Cultural differences and organizational leadership: Cultural difference as barriers to the trans-cultural application of the concept of organizational leadership

RIT Scholar Works

Theses

Thesis/Dissertation Collections

2003

Cultural differences and organizational leadership:

Cultural difference as barriers to the trans-cultural

application of the concept of organizational

leadership

Jennifer Matic

Follow this and additional works at:

http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Thesis/Dissertation Collections at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion

in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact

ritscholarworks@rit.edu.

Recommended Citation

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AS BARRIERS TO THE

TRANS-CULTURAL ApPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT OF

ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP

by Jennifer Matic

A thesis submitted to the

Faculty of the School of Hospitality and Service Management

at the Rochester Institute of Technology

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

Department of Hospitality and Service Management

Graduate Studies

M.S.

Service Management

Presentation of ThesislProject Findings

Name:

Jennifer Matic

SS#

_ _ _ _ _ Date: May 23, 2003

Title of Research:

Cultural Differences and Organizational Leadership: Cultural

Differences as Barriers to the Trans-Cultural Application of the Concept of

Organizational Leadership

Specific Recommendations: (use other side if necessary)

Thesis Committee: (1)

(2)

OR (3)

Faculty Advisor:

Dr. James Jacobs, Jr.

(Chairperson)

Number of Credits Approved:

Date

Committee Chairperson's Signature

Committee Signature

Note:

This form will not be signed by the Department Chairperson until all corrections,

as suggested in the specific recommendations (above) are completed.

cc.

Department Student Record File - Original

Abstract

This study

examinedthe

impact

ofcultural

differences

onthe trans-cultural applicationofthe

concept of organizational

leadership. The

significance of

four

cultural

dimensions (power

distance,

uncertainty

avoidance,

individualism,

and_masculinity)

(Hofstede,

G., 1980)

towards

theconceptoforganizational

leadership

(Rost,

J.C,

1991)

was

discussed

and a

survey

as created

to test

for

cultural

differences from

a

leadership

perspective.

American

and

Croatian

college studentsthencompletedthesurvey.

Results

showed cultural similarities

for

all cultural

dimensions

withtheexception of

uncertainty

_avoidance,which was

found

to

be higher for

the

American

samplethanthe

Croatian.

Consequently,

it

can

be

saidthatorganizational

leadership

Acknowledgements

I

would

like

tothank

Dr. Damon Revelas

and

Dr. Jim Jacobs for

their

time,

guidance and

encouragement.

Both

provided

feedback

throughout the thesis process;answered numerous

questions; and

helped

meto understandthe

logic surrounding how

athesisshould

be

completed.

Table

of

Contents

Abstract i

Acknowledgements

ii

Table

of

Contents

iii

List

of

Tables

and

Figures

vi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Problem

Statement 2

Purpose

of

Research 2

Limitations 3

Chapter 2: Literature Review 5

What

is Leadership? 8

What

is Culture? 18

How

do Cultures Vary? 22

Culture

in

the

Organization 44

Chapter

3:

Methodology

53

Derivation

and

Description

ofthe

Questions

56

Chapter 4:

Results

63

Comparing

the

American

and

Croatian Samples 63

Demographic

Results 76

Significance

of

Responses

According

to

Gender 78

American Sample 78

Croatian Sample 82

Comparing

Croatian

andAmerican

Men 86

Comparing

Croatian

and

American Women 90

Comparing

Respondents With Work Experience

to

Respondents

Without 94

American

Sample 94

Croatian Sample 96

Significance Relative

toHofstede's

Cultural Dimensions 99

Overall Data

99

Power Distance 101

Uncertainty

Avoidance 102

Individualism 103

Masculinity

104

Sub-group

Data 106

Power Distance 106

Uncertainty

Avoidance 107

Individualism

107

Masculinity

108

Discussion

ofthe

Survey

Questions 110

Chapter

5:

Conclusion

114

Connecting

Cultural

Dimensions to

Leadership

114

Recommendations

for Further Research 118

Bibliography

120

Appendix A:

Survey

Given

to the

Croatian

andAmerican

Samples

122

Appendix B: Hofstede's

Survey

126

List

of

Tables

and

Figures

Tables

Table 2.1

Table

2.2

Table 2.3

Table 2.4

Table 2.5

Table 2.6

Table 2.7

Table 2.8

Table 2.9

Table 2.10

Table 2. 11

Table 2.12

Table

2.13

Table 2.14

Table 2.15

Table

2.16

Table 2.17

Table 2.18

Table 2.19

Summary

of

Definitions

of

Leadership

8

Mechanistic

vs.

Post-Mechanistic Organizational Structure 10

Rost'

