Cross Cultural Leadership In The 21st Century

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Introduction

Leadership, as an increasingly dominant theme in management, is defined as a process that an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2013). Various theories have been developed on this topic. In a historical view, the main theories of leadership can be divided into several groups: trait theory, innate qualities and ‘great man theories’; behavioral theories which are task related or relationship related; situational and contingency theory, repertoire of style and expectancy theory; exchange and path-goal models; transformational leadership, charismatic and visionary leadership, ‘new leadership’; constitutive theory; leadership within learning organizations; and post- charismatic and post- transformational leadership theory (Storey, 2004). In this essay, three leadership theories will be introduced and compared, involving the trait approach, contingency theory and transformational leadership theory.

Leadership theories are usually developed in their own contexts. Cultures could affect the leadership styles to some extent. However, since 1980s, globalization has been a growing important factor in the world’s economy. With the rapid development of transnational industries, leaders are required to have a cross-cultural awareness (Northouse, 2013). In this case, a new debate has been brought out. New elements that have been added to the leadership theories will be explored.

Besides, the dark side of leadership will be explored as well.

Trait approach, contingency theory and transformation leadership theory

The trait approach is one of the first attempts to study leadership. It is derived from the "great man" theory, which focuses on identifying the innate qualities of a man and suggests that only those who born with these traits can be great leaders (Northouse, 2013). However, it is pointed out that the trait theory failed to take the situational conditions into account (Northouse, 2013).

The central traits of a good leader, in Stogdill’s view, are Intelligence, initiative, self assurance, high achievement, high energy levels, using a longer time-span, goal directed, politically active, loner and low desire for love (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2010). Zaccoro et al. suggest that cognitive abilities, extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, openness, agreeableness, motivation, social intelligence, self-monitoring, emotional intelligence and problem solving the leadership traits are the core characteristics of a leader (Northouse, 2013). In the recent works, Northouse (2013) summarizes that intelligence, integrity, self- confidence, determination and sociability are the central traits. To explain, intelligence can positively affect an individual’s capacity for effective leadership by contributing to one’s ability of problem solving and social judgement. Integrity stands for the quality of honesty and trustworthiness, which makes a leader believable and responsible. Self-confident and determination ensures a leader the power to influence his followers. Sociability allows a leader to develop a pleasant relationship with his followers (Northouse, 2013).

Contingency theory is a leader-match theory, suggesting that a leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s style fits the situation. Thus, ‘styles’ and ‘situations’ are the core of this theory (Northouse, 2013). Two kinds of leadership styles are categorized: the task motivated leadership and the relationship motivated leadership. The former one focuses on reaching goals while the latter is concerned with developing interpersonal relationships. In terms of the situations, three factors are addressed, including leader-member relations, task structure and position power. Leader-member relations includes the group atmosphere, loyalty, confidence and attraction; the task structure refers to the extent to which the task is clear and spelled out; position power stands for the authority a leader has to reward or punish his followers (Northouse, 2013).

Transformation leadership theory is one of the most popular theories in this field. It is a process whereby an individual engages with others and creates a connection that enhance the level of morale in the workplace (Northouse, 2013).

Transformation leadership theory is expanded by Bass (1985), who suggests that this leadership motivates followers to do more than expected by raising their levels of consciousness about the importance and value of goals, transcending their self-interest for the sake of the organization and moving them to focus on higher level needs (Northouse, 2013). In Northouse’s works, transformation leadership incorporates four factors: idealized influence, which describes the emotional reaction between the leader and the followers; inspiration motivation, by which the leaders show high expectations on the followers and inspire them to be committed to the organization; intellectual stimulation, which means that the leaders stimulates followers’ creativity encourage them to try new approaches; individual consideration, which means the leaders create a supportive atmosphere for the followers and listen carefully to their individual needs (Northouse, 2013).

Compare and contrast

Trait approach, contingency theory and transformation leadership theory are brought out in different periods of time. The trait approach started in the beginning of the 20th century. Contingency theory was developed in the 1960s while the transformational leadership theory was raised in the 1980s. Their emphases and the ways they work are distinct, their strengths and weakness also differ.

The trait theory focuses exclusively on the leader and his qualities. It generally ignored the leader-subordinate interactions and the situational conditions (Armandi et al., 2003). Opposite to the trait approach, contingency theory stresses on the degree to which the leader’s style fits the situation. Transformational leadership theory, on the other hand, emphasizes on the emotions of the followers. It is a process of changing and transforming people and it encourages people to perform better than the level they are expected (Northouse, 2013). Thus we can see that the trait theory emphasizes more on the leader himself while the contingency theory and the transformation leadership theory are concerned about the leader-situation relationship and leader-follower relationship respectively.

Differences are also shown in the ways these theories work.

