own fates and that success and the results at work are a function of individual ability and effort. Cultures that are characterized by an exter- nal environmental orientation believe that the environment exercises significant control. Such cultures rely on such concepts as luck and fate to explain events and the results of individual efforts at work.

Based on Laurent (1983) 11. Perceived role of hierarchy and acceptability of bypassing the chain of command

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

with practically every topic appearing in a manage- ment or organizational behavior text. Muczyk and Adler (2002) suggest several interesting questions regarding this issue. For instance, good leaders make sound decisions. Is decision making then part of the leadership definition? Effective leaders are good communicators. Is communication part of the leader- ship construct? Successful leaders are accomplished motivators as well. Is motivation an element of lead- ership? Because leaders are also sound planners, is planning part of the leadership concept?

Although planning, communicating, motivating, and decision making are enablers or facilitators of effective leadership, they are not leadership per se. In a general sense, leadership is the process whereby one individual influences other group members toward the attainment of defined group or organiza- tional goals. In other words, the leadership role describes the relationship between the manager and his or her subordinates that results in the satisfactory execution of subordinates’ assignments and, thereby, the attainment of the important goals for which the leader is responsible and is instrumental in setting. At the very minimum, leadership requires providing direction and impetus for subordinates to act in the desired direction (Muczyk & Adler, 2002).

As part of Project GLOBE, Javidan et al. (2006) found (a) certain universal facilitators of effective lead- ership, (b) universal impediments to effective leadership,

and (c) variables that are culturally contingent so far as leadership effectiveness is concerned. These are contained in Table 2. As has already been mentioned, facilitators may be important, but they are not to be confused with leadership itself.

An attempt was made by Muczyk and Adler (2002) not only to organize the different levels of abstraction but also to differentiate the leadership role from other managerial roles identified by Mintzberg (1973) and to distinguish leadership dimensions from leadership facilitators. Toward that end, an integrative framework was adopted that focuses on the distinct levels: trans- formational leadership, transactional leadership, and day-to-day or “small” leadership. Small leadership is transactional as well, but to a fault, and does not need to be discussed here because of its overlap with trans- actional leadership (Muczyk & Adler, 2002).

Transformational Leadership. Transformational leadership represents a set of behaviors that trans- form followers’ commitment and energy beyond the minimum levels prescribed by the organization (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Given its nature, it is unlikely that transformational leadership differs much from culture to culture (Bass, 1997; Bass & Avolio, 1989; Geyer & Steyrer, 1994; Koene, Pennings, & Schuster, 1993; Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995; House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, Dorfman, & Dickson, 1998; Javidan & Carl, 1997; Pereira, 1987). It is likely, however, that there are dif- ferences between national cultures so far as the enact- ment of transformational leadership is concerned.

Transactional (midrange) Leadership. Most trans- actional or midrange theories are predicated either explicitly or implicitly on the idea of a social compact between the leader and subordinates. That is, leaders construct an agenda and subordinates comply with it because there is a mutual benefit (Podsakoff et al., 1990). It is midrange leadership, more so than trans- formational leadership, that needs to be framed in a contingency or situational framework in order to have universal, practical value, because research evidence cited above suggests that transformational leadership is cross-cultural.

Unfortunately, when it comes to transactional lead- ership theories, there is a veritable embarrassment of riches. This poses two challenges that need to be addressed. First, to make midrange leadership theories more useful, especially to practitioners, the constituent components of leadership must be identified. Second, the controversy between normative (i.e., universal) and

280 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

Table 2 Universal Attributes That Facilitate Leadership Effectiveness, Impede

Effectiveness, and Vary With Culture

Universal facilitators Being trustworthy, just, and honest (integrity) Having foresight and planning ahead (charismatic–visionary) Being positive, dynamic, encouraging, and motivating and building confidence (charismatic–inspirational) Being communicative, informed, a coordinator, and a team integrator (team builder)

Universal impediments Being a loner and asocial (self-protective) Being noncooperative and irritable (malevolent) Being dictatorial (autocratic)

Culturally contingent Being individualistic (autonomous) Being status conscious (status conscious) Being a risk taker (charismatic–self-sacrificial)

SOURCE: Adapted from Javidan, Dorfman, de Luque, and House (2006).

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

situational (i.e., contingency) leadership must be resolved. The former is essential to distinguish the leadership role from the other managerial roles.

The reconciliation of normative and situational frameworks can be accomplished if we assume, and probably correctly, that midrange leadership theorists have been concerned with important, but entirely dif- ferent, aspects of leadership. Some appear normative, whereas others appear situational. What is normative, however, depends on the cultural context. Yet, the con- stituent elements of leadership should be the same regardless of culture for the concept to be useful. This assumption in no way precludes differences so far as the enactment of the leadership elements in various cultures is concerned. The mainstream U.S. leadership dimensions follow. The first three are assumed to be normative or universals (Muczyk & Reimann, 1987):

1. Consideration—concern for people; good human rela- tions; treating subordinates with courtesy, dignity, and respect; showing concern for subordinates’ problems.