s

Definition

of

Leadership

17

Definitions

of

Culture 19

Kluckhohn

and

Strodtbeck's Value Dimensions 24

Cultural Orientations

andtheir

Implications

for Management 26

The Power Distance

Societal Norm 28

Origins

of

Power Distance Norm 29

Consequences

of

National Power Distance Index Differences 30

The

Uncertainty

Avoidance

Societal Norm 32

Origins

of

National

Uncertainty

Avoidance Index Differences 33

Consequences

of

National

Uncertainty

Avoidance Index

Differences 34

The Individualism Societal Norm 36

Origins

of

National

Individualism Index

Differences

37

Consequences

of

National Individualism Index

Differences

38

The

Masculinity

Societal Norm

39

Origins

of

National

Masculinity

Index

Differences

40

Consequences

of

National

Masculinity

Index Differences

41

Table 2.20

Table 2.21

Table 2.22

Table 2.23

Table 4.1

Table 4.2

Table 4.3

Table 4.4

Table 4.5

Table 4.6

Table

4.7

Table 4.8

Table

4.9

Table 4.10

Summary

of

Connotations

of

Power Distance Index Differences Found

in

Survey

Research 46

Summary

of

Connotations

of

Uncertainty

Avoidance Index Differences

Found in

Survey

Research 47

Summary

of

Connotations

ofIndividualism

Index Differences Found in

Survey

and

Related Research 49

Summary

of

Connotations

of

Masculinity

Index Differences Found in

Survey

Research 51

Value Determination

Criteria for Responses

to

Questions 1-10 100

Value

Determination Criteria

for Responses

to

Questions 14

and

16 100

Value Determination Criteria

for Responses

to

Question 15

100

Value Determination Criteria for Responses

to

Questions 17-27 101

Comparison

of

Responses

to

Questions Related

tothe

Dimension

of

Power Distance 101

Comparison

of

Responses

to

Questions Related

to the

Dimension

of

Uncertainty

Avoidance 102

Comparison

of

Responses

to

Questions Related

to the

Dimension

of

Individualism

103

Comparison

of

Responses

to

Questions Related

to the

Dimension

of

Masculinity

104

Comparison

of

Responses

to

Questions

Related

to the

Dimension

of

Power DistanceSubgroups

106

Comparison

of

Responses

to

Questions Related

to the

Dimension

of

Table

4.11

Comparison

of

Responses

to

Questions Related

to the

Dimension

of

Individualism

Subgroups 108

Table 4.12

Comparison

of

Responses

to

Questions Related

to the

Dimension

of

Masculinity

Subgroups 109

Table 5.1

Summary

of

Cultural Determinations 114

Figures

Figure 4. 1

Comparison

of

American

and

Croatian Responses

to

Question 1 1

68

Figure 4.2

Comparison

ofthe

Importance

of

Work Values

#1

-

1 0 for

the

American

and

Croatian Samples 69

Figure 4.3

Type

of

Manager Preferred

by

the

American

and

Croatian Samples 70

Figure 4.4

Most Common Managerial Style in

the

United

States

and

Croatia 71

Figure 4.5

Comparison

of

Demographic Information for Croatian

and

American

Samples 77

Figure 4.6

Comparison

ofthe

Responses

ofthe

American Men

and

Women

to

Question 1 1

79

Figure

4.7

Comparison

ofthe

Importance

of

Work Values

#1-10 for

the

American

Men

and

Women

80

Figure

4.8

Comparison

ofthe

Responses

ofthe

Croatian Men

and

Women

to

Question 1 1

83

Figure

4.9

Comparison

ofthe

Importance

of

Work

Values #1-10 for

the

Croatian

Men

and

Women

84

Figure

4.10

Comparison

ofthe

Responses

of

American

and

Croatian

Men

to

Figure

4.11

Comparison

ofthe

Importance

of

Work Values # 1

-

1 0

for

the

American

and

Croatian

Men 88

Figure

4.12

Comparison

ofthe

Responses

ofthe

American

and

Croatian Women

to

Question

1 1 91

Figure 4.13

Comparison

ofthe

Importance

of

Work Values #1-10 for

the

American

and

Croatian Women 92

Figure 4. 14

Comparison

ofthe

Responses

of

Americans With

and

Without

Work

Experience

to

Question 1 1

95

Figure 4.15

Comparison

ofthe

Importance

of

Work Values 1

-

1 0

for

Americans

With

and

Without Work Experience 96

Figure 4.16

Comparison

of

Responses

of

Croatians With

and

Without Work

Experience

to

Question 1 1 97

Figure

4.17

Comparison

ofthe

Importance

of

Work Values # 1

-

1

0

for

Croatians

Chapter 1:

Introduction

Research has

shownthatcultures

differ

from

each other.

Even seemingly

similar

cultures can

have

fundamental

differences,

differences

which shapethe

way

the

individual

thinks,

acts,and perceivestheworld around

him

or

her. As

a_result,conceptsthatseem

logical

and naturaltoone person can seem

illogical

andunnaturalto another.

If

we

begin

to thinkof culture

in

regardsto

knowledge

itself,

is

it

possiblethat theories

and concepts reflecttheculture

in

which

they

are

developed? If

cultureaffects our

thoughts,

actionsandperceptions,

it

seems certainthat

they

do.

Going

a

step

further,

if

thesesame

concepts and

ideas,

reflective oftheculture

in

which

they

were _created, are

"transplanted"

into

a

different

_{culture, what,}

if

_anything,

happens? Is it

possiblethat thecultural

differences

which exist

between

theculture

in

which

they

were

developed

andthat

in

which

they

are now

applied can

negatively impact

theacceptance ofthese concepts and

ideas,

orperhaps even

affecttheirvalidity?

This

thesis

is

concernedwithone concept

in

particularorganizational

leadership. The

idea

of organizational

leadership,

or

leadership

in

_{the workplace,} originatedand was

developed in

the

United

States; indeed,

leadership

at work

is generally

accepted as valuable

in

themodernAmericanorganization.

However,

theconcept

itself

is

notstatic.

As

partofthe

currenttransformation

from

the

industrial

organizationalparadigmto thepost-industrial

organizational paradigm now_underway

in

the

United

States,

the

meaning

of

leadership

at

work

is

changing.

Long

synonymous with_management,

leadership

is

now

being

understood

as aseparateset of

behaviors

not_necessarily

linked

to

being

in

charge and

issuing

orders.

Instead

of

being

aboutthe

individual,

it

is

aboutthe group;

instead

of

being

about_power,

it is

about_management;

instead

of

being

only

for

CEOs

and upper_managers,

it is

becoming

Viewed

from

an

international

_perspective,thisnew

leadership

could

be

understoodas

both emerging from

and

reflecting

the

reality

ofthe

American

workplace.

Both

the

American

worker's expectation of empowerment andthecurrent emphasis onjnnovation

(and

the

flexible

and adaptable organizationwhich

innovation

requires) arewell suited

by

thisnew

leadership.

Symbiotic

with

American

culture and

designed

to

be

highly

effective

in

the

American

workplace,canthisconcept of

leadership

be

aseffective

in

therest oftheworld?

Problem Statement:

Cultural differences may

posea

barrier

to thetrans-culturalapplication oftheconcept

of organizational

leadership.

Purpose

of

Research:

The

purposeofthisresearch

is

tomore

fully

understand cultural

barriers

thatoccur

whenaconcept

is

transferred

from

oneculturetoanother.

This

increased

understanding may

then

be

usedtoeither remove or minimizethese

barriers,

or

conversely modify

_{the concept,}

Limitations

The

following

factors

may

have limited

theresearch

findings

ofthisproject:

1)

This

survey

measured cultural

dimensions

in

undergraduatecollege students,who

were_all,withtheexception of one

American,

undertheageof

3 1

.

Additionally,

freshmen

students were

exclusively

used

in

the

Croatian

sample,resulting

in

a

lower

average age

for

the

Croatians (under

20)

than

for

the

American

sample

(20-30

yearsof

age).

As

stated

in

thesection on_culture,cultural_programmingcontinuesto

develop

withtheexperiences of

life,

posing

a

limit

to

applying

conclusions

drawn

from

this

sampletotherespective national populationsas awhole.

2)

Because

ofthe

barrier

posed

by

ACMT's

tuitionrates

(yearly

tuition

is

roughly

equivalentto theaverage

yearly salary in

Croatia,

withno government-funded

financial

aid_available),thestudent

body

of

ACMT

is

made

up

largely

of students

from

theupper class of

Croatia. This potentially

skewstheircultural

programming

away from

thenorm

for Croatian

undergraduate students asa group.

3)

Recent

events

in

the

United

States,

particularly

theterroristattacks of

September 1 1

,

2001

andthe

accompanying

economic_recession,

may

affecttheresponses ofthe

American

sample,

particularly

relatedto the

dimension

of

uncertainty

avoidance.

4)

The ACMT

sample

have

all chosento attend an

American

educational

institution,

which

may indicate

mental_programmingmoresimilarto the

American

samplethan

would

be

true of

Croatians

in

general.

5)

The ACMT

sample completeda

survey

written

in

English,

a

language

that

is

nottheir

6)

The basis for

the

logic

ofthe

survey

is

over

20

years old;

it is

possiblethatsome ofthe

methods

discovered

atthe time

for

determining

cultural

dimensions

areno

longer

reliable.

7)

The

researcher adapted severalquestions

designed

to testcultural

dimensions

in

employees

in

orderto

fit her

sample ofundergraduate students.

This may

have

unintentionally

compromisedthevalueofthequestions.

Limitations

relatedtosurveys

in

general:

1)

The

acquiescence

factor pertaining

to questions

1-10.

Acquiescence

is

the

tendency

to

give a positive answerto

any

_question,regardlessof

its

content.

Given

acquiescence,

the

best way

toresolvethisproblem

is

torankthequestions relativetoeachother

in

additionto

assessing

theresponses giventoa particular question.

Question 1 1

ofthe

survey

attemptstocompensate

for

any

acquiescence

in

theanswersto

Questions 1-10.

2)

Respondents

are more

likely

to answeraquestion

truthfully

if

aresearcherasksthem

toassess others

instead

ofthemselves.

A

mix of questionstyles was used

in

orderto

overcomethispotential

limitation.

3)

Respondents

sometimes selecttheanswerthat

they

believe

theresearcher

is

looking

for

ratherthanthatwhich

is actually

mosttruthful.

Chapter 1 introduced

theproblemto

be

treated

in

this

thesis,

namely

thatcultural

differences

may

posea

barrier

to thetrans-culturalapplicationoftheconcept of organizational

leadership.

The

nextchapter will provideamore complete

description

oftheconcept of organizational

leadership,

aswellas a

brief

overviewofspecific areas of cultural

differences

(called

cultural

Chapter

2:

Literature

Review

In

Chapter

1,

theproblemto

be

studied

in

thisresearch,

namely

thatcultural

differences

may

pose a

barrier

to thetrans-culturalapplicationoftheconceptof organizational

leadership,

was

identified

and

introduced.

Chapter 2

will serveto more

fully

explainthe

evolving

conceptoforganizational

leadership

as well as

identify

areas of cultural

difference

(called

cultural

dimensions).

In

today'sworld of globalization and_mergers,theorganizational

landscape

is

changing.

Multi-national

organizations

(organizations

which

employ individuals from

more

than three

different

cultures)

as well as what are called

"foreign

culture"

organizations

(organizations

from

one culture which operate

in

a second

host culture)

are

becoming

increasingly

common.

In

these

kinds

of_{organizations,}

it is

becoming increasingly

clearthat

culture

does have

an

impact

on organizational

life

(Adler,

1997).

After

_{all, the}world

is

a mosaic of

different

_cultures,

different

people.

The

old

saying

that

"No

twopeopleare

alike"

is

certainly

true.

However,

when

individuals

are examined as

a_group,

it is

possibleto

identify

distinct

cultures.

Culture

is

our

(usually

unconscious)

mental

programming,

"the

acquired

knowledge

peopleuseto

interpret

experience and generate

behavior,"

(Spradley, 1980,

p.

6).

Culture dictates how

weprocessandevaluate

information,

is

the

basis for

understandingand

interpreting

theexperiences of

day-to-day

life;

and

it

has

been

shownthat this

knowledge

varies

from group

_{to group,}

creating

theseparate culturesthat

make

up

theworld.

Anthropologists

have

shownthatculture

is demonstrated in

the

individual's

values,

perceptions,

behaviors,

and attitudes

(Spradley,

1980; Adler,

1997). Thus if

cultures are

different (and

they

are),

individuals

from

these

different

cultures

may

have different

values,

approach

life in different

ways.

It

seems quiteprobablethatmulti-national and

foreign

culture

organizations

may

experience cultural

friction

andmisunderstandings

between

employees

from

different

cultures.

Multi-national

and

foreign

cultureorganizations which adopta synergistic approachto

culture

have

a

distinct

advantage and a

huge

resource

in

theirculturalrichness.

Connected

to

suchtheoriesas requisite

variety

and organizational

learning,

the

basic

idea is

that

by

employing

people who

have different

values, perceptions,

behaviors,

and attitudes

(the

manifestations of_culture), organizations are ableto

look

atthesame situation

differently,

becoming

more creative and

innovative.

As

we will see when

examining Hofstede 's fifth

dimension

of culture

later in

this chapter,weare

limited

by

"cultural

blinders"

of which we

arenot even aware.

These

"blinders"

limit

the

way

we perceivetheworld as wellasthe

number of solutionswecan generate

for

one givenproblem.

When

peoplewith

different

sets

of

"cultural

blinders"work

together,

_{the scopes,}as

it

_{were, overlap,}

resulting in

a

huge

organizational

capacity for

innovation

and creativity.

Both

reasonsstated_above,

namely

thatcultural

diversity

in

organizations

is

simultaneously

a potentialproblem andsignificant_resource,arevalid reasons

for

examining

the

impact

ofculture ontheorganization.

But

there

is

one more variablethatwe

haven't

yet considered.

Who

influences how

an

organization should

function? The fact

is

that,

intentionally

or_not,

it

is

quite oftenthe

United

States.

The United States

producesthevast

majority

of organizational

theory

and application

(Adler, 1997; Hofstede,

1980). While

this

knowledge may be intended

for

application

in

the

United

States,

in

reality

it is

exportedthroughouttheworld.

People in

other countries

trying

to

improve

theirorganizationsorto

learn how

organizations should

function

often accept

could

be

arguedthat thissituation

is both

limiting

andunnatural.

It

is

limiting

because it

denies

theadvantages oftheculture where

it is

being

implemented

(and

oftenmagnifiesthe

already

existing

"inferiority

complex"

thatexists

in

many

developing

nations); and

it is

unnatural

because

it

creates a

framework

for

the

functioning

oftheorganizationthat

does

not

reflect_{the values,}

perceptions,

behaviors,

and attitudesofthepeople

working in it

or of

its

environment.

Many

studies

have

already

shownthatculture

does

affecttheapplicationof

American

organizational

theory

elsewhere

in

theworld

(Dorfman &

Howell, 1988; Sikavica, 1996;

Haire,

Edwin &

Porter,

1963). In

this study,wewill

focus

onone

branch

oforganizational

theory,

namely

theconcept of organizational

leadership. Cultural differences between

Croatians

and

Americans

will

be

examined.

Finally,

thisresearch will attempttoascertainthe

impact

ofthese cultural

differences

ontheapplication ofthe

(American)

leadership

paradigm.

Testing

of organizational

leadership

theory

cross-culturally is

not_new;

however,

while

anexhaustive search

has

not

been

undertaken, all

existing

studies

discovered in

thecourse of

conducting background

research

for

the thesisrelatetothe

industrial

model.

They

either

equate

leadership

withgood management ortestvarious non-transformational

leadership

theories.

Still,

the

fact

thatthese studies

did find

some

difference

in applying

organizational

leadership

theory

in

different

cultures

indicates

that

it

would

be

worthwhileto test

post-industrial

leadership

aswell.

By

examining

the

impact

ofcultureontheconcept of organizational

leadership,

we

willmore

fully

understandtherole ofculture

in

_{organizations, the}potential

limitations

ofthe

leadership

paradigm, and

possibly

contributetowards themodification ofthisparadigmtoone

What

is

Leadership?

Historically,

theconceptof

leadership

has been linked

_primarilyto

military

or political

figures.

It

was not untilthe20th

century

that the

idea

of

leadership

in

organizations emerged.

Since

then the

idea has

gained_popularity,

particularly in

the

last 20

to

30

years.

But

what

exactly

is leadership?

This is

aquestionthat

is

still

being

answered.

According

to

Bass,

theconceptof

leadership

is

both

broadly

and

imprecisely

defined

(Bass,

1990). In

the vast

Handbook of

Leadership,

leadership

has

been

grouped

into

the theoreticalcategories

illustrated in Table

2. 1

.

These

groupings

map

thestagesthat the

study

of

leadership

has

gonethrough

in

the

last

century.

Please

notethatthese

definitions

referto

leadership

in

general, and not

specifically

to

leadership

in

organizations.

Table 2.1

Summary

of

definitions

of

leadership

Leadership

as:

A Focusof

Group

Processes Theleaderisthecenter of_{group activity;}

leadership

exists as afunctionof thegroup.

Personality

andits Effects This includes earlytheoriessuch as"Great-Man"and"TraitsTheory."

Leadership

occursbecausesome peoplehavethe_personalityortraits that are requisitefor leadership.

The Artof

Inducing

Compliance Thefocalpointinthis

theory

isthe

leader;

hehasthe_abilitytomake others

dowhathewantsthem todo.

The ExerciseofInfluence Aleader isone whoisabletoinfluenceotherstoworktowardsa goal.

An ActorBehavior This includessuchtheoriesas"ExcellenceTheory"

Leadership

is defined

astheacts orbehaviorof a recognizedleaderwhileinvolvedin

directing

groupactivities.

Thus,

once a personis determinedtobea

leader,

_anything thatpersondoeswhile

directing

othersisconsideredleadership.

A FormofPersuasion Heretheleader successfullygainscooperationfromothers, butthrough persuasion ratherthan theexercise of power.

A Power Relation This

theory

examinestherole of powerin leadership. Leadersget other peopletodowhat

they

want

by

_usingtheirpowertoinfluencethem.

An InstrumentofGoal Achievement

Thus includessuchtheoriesas"TransformationalLeadership"

Leaders

motivate othersthroughvisions of goalstobeachieved and methodsto achievethatgoal;through_{communicating}this_vision,

they

motivatetheir

followerstoworktowards_achievingthatgoal.

An

Emerging

EffectofInteraction Leadersarise out oftheinteractionswithin a group. The_groupselects who willleadthem.

groupvalidates as

being

inaccordancewiththerole ofleader.

TheInitiationofStructure

Leadership

istheprocess of

initiating

andmaintainingtherole structure (patternof rolerelationships).

ACombinationofElements Asa combination oftwoor more oftheabove.

Note. AdaptedfromBassand_{Stogdill 's Handbook of}Leadership:

Theory,

Research, andManagerial

Applications(3rd

ed.) (pp. 1

1-18),

by

Bernard M.

Bass, 1990,

New York: Free Press.

It

seems clearthat

leadership

occurs whenoneperson causes anotherto act.

The

main

areas of

difference

regard

how

the

leader

emerges

(whether because

ofthe

individual,

orthe

group,or as a result of

interaction between

the

two)

andthemethodthe

leader

utilizes

in

causing

followers

toact

(power,

_persuasion,

influence).

While

theabovetheoriesrelateto

leadership

is

general,

it is easy

tosee

how

they

can

be

applied

in

theorganizational world.

Indeed,

overtheyears the

study

of

leadership

has

shifted

from

being

primarily

relatedto

military

andpolitical

figures

to

being

_primarilyrelated

to

leadership

in

theorganization.

The last

several

decades

have

seenthe

rising popularity

ofthe

idea

of

leadership

in

the

workplace.

The

numberof

books

and articles written onthesubject

has

increased

dramatically;

organizations

have

spentmillionson

training

theirmanagersto

"be

leaders";

indeed,

it is

accepted

today,

at

least

in

the

United

States,

that

leadership

belongs in

organizations

(Rost,

1991).

Despite

the

degree

towhich

leadership

has

been

_embraced,

it

is

safeto

say

that true

leadership

remains_relativelyrare.

While

thereare

many

reasons

for

this,

twoofthemost

compelling

and most oftencited are:

1)

that themechanisticorganizational structureof

nearly

allAmericanorganizations_actually

limits

ratherthanpromotes

leadership

_and,

2)

that

leadership

itself

is

too

imprecisely defined,

not

easily

_understood,and often contradictory.

Both

ofthesethemesareprevalent

in

themostrecent

(last 20 years)

published workson

leadership. Before

we

look

more

closely

atsomeof

these,

it is

worthwhiletounderstand

The

first

problem relatesto thestructureof organizations

in

the

United States

and

much oftheworld.

Born in

the

industrial

_{revolution, the}model

for

organizations

is

mechanistic

in

_nature,

meaning

thatorganizations are

designed

torun

like

machines

(Morgan,

1998).

As

illustrated

in Table

2.2,

themechanisticandpost-mechanistic organizationsare

fundamentally

different.

Table 2.2

Mechanistic

vs. post-mechanistic organizational structure

Mechanistic Post-Mechanistic

Structure

Hierarchy

Circular

Guiding

Principle Control Aligned Values

MethodofMotivation Transactional Vision

System Characteristic

Static,

rigid

Innovative,

fluid

Purpose

Monetary

Profit Serve

Employees/Community

Note. BasedonServant

Leadership,

by

Robert K.

Greenleaf, 1991, Mahwah,

NJ: Paulist

Press;

Leaderto

Leader:

Enduring

Insightson

Leadership

fromtheDrucker Foundation's

Award-Winning

Journal,

edited

by

Frances Hesselbeinand Paul M.

Cohen, 1999,

San Franscisco:

Jossey-Bass;

_{The Leader of}the

Future,

edited

by

Frances

Hesselbein,

MarshallGoldsmith & Richard

Beckhard,

1996,

San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass;

and_{Images of}

Organization:theInternational BestsellerthatRevolutionized HowWe SeeOrganization

Newly

Abridgedfor

Today's Manager (Executive

Edition), 1998,

San Francisco: Berrett-KoehlerandThousand Oaks: SAGE.

The

mechanistic organization

is

designed

torun

smoothly

and

consistently

throughas

much

planning

and_controllingaspossible.

Job

specifications

for

thosewho

actually

do

the

workare

very

narrow; theposition

has been

pre-described,andthe

individual

is

supposedto

complete

his

or

her

_{tasks according to the}guidelines.

Management

is

responsible

for

thinking

and

for

controlling

theemployees

they

supervise.

Other

managers managethesemanagers.

Post-mechanistic

organizations,

ontheother

hand,

remove

both

theseparation

between

thinking

and

doing

andtheelement of control.

The

approachto theemployeeofthe

company

is

fundamentally

different.

An

important

criteriontaken

into

account when

hiring

anew

employee

is his

or

her

values andthe

degree

towhichthesevalues are

in

alignment withthe

values oftheorganization.

The

idea

is

thatall oftheemployees willworktogethertowards

goalsthat

they

believe

in,

towardsgoals whichreflecttheir values.

The

employee

is

also

given

back

therightto

both

thinkand_act, andthe structure oftheorganization

facilitates

creativity

and

innovation

by being

circular andnon-hierarchical.

The

organizationasa whole

is

more

fluid

and_adaptive,asthepeoplewithin

it

areabletoanalyzethesituation,

determine

what changes should

be

made,and communicatethesechangesthroughouttheorganization.

Change

outside of one'sparticularareaof

influence

is

achievedthroughthe

leadership

of

peoplethroughout theorganizationwho enlistthecooperation ofothers

by

_{communicating}

theirvision

for

changetothem.

Other

employeescometo acceptthisvisionastheirown and

work withthe

leader(s)

and other

followers

towards

making

thatchange

happen.

The

purpose oftheorganization

is something

beyond

making

_money, some

higher

purpose

reflecting

thevaluesofthepeople who make

up

theorganization.

Money

stillneeds

to

be

made

for

theorganizationto

function,

but

this

becomes

a

secondary

goal or a

by-product

of

fulfilling

the

primary

goal.

As

mentioned_previously,

many have

cometo

believe

that true

leadership

has

difficulty

existing

in

mechanistic organizations.

In

mechanistic

organizations,

leadership

is

equatedwithmanagement,and managersaresupposedto

be

leaders.

However,

thesystem

makes

it

difficult for

even managersto

be

leaders. The

system

isolates

and overworks

them;

the separation

between

thinking

and

doing

often

deprives

themofthe

information

and

expertise

they

need

in

orderto

decide

where change

is

needed and

how

thatshould

be

short-term

producers,

not visionaries.

The

maximthat

"what

gets rewardedgetsdone"

is

truetothe

degree

that thosewho

facilitate

thegoal oftheorganizationtomake

money in

theshort-term

are rewarded

instead

ofthosewho

creatively

examineandseektochangetheorganizationto

ensure

long-term

_{success and viability.}

The

second area of concern

regarding

implementing leadership

in

today's

organizations

is

confusion

regarding

what

exactly

is

leadership. While

it

may be

acceptedthat

leadership

in

theworkplace

is

desirable,

it is

sometimes

difficult

toachieve

due

tothe

fact

that

the concept of

leadership

is

imprecisely

defined

andoften misunderstood

(Rost,

1991).

How

does

one

become

a

leader?

This

is

thequestionthatso

many

want answered.

As

one example of

how difficult

it

can

be

toanswerthis

seemingly

simplequestion,

try

this.

Here

is

Rost's

"tongue-in-cheek"

definition

ofa

leader designed

tosummarizethemost

significant

leadership

theories ofthepast century:

leaders

are

"great

men and women with

certain preferredtraitswho

influence

followers

to

do

whatthe

leaders

wish

in

ordertoachieve

group/organizational goalsthatreflect excellence

defined

as some

kind

of

higher-order

effectiveness,"

(Rost, 1991,

p.

95). Now

go

become

a

leader!

Not

so_easy,

is

it? Once

you

have been

exposedto the

different

theories summarized

in

Table

2. 1

,

it is

easy

tospotthem.

Look

atthe

definition

again,withtheadded

inserts:

leaders

are

"great

menandwomen

(personality

and

its

effects)

with certain preferredtraits

(personality

and

its

effects)

who

influence

followers (the

exerciseof

influence)

to

do

whatthe

leaders

wish

(the

art of

inducing

compliance) in

ordertoachieve group/organizational goals

(an instrument

of goal

achievement)

thatreflect excellence

(an

actor

behavior)

defined

as

some

kind

of

higher-order

effectiveness

(an

act or

behavior),"

(Rost, 1991,

p.

95).

Exploring

aconceptviaresearch andthecreationand

testing

of varioustheories

is

part

ofacademic_{understanding}andprogress.

However,

thegreatest number of people

interested

academic

journals

to

find

out more about

leadership,

they

readthe

books

andarticles

designed

for

the

business

professional.

For

theaverage

business

person

interested

in

becoming

a

leader,

theamount of

information

on

leadership

is

vast, confusing,

frequently

superficial, and

often contradictory.

Additionally,

themost common

definition

of

leadership,

though

de

facto,

is

that

leadership

is

good management

(Rost,

1991). This definition

reflectsthemechanistic

organizational

paradigm,

which considers

leadership

to

be

partof management.

That

this

is

truecan

easily

be

seen

in

nearly

all

but

themost recent

literature

dealing

with

leadership,

to

the

degree

that the terms

leadership

andmanagement/leader and manager are used

interchangeably. (The

article

What

the

Leaders of Tomorrow See

(Dumaine, 1989)

is just

one

of

many

examples oftheerasure ofthe

line between

leadership

and management).

Commonly

assumed

in

today'smechanistic _{organizations, this}

definition denies

the

difference

between

managementand

leadership

andconfusesthose

attempting

tounderstand

leadership

by blurring

or

erasing

completely

the

line between

the two.

The

mostrecent

developments

in

the

field

of organizational

leadership

have

advocated

both

a newtypeoforganizationalstructure and a more precise

definition

of

leadership.

Burns'

theory

oftransactionalandtransformational

leadership

laid

thegroundwork

for

most

ofthe

ideas

about organizational

leadership

thatexisttoday.

Here

is

the

basic idea:

two

kinds

of

leadership,

or methodsof_motivation,exist.

One is

transactional,

theothertransformational.

Transactional

leadership

occurswhena

leader

motivates anemployeetoact

in

acertain

way

by

exchanging

tangiblerewards

for

the

desired

behavior.

An

exampleofthiswould

be

a

leader

thatwantsan employeeto

finish

a project

ahead ofschedule.

The leader

tells theemployeethat

he

or she willreceive a

30%

bonus

if he

ahead of schedule

in

exchange

for

thereward ofa

30%

bonus.

The bonus

is

exchanged

for

the

early

completionoftheproject.

Transformational

leadership

identified

a

different

way

tomotivate employees.

Burns

originally defined

transformational

leadership

as

"when

oneormorepersons engage with

each other

in

sucha

way

that

leaders

and

followers

raise one anotherto

higher

levels

of

motivation and

morality,"

(Rost

1991,

p.

101). In

transformational

leadership,

the

leaders

and

followers,

through

interaction,

change ortransformeach other

in

a positiveway.

While Burn's

intended

for

his

theoriesoftransactionalandtransformational

leadership

to

be

taken togetherand regarded as

complimentary,

his

theory

oftransformational

leadership

has

become

whatmost associatewithorganizational

leadership

today

(Bass,

1990).

Transformational

leaders

'challenged

the process,

inspired

vision, enabled othersto act,

modeled_{the way,} and

"encouraged

theheart,'"

(Bass, 1990,

p.

218). It

is

easy

tosee

how

the

idea

oftransformational

leadership

fits

in

well withthepost-mechanistic organizational

structure

described

onpages

10

and

1 1

.

