Textbook citation: Deresky, H. (2017). International management: Managing across borders and cultures. (9th Ed.) Pearson.
Chapter 11 Motivating and Leading
Objectives
11-1 To understand the complexity and the variables involved in cross-cultural motivation and leadership
11-2 To learn how to use the research on cultural dimensions as tools to understand how to motivate people in different cultural contexts
11-3 To become familiar with the global leader’s role and environment and what makes a successful global leader
11-4 To discuss the research on leadership and how leadership styles and practices vary around the world
11-5 To understand the variables that necessitate contingency leadership: culture, context, people, and situations
Opening Profile: The Eu Business Leader— Myth Or Reality?
The eurozone crisis means “the already shaky European identity will weaken further . . . [causing] reemergence of hard-edged national identities.”
International Herald Tribune1
Is the EU business leader a myth or reality? The European Union now comprises a 28-nation unified market of over 400 million people. Can a businessperson have an effective leadership style across such diverse contexts and people? Not according to a survey of 200 chief executives in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Steve