2. Concern for production—emphasis on challenging goals; achievement orientation; high standards.

3. Incentive for performance—the strongest perfor- mance–reward connection that organizational con- straints will permit.

According to Muczyk and Reimann (1987), the situational or contingency aspects of leader behavior in North America are assumed to be the following:

4. Participation or democratic leadership—degree to which employees are involved in significant day-to- day, work-related decisions, including goal setting.

5. Direction—amount of follow-up or directive behavior associated with the execution of a deci- sion once it has been made, or the attainment of a goal once it has been set.1

In other words, the situational or contingency aspects of leader behavior concern themselves with (a) the decisions managers make and (b) the way these decisions are then executed. Leaders can differ in the extent to which they involve others as decisions are made. As a separate but related issue, leaders can vary in the amount of direction that they provide as those decisions are executed. A leader can be participatory or democratic by consulting employees during a deci- sion-making and goal-setting phase; yet, he or she can still be directive by following up closely on progress toward the ends that have been mutually decided.

By combining the extreme points on the two situational continua, participation and direction, the

result is four “pure” patterns of leader behavior, as shown in Table 3. First, the directive autocrat makes decisions unilaterally and supervises the activities of subordinates very closely. Second, the permissive autocrat still makes the decisions alone but per- mits a great deal of latitude among subordinates in accomplishing their delegated tasks. Third, the directive democrat invites participation from subor- dinates in decision making but continues to super- vise employees very closely to make certain they carry out their democratically assigned tasks prop- erly. Fourth, the permissive democrat allows subor- dinates to participate in decision making and to enjoy a high degree of autonomy in executing the decisions.

Aligning National Cultural Attributes with The Muczyk

and Reimann Midrange Theory of Leadership

The question that remains to be answered is whether the three normative dimensions in the model remain as universals when considering the global scene, or are all midrange leadership dimensions situational in a global frame of reference? If leadership needs to be aligned with characteristics of subordinates, business practices, and business strategies (Muczyk & Reimann, 1987, 1989; Muczyk & Steel, 1998), it is likely that it also needs to be aligned with salient cultural imperatives (Nadler, 2002). Consequently, we mapped the Project GLOBE cultural determinants of leadership onto Muczyk and Reimann’s (1987) schema to fashion a global framework of leadership. This appears in Table 4. This map gives us the basis to offer recommenda- tions to guide leadership.

Muczyk, Holt / Cultural Contingency Model 281

Table 3 Generic Profiles of Leader Behavior

Extensive Employee No Employee Participation Participation in Decision in Decision

Making Making

Extensive directive Directive Directive behavior or follow-up democrat autocrat on execution

No directive behavior Permissive Permissive or follow-up democrat autocrat on execution

SOURCE: Adapted from Muczyk and Reimann (1989).

at SAGE Publications on October 26, 2009 http://jlo.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Leadership Dimensions as a Function of

Cultural Imperatives

Autocratic Leadership

We should not assume that an autocrat is a misan- thrope or ogre. Autocrats, instead, may be people who have been paid to make important decisions, set salient goals, and direct subordinates along the way. This approach to decision making and goal setting may be appropriate in cultures that are high in power distance, collectivism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance and that are characterized by external environmental orientation. Also, autocratic leadership might be more appropriate for societies whose members have a high regard for hierarchy and are reluctant to bypass the chain of command. According to Hofstede (1983), large power distance and collectivism appear to go together and generally characterize third-world countries. In times of crisis, an autocrat may be the most desired leader as well because subordinates tend to rally around decisive leaders during these times.

Democratic Leadership

This type of decision-making and goal-setting style may be suited for cultures that are low on power dis- tance, high on individualism and femininity, low on uncertainty avoidance, and characterized by internal environmental orientation. Also, this type of leader- ship might be suitable in societies whose members have a low regard for hierarchy and an inclination to bypass the chain of command. Hofstede (1983) revealed an association between small power distance and high individualism, and this combination typifies first-world nations.

Consideration

A modicum of consideration might be viewed as a universal requirement. Leaders, therefore, in societies that score high on assertiveness and masculinity and low on humane orientation would be expected to dis- play some consideration. These leaders would be expected to display less consideration, however, when they are compared to leaders in societies that score high on femininity and humane orientation and low on assertiveness. Furthermore, in societies that are high on in-group collectivism, leaders might be encouraged to involve subordinates’ family members in employer- sponsored social gatherings (Javidan & House, 2001).

Concern for Production

Like consideration, leaders in all countries would need to concern themselves with production if they and their organizations are to be competitive in a global marketplace. The concern for production, however, might be more salient for leaders in societies that avoid certainty and have an external environmental orientation. The need for these leaders to demonstrate concern for production might be emphasized further when these cultural attributes are coupled with short-term orientations.

Incentive for Performance

Fischer et al. (2007) have pro

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.