Transformational

leadership

calls on otherstoact

for

some

higher

_purpose,

in

alignmentwiththevaluesofthose

involved.

Greenleaf

bases his

definitive

book Servant Leader

onthetransformational

theory

of

leadership. Greenleaf defined

a

leader

asone who acts

in

orderto serve others.

"A

new moral

principle

is

emerging

which

holds

that the

only

_authority

deserving

one'sallegiance

is

that

which

is

freely

and

knowingly

granted

by

the

led

tothe

leader

in

response

to,

and

in

proportion

to,

the

clearly

evident servant statureoftheleader,"

(Greenleaf, 1991,

p.

10).

In Servant

Leader,

leadership

becomes

synonymouswith

serving

and

serving

itself

becomes

moral.

Those

who are ableto

lead have

a_{responsibility to}

do

so.

According

to

Greenleaf,

thegreatest

enemy

of

society

today

arethosewhoareableto

lead,

but do

not

Greenleaf

categorizes people asthosewho can

lead

andthosewho cannot.

Those

who

cannot,

in

other wordsthepool of potential

followers,

will

only

supportthosewho

they

feel

are

1)

strong

enoughto

lead; 2)

have

a goalthat

they

feel

is

worthy

pursuing;and

3)

who

truly

serveothers.

The leader

thenmakesthepotential

followers

real

followers,

transforming

them

in

theprocess.

"It

is

partoftheenigmaof

human

naturethat the"typical"person-

immature,

stumbling,

inept,

lazy-is

capable of great

dedication

and

heroism //wisely led.

Many

otherwiseable people are

disqualified

to

lead because

they

cannot workwithandthrough the

half-people

who are allthereare.

The

secret of

institution

building

is

to

be

abletoweld a

teamof such people

by lifting

them

up

to growtaller than

they

wouldotherwisebe,"

(Greenleaf, 1991,

p.

21).

Very

importantly,

Servant Leader

argues

for

both

anew

kind

of organization aswell

as a new

kind

of organizational structure.

According

to

Greenleaf,

leading by

serving is

not

only

the

responsibility

ofthe

individual but

ofthe organizationaswell.

However,

the

organizational structureofmodernorganizations

inhibits

leadership,

largely

due

to

its

hierarchical

system and emphasis on control

(Greenleaf,

1991).

Servant Leader

is

limited, however,

in

its

seemingly

conflicted viewaboutwho can

lead.

On

one

hand,

Greenleaf

claims

it is

the

responsibility

ofthe trustees oftheorganization

to

lead

theorganization

in

its function

of serving.

Managers

cannotserve as

leaders due

to the

unnatural and

heavy

demands

oftheirposition;others cannot

lead because

they

aretoo

involved in

theadministration oftheorganization.

However,

delegating leadership

to trustees

limits

thepossibilities

for

leadership

in

the

organization.

It

also seemsto

be

in

conflict withtheobligationof all who can

lead

to

do

so as

professedelsewhere

in

the

book. The

moral aspect of

being

aservant

leader

could also

be

consideredaweakness;

morality

is

subjective, and,

from

aglobal_perspective,what

may

seem

Despite this,

Servant

Leader is

significant

for its

development

ofthetransformational

concept of

leadership,

its

call

for

thosewho can

lead

to

do

so,

its

emphasisonthe

responsibility

ofthe

individual

to

society

as a_{whole, the}concept of organizationsthatserve,

and

its

recognition ofthe

limitations

ofthemechanistic organizational paradigm.

Another

_author,

Joseph

C.

Rost,

further developed

the

idea

ofanew

leadership

for

a

new organizational structure.

His definition

of

leadership

is designed

to

be

part ofthe

post-industrial

(post-mechanistic)

organization which

he

saw emerging.

While recognizing

that the

industrial

(mechanistic)

organizational paradigm

is

out

dated

and

has

out-lived

its

effectiveness, Rost

dedicated

the

majority

ofthe

book

to

establishing

a

working

definition

of

leadership.

Leadership

for

the21s'

Century

is

theproduct

of

Rost's

analysisof over

nearly 600

books,

_chapters, and

journal

articleswritten onthe topic

of

leadership. Rost

reviewedthis

literature

withthepurpose of

identifying

how

leadership

has

been defined in

thepast.

Following

thisexhaustive assessment,

Rost

concludedthat

leadership

is

imprecisely

defined

andthat the

majority

oftheauthorswho wroteabout

leadership

failed

to

define it.

Rost

also concluded

that,

in

_{reality, the}unofficial

but

real

definition

of

leadership

was as good

management.

Recognizing

theneed

for

a_working

definition

of

leadership,

rejecting

the

de

facto definition

as

invalid in

thepost-industrial_{organization,}

Rost

createdthe

following

definition,

the

definition

thatwill

be

used

in

thisthesis:

"an

influence relationship among

leaders

and

followers

who

intend

real changesthatreflecttheirmutual

purposes,"

(Rost, 1991,

p.

103). As Rost

states, each word

in

his definition

waschosen

for

a specificreason.

Table

2.3,

a

direct

quote

from

Leadership

for

the 21st

Century,

further

describes Rost's definition

of

leadership.

Rost

arguesthat thecurrent

industrial

paradigm

has

outlived

its

usefulness,

and

is

in

defined

as good management

in

the

industrial

paradigm,

_that

definition

has

_{also proved}

outdated.

Rost's

new

definition

of

leadership

_{anticipates and}

is designed for

_thisnew

post-industrial

organizational paradigm.

Table 2.3

Rost's definition

of

leadership

"Leadership

isan_{influence relationship amongleadersandfollowerswhointendrealchanges}

thatreflecttheirmutual purposes.

"Fromthis

definition,

therearefouressentialelementsthatmustbepresentif

leadership

existsorisoccurring:

1. The

relationship is basedoninfluence.

a. The_{influence relationship is}multi-directional.

b. Theinfluence behaviorsare not coercive.

2. Leadersandfollowersarethepeopleinthisrelationship.

a. Thefollowersare active.

b. Theremustbemorethanone

follower,

andthereis_typicallymorethanone

leader intherelationship.

c. _{The relationship is}

inherently

unequalbecausetheinfluencepatterns are

unequal.

3. Leadersandfollowers intendreal changes.

a. Intendmeansthat theleadersandfollowers_{purposefully desire}certain changes.

b. Realmeansthat thechangestheleadersandfollowersintendmustbe

substantive andtransforming.

c. Leadersandfollowersdonothavetoproduce changesinorderfor

leadership

to

occur.

They

intendchangesinthe present; thechangestakeplaceinthefuture

if

they

takeplace at all.

d. Leadersandfollowersintendseveral changes at once.

4. Leadersandfollowers

develop

mutual purposes.

a. _{The mutuality}ofthesepurposesis forged inthenon-coerciveinfluence

relationships

b. Leadersandfollowers

develop

purposes,notgoals.

c. The intendedchanges_reflect,not_{realize, their}purposes.

d. Themutualpurposesbecomecommon

purposes."

Note. From

Leadership

forthe 21s'

Century

(pp.