According to the trait theory, the hypotheses about what kind of leader is needed in a certain situation is not required. Instead, it requires the leader to have a certain set of qualities. Thus, what people have to do in this case is to find an individual with certain traits and personality (Northouse, 2013). The trait theory is applied for the managers to maintain self-awareness, develop relevant skills and compensate for weaknesses (Yukl, 2002).

In terms of contingency theory, the leader’s capability in a certain context will be predicted by examining his leader-member relations, task structures and position power and calculating his ‘LPC score’ (Preferred Leadership Style). If the leader’s style matches the situation, he will be an effective leader (Northouse, 2013). The contingency theory is applied for the managers to raise situational awareness, plan for a long, complex task, consult with specialists, provide more direction to people with interdependent roles or when a crisis occurs, closely monitor a critical task or unreliable person, help and guide inexperienced subordinates and be more supportive to those under great pressure (Yukl, 2002).

The transformational leadership theory requires that the leaders should become role models for their followers, encourage their followers and build trust and foster collaboration with others. As a result, the followers feel more confident of themselves and contribute more to the organization (Northouse, 2013). The aims of trait theory and contingency theory are finding an appropriate leader while transformational leadership theory is about the process to enhance the organization’s morale. With the application of this theory, leaders are required to provide a clear vision, explain how the vision can be achieved, be confident and optimistic, express confidence in followers, use typical actions to address key values and lead the followers by examples (Yukl, 2002).

Each of these theories has its own strengths and weaknesses.

Firstly, all of the these theories have enormous of researches to back them up (Northouse, 2013). Both the trait theory and the contingency theory give people benchmarks to illustrate what people should do to be leaders. The transformational theory, on the other hand, makes a contribution to our understanding of leadership processes (Yukl, G. 2002).

As we know, the trait theory fails to take the situation into consideration, while the contingency theory focuses on the situation. Thus, by using of contingency theory, more useful information can be provided in certain situations when the organization tries to find a well matched leader.

In terms of the conception, the trait theory is criticized for not having a definitive list of the core traits and the transnational leadership theory is criticized for lacking conceptional clarity (Northouse, 2013).

Besides, the ways to measure the situation in contingency theory is blamed to be too complex and difficult to understand (Armandi et al., 2003). The LPC scale has been questioned as well (Northouse, 2013). Similarly, although the transformational leadership theory is evaluated to be intuitively appealing, its way of measuring the leadership is doubted as well. Its elements to be examined (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration) are criticized to be highly relative (Northouse, 2013).

Also, the transformational leadership can be abused in some cases. The transformational leadership usually works by changing the followers’ values and moving them to a new vision. However, the new directions are not guaranteed to be good (Northouse, 2013).

Cross-cultural Leadership in the 21st century

Most of the researches on leadership theories were conducted in the US, Canada and Western Europe (Yukl, G. 2002). As we know, culture can influence the managers’ behavior, the way people relate to each other, social norms etc. (Yukl, G. 2002). It is suggested that the culture not only directly influences leadership prototypes or leadership effectiveness, but also indirectly impacts through followers. Besides, followers themselves differ across cultures in their preference of leaders too, which may significantly shape leaders’ characteristics (Wang et al., 2012).

To figure out the relationship between culture and leadership, House et al. conducted the GLOBE studies and researched in 62 societies, (Northouse, 2013). GLOBE researchers addressed nine cultural dimensions: uncertain avoidance, power distance, institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, future orientation, performance orientation and humane orientation, These dimensions are used to analyze how the culture of the countries varied in their leadership approaches (Northouse, 2013). As a result, ten regional clusters are categorized, namely, Southern Asia, Latin America, Nordic Europe, Anglo, Germanic Europe, Latin Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Middle East and Confucian Asia (Northouse, 2013). Then, the GLOBE researchers identified six global leadership behavior: charismatic/ value-based leadership, which reflects the ability for the leaders to motivate and expect high performance; team-oriented leadership, which emphasizes team building and a common goal among team members; participative leadership, which reflects the degree to which leaders involve others in decision making; humane-oriented leadership, which emphasizes being supportive, considerate, generous and kind; autonomous leadership, which means independent and individualistic leadership; self-protective leadership, which reflects the acts that ensure the safety and security of the leader and the followers. From the analysis, different leadership styles in different clusters are characterized. To be more specific, Eastern Europe emphasizes autonomous leadership and self-protection leadership while Latin America and Latin Europe focus on charismatic leadership and team-oriented leadership. Confucian Asia prefers self-protective leadership and team-oriented leadership while Nordic Europe and Anglo countries are more likely to use charismatic leadership and participative leadership. Sub-Saharan Africa desires to have humane-oriented leadership and charismatic leadership while in Southern Asia countries self-protective leadership and charismatic leadership are the most important. Germanic Europe has the styles of autonomous leadership and charismatic leadership while in the Middle East leaders prefer self-protective leadership and humane-oriented leadership (Northouse, 2013).

In the last decade, the influence of globalization is increasingly important. With the ascending number of multinational enterprises, more and more scholars put their eyes on the cross-cultural leadership. Under this circumstance, new debates are raised recently and challenges are faced by the leaders.

As it is mentioned above, each culture has its own preference in its leadership style. Thus, in the transnational enterprises, firstly, leaders would face the challenges of change. Changes could lead people to do the things that had never been done before or to the places that not discovered yet (Kouzes and Posner, 1997). To cope with the changes, four principles for the leaders are advised by Kouzes et al. (1997): take risks and accept responsibility; respect all the people; involve all the people with openness and fairness; promote good communication and a good atmosphere. Regardless of the leadership style of the host country and the home country, it is important to take immediate and appropriate reactions when facing a change. Secondly, apart from the necessity of managing change, with the trend of globalization, diversity of the workers increases. In order to manage diversity, as Yukl (2002) suggested, leaders should encourage the respect for individual differences, promote understanding of different values, beliefs and traditions, be supportive, discourage the exist of stereotypes and biased beliefs, prejudged comments and take real actions to protect the women and minorities from harassment (Yukl, 2002).

Also, in terms of application, having a cross-cultural awareness could add new elements into leadership and management process. Firstly, cultural difference and diversity are emphasized in the leadership training programs. Leaders can understand their own cultural biases and preferences better and how to be a good leader. Secondly, global leaders are able to communicate more effectively. Thirdly, new employee orientation programs are designed, programs for relocation training are raised, now multinational mergers are promoted (Northouse, 2013).

The dark side of leadership

Although most of the researches and theories focus on the positive outcomes of leadership, there are still some behaviors that could be problematic. To be more specific, unsuccessful strategic visions may include the leaders' personal aims which are not matched with their constituents' needs. As an example, Edwin Land, an inventor of the Polaroid camera company, decided to invent his dream camera, SX-70. His personal goal was against the need of the market. The sale of SX-70 failed and the company lost a great deal of money for it (Conger, 1990). Another possible dark side of leadership comes from the communication skills of the leader. Those leaders who are gifted at communicating may misuse this ability. For instance, they may present in a way to make their visions appear more realistic than the visions actually are, or foster an illusion of control when in reality things are out of control (Conger, 1990). Besides, the certain inherent liabilities of the managerial practices of leaders also differ. A leadership style has its own merits and drawbacks. Some of the typical management practices that make leaders unique may also cause their downfall (Conger, 1990). There are also evidences showing that an abusive leadership can decrease the team members’ level of creativity indirectly (Liu et al., 2012).

Recently, there exist some studies on a group of people called ‘corporate psychopaths’. Corporate psychopaths are those who score highly on a psychopathy checklist and work in organizations. They have no conscience and are incapable of experiencing the feelings of others. At the same time, they appear to be quite charming and worthy of promotion because they are extremely calculating (Boddy, 2006). In Hare’s checklist, the corporate psychopaths are characterized to be glib and superficially charming, having a grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological liars, good at conning and manipulating others, having no remorse about harming others, calculating and cold, callous and lacking in empathy; and unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions (Boddy, 2006).

It is argued that every big company has corporate psychopaths working for it (Newby, 2005; Boddy, 2006). If corporate psychopaths get to the top of an organization, they may largely influence the status of the organization: the organizations are more likely to experience failure, because there is no emotional attachment to the organization for them and they do not concern about the organizational success; the organizations are more likely to be involved in fraudulent activities, because that corporate psychopaths may falsify financial results to get promotion; corporate psychopaths are more willing to sack people to increase the share price and make the company more financially powerful; organizational psychopaths are happy to exploit everyone who works for them because they are lacking of emotional attachments to their colleagues; corporate psychopaths are not at all concerned with what f their actions could result on the environment or on society; the workforce under corporate psychopaths’ lead might be disheartened; corporate psychopaths make organizational decisions in their own interests rather than in those of the organization; they may bully and humiliate their followers; corporate psychopaths care more about their immediate wealth so that they are more willing to make short-term decisions rather than long-term decisions; they will the disregard the investors’ interests as well; the organization may lose expertise who are in the way of the rise of organizational psychopaths; illegal decisions might be made by organizational psychopaths; as a business partner, organizational psychopaths may take the majority of gains from the business (Boddy, 2006).

To cope with organizational psychopaths, people are suggested to develop an awareness of them and identify them. In the recruitment stage, interviewers should beware of them. Besides, people can try to find other victims to form a team and deal with them (Boddy, 2006).

Summary

To summarize, this essay introduced and compared the trait approach, contingency theory and transformational leadership theory. These theories have their own characteristics and focuses, and are developed within their own context. However, under the circumstance of the increasing influence of globalization, new challenges occur. In this essay the challenges of managing the changes and diversity are discussed. Besides, the dark side of leadership, especially the emergence of the studies on corporate psychopaths, is discussed. It is suggested that the corporate psychopaths can be harmful for the organization, although they may appear to be charming employees.