102-103),

by

Joseph C.

Rost, 1991,

New York: Praeger.

While Rost's definition

providesavaluable

framework for

leadership

in

the

post-industrial

paradigm,

it leaves

unstated

how

one emergesas a

leader

in

the

leader-follower

relationship

andunderplaysthetransformationalaspect of

leadership.

Two

variables

determine

who

is

a

leader

and who

is

not: the

individual

andthe

developed him

or

herself

to the

degree

where

he

or she

is

ableto

lead,

and must

be in

a

situation where

his

or

her

common purpose

is in

alignmentwiththatofthepotential

followers. In industrial

paradigm

terms,

study

oftheemergenceof

leadership

indicated

that

quiteoftenthe

leader

who emerged wastheonewho

first

acceptedandadvocatedthegroup's

(sometimes unrecognized)

goals.

In

post-industrial

terms,

the

individual

who

is

ABLE to

lead

and who can articulate a_vision, which either

is

or

becomes

shared

by

_{the group,}emerges

as a

leader.

A

key

to

leadership

in

thepost-industrial paradigm

is

thepersonal

development

ofthe

leader

(Hesselbein,

Frances

&

Cohen, 1999; Bennis,

1989).

Interestingly,

the

post-industrial

paradigm

itself is

centered onthe

development

of all_employees,a prerequisite

for

leadership.

In

this timewhen

many

acknowledgethat the

very

nature of organizationsthemselves

is

undergoing

fundamental

change,

leadership

tooseemsto

be

changing.

Accepted

as

belonging

in

_{the workplace,}understoodas

distinct from

management, transformational

leadership

holds

the

key

to

increased productivity

at aminimum and a new

way

of

working

at

a maximum.

However,

as

previously

stated, thisconcept of

leadership

is

largely

American

in

nature.

How

thenwill cultural

differences impact leadership? In

orderto considerthis

questionmore

fully,

a

brief

overviewofculture and

previously identified

cultural

dimensions

is

necessary.

What is Culture?

Several definitions

ofculture are given

in

Table 2.4 (p.

19),

but

in

essence,culture

is

the

learned

programming

of

our minds.

It

is

learned,

not_genetic, and

develops

asan attempttomake sense oftheworld we

live in.

Because

it is

learned,

it

arises

from

ourexperiences,

relationships,

andthe

value,

how

to

behave,

and

how

tounderstandother people and

his

or

her

environment.

A

very young

child

does

not

know if

astuffed

toy

is

more

dangerous

thana

hot

_stove;

if

people

can

be

good or

bad;

which of

his

or

her

behaviors

will

be

_rewarded,which will

be

ridiculed.

All

ofthis

is learned

and reinforced over

time,

from

family,

from

experiences,

from

the

environment

in

whichthatchild

lives.

Table 2.4

Definitions

of culture

"The

acquired

knowledge

people useto

interpret

experience and generate

behavior."

(Spradley, 1980,

p.

6)

"Complex meaning

systems"

used

by

people

"to

organizetheir

behavior,

to understand

themselvesand

others,

andtomake sense out oftheworld

in

which

they

live."

(Spradley,

1980,

p.

5)

"The

collective

programming

ofthemindthat

distinguishes

themembers of one

category

of people

from

thoseof

another."

(Hofstede, 1988,

p.

6).

"a)

Something

that

is

shared

by

all or almost all membersofsome social_group,

b)

Something

that theolder members ofthe

group

try

topass onto theyoungermembers,

and

c)

Something

(as

in

thecase of_morals,

laws,

and

customs)

thatshapes

behavior,

or... structures one'sperceptionoftheworld."

(Adler, 1997,

p.15)

This

learning

continuesthroughoutan

individual's lifetime. Each

new experience

either reinforces or changesthatperson'scultural programming.

This

can

easily be

seen

by

observing

people

in

different

environments.

Many

who

have lived in

morethanone culture

will_change, sometimes_permanently,sometimes

temporarily,

in

responseto this

different

environmentandthe signals,experiences, andreinforcementsthat

accompany

it.

Because

culturereferstothe

way

we

think,

it is

largely

tacit

in

nature.

Our

values,

perceptions, attitudes, and

behaviors

allreflect ourculture,

but

we are

usually

unaware ofthe

degree

towhichthisoccurs.

Generally,

peopleassumethatculture

is

universal, thatothers seetheworldthrough

belief

thatall people

define

thereal world of_{objects, events,} and

living

creatures

in

_pretty

muchthe same

way,"

(Spradley,

1980,

p.

4).

Yet,

the

reality

closerto the truth

is

that

individuals

from different

cultures

may have

different

values;understandthe same experiences

differently;

have

different

attitudes; and

behave

differently

giventhesame situation.

Because

culture

is

largely

tacit,

it

is

often

difficult

tostudy.

Because

of

this,

anthropologists

study

cultures

by

measuring

themanifestations of culture

(attitudes,

values,

behaviors,

perceptions)

of one

group

and

comparing

them to themanifestations ofanother.

The

first

step

towards cultural

understanding is

to

simply

acknowledgethat thereare

differences.

In

the

field

of_{ethnography, the}work of

describing

a culture

begins

withthe

researcher

acknowledging

that

he

or she

knows

nothing

aboutthecultureto

be

explored.

His

or

her

purpose

is

to assume_nothing,

in reality

to

try

toerase

his

or

her

own mental programming!

With

no_{assumptions, the}researcherentersa culture and

tries,

throughsystematic_exploration,

to

become

a person

indigenous

to thatculture.

Ethnographers

understandthatwhen we

assume,we

fail

to

fully

understandtheentire realm of culture.

Over

_{the years,} scholars

have identified

cultural

dimensions,

whichare specific ways

cultures

vary

from

each other.

Imagine

each

dimension

as a spectrum.

The

ends ofeach

spectrumrepresenttheextremesofthe

dimension,

whilethevalues

in between

aremore

moderate, though still

tending

to

favor

one ortheother oftheextremes.

When attempting

tounderstand cultural

differences,

theresearcherattemptsto

determine

whereonthe spectrum each culture

falls. If any

differences

_{exist, the}researcher will

be

ableto

say

thatoneculturetends to

be

more "X"

than the other,"X"

representing

one ofthe

spectrum'sextremes.

It

is

important

torememberthatall cultures

include

elements

from

each

dimensional

spectrum).

However,

_{when examined as agroup,} each culturetendstoemphasize

one

polarity

morethan the

other,

the

basis for its

cultural

dimension

determination.

Before

turning

to anexaminationoftheways

in

whichcultures_vary,

it

is

worthwhileto

pointout someconsiderationsthatshould

be kept

in

mind when

looking

atcultural

differences.

First,

it

should

be

rememberedthatculture

is

a

function

ofthegroup.

This

meansthat

in

ordertounderstand

culture,

the

group,

ratherthan the

individual,

should

be

examined.

Within

_cultures,

individuals

can exhibit

behaviors,

_{attitudes, values,} and perceptionsthat

fall

everywhere onthespectrum of each cultural

dimension; however,

whentakenas agroup,the

dominant

culturaltraits

become

apparent.

Thus,

when

examining

_culture,

it

is

essentialthat the

group

is

studied ratherthan the

individual.

Second,

whilenotwo cultures are

exactly

_alike, sometend to

be

relatively

similarto

each_{other; these} are called cultural clusters.

These

oftenmatchgeographic areas or

language

groupings;

for

example,whilethecountries whichmake

up

the

Anglo

culturalcluster are

located

throughout the world,

it has been found

that

British, Irish, Canadian, American,

Australian

and

New Zealand

_cultures,whilestill

different,

more

closely

resemble each other

than

they

do

cultures outside oftheircluster.

Third,

some cultures can

be nearly identical regarding

one or morecultural

dimension,

but be

different

_regardingothers.

For

example,

if

we

have

two

dimensions

represented

by

"X"

and

"Y",

twocultures

may both

be

high

"X",

but

one

may

also

be high

"Y"

whiletheother

is

low

"Y".

Fourth,

culturesare _generally

identified along

political ornational

lines.

For

_example,

we speak ofthe

French

culture

in

France,

the

Chinese

culture

in

China.

However,

this

is

a

generalization,

in

thatother

distinct

cultures_usuallyexist withinthepolitical

boundaries

of

eachnation.

For

example, the

Kurds

of

Southeast Europe

andthe

Middle East

represent a

imprecision inherent in

defining

cross-culturalresearch

according

tonational

lines,

some

researchers choosetoreferto

it

ascross-nationalresearch.

While

this

is

themore purist

definition,

the

majority

of researchers accept andusethe term cross-cultural, andthiswill

be

the termused

in

thispaper.

How

do

Cultures Vary?

A

reviewof various cultural

dimensions

of

difference

makes one

thing

clear: cultures

do

vary.

It

would

be

a

lengthy

task toreview all ofthe

dimensions identified

by

previous

scholars

(Triandis,

in

a review of

dimensions identified

before

1982,

listed 20 important

studies

identifying

24

different

cultural

dimensions

(Triandis,

1983)).

Bass

and

Stogdill 's Handbook of

Leadership

(Bass,

1990)

groupsthecultural

dimensions identified in

the

study

of

leadership

underthe

following

headings:

traditionalism

versus_modernity;particularism versus_{universalism;}

idealism

versus_pragmatism;and

collectivismversus

individualism.

Traditionalism

versus

Modernity: "Traditionalism

emphasizesthe

family,

class,

revealed

truths,

reverence

for

_{the past,} andascribed status.

Modernism

stressedmerit,

rationality,andprogress

(Inkeles,

1966),"

(Bass,

1990

p.

772). Traditional

societiestend to

emphasizemasculine

traits,

authoritative methods of

leadership,

and a

focus

on eitherthepast

orthepresent.

As

a_societyshiftstomodernity, the

importance

ofthe

group declines.

Particularism

verusUniversalism:

"A

particularisticvalueorientation

implies

institutionalized

obligationsto

friends,

whereastheuniversalisticvalue orientation stresses

institutionalized

obligationsto societyand placesa

lesser

emphasison

interpersonal

considerations

(Parsons

&

Shils,

1959). In

theparticularisticvalue

orientation,

family

relationsand

friendships

takeprecedenceoverconsiderationsof merit and

equity,"

(Bass,

determination

of

pay

_{rates provides a good example ofparticularism and universalism}

in

practice.

In

particular

societies, pay

_{was more oftenassociatedwiththe}personal situation of

the

employee;

in

universalistic

societies, pay

was

based

on performanceregardless ofpersonal

situations.

Particularists

look

_{at each situation}

individually;

universalists

apply

general

guidelinesto

every

situation.

Idealism

versus

Pragmatism: "Pragmatists look for

_{whatwillwork;}

idealists

search

for

thetruth,"

(Bass,

1990,

p.

774).

Pragmatists

willmore

readily

changetheir

behavior based

on

the

feedback

they

_receive;

idealists

will persist

in

thesame

behavior despite

negative

feedback

because it

is

what

they

feel

to

be

morally

right.

Collectivism

versus

Individualism:

In

collectivist_societies,

"one

is

more concerned

withone's relations with_others,and achievement ofthe teamand one's

group

is

more

important

than

is

one's personal achievement.

In

individualistic

societies, self-interest

dominates,"

(Bass, 1990,

p.

775).

Two

othersets of cultural

dimensions

were

found

to

be particularly

significant.

This

determination

wasmade

based

onthe

following

criteria:

first,

they

have been

frequently

included

in

subsequent

lists

andtextson cultural

dimensions,

and, secondly,

they

have

been

acknowledged

by

othersto

be

the

definitive

works

in

theareaof cultural

dimensions

(Alder,

1997).

The first

oftheseworks

is Kluckhohn

and

Strodtbeck's

value

dimensions,

outlined

in

their

book,

Variations

in

Value Orientations. The

authors asked

five

_questions,theanswersto

which

they

felt

were

fundamental

toallgroups.

These

questions were:

1

.

What is

thecharacterof

innate human

nature?

2.

What

is

therelationof mantonature

(and

supernature)?

3.

What

is

thetemporal

focus

of

human life?

5

.

What is

the

modality

of man'

s

relationship

to othermen?

The

variance ofresponsesto thesequestions make

up 5

value

dimensions,

whichare

outlined

in

Table

2.5.

Table 2.5

Kluckhohn

and

Strodtbeck's

five

value

dimensions

TABLE 1:1

The Fivjs Vju-xne Orientations and the Range of Vakiationb Postulated fob Each*

Orientation Postulated RangeofVariations

humannature Evil

j

Mixtureof

Neutral

j

Good-and-Evil Good

mutable ' immutable r

mutable

j

immutable mutable

j

immutable

man-nature Subjugation-to-Nafcure

Harmony-with-Nature

Mastery-over-Nature

time Past Present Future

activity

Being

Being-in-Becoming

Doing

relational

Lineality

Collaterally

Individualism

Note. From Variationsin ValueOrientations (p.

12),

by

Florence Rockwood Kluckhohn & Fred L.

Strodtbeck,

1961,

New York:

Row,

Peterson.

Table

2.5

showstherange of each

dimension:

thetwopolaritiesoneither_side, with a

more moderateposition

in

themiddle.

The first

ofthese

dimensions,

the

belief

of acultureasto the

fundamental

natureof

humanity,

showsthatcultures_generally

believe

that

humanity

is

evil,neutral/a mixture of

good and_evil,or good.

This

has

important

consequences

for

the

degree

towhich

individuals

in

thatculture_{generally trusts}or

distrusts

people.

Additionally,

culturesthat

hold

each of

thesevalues canconsiderthis

fundamental

natureto

be

either mutableor

immutable,

_or,

in

other_{words, that}people's nature canorcannot change.

As

you can see

in Table

2.6

(page

The

second

dimension

relatestoa culture's

relationship

to nature.

Each

culture either

believes

that the

individual is

subjugated

by

his

or

her

nature

(feels helpless

tocounter

its

influence),

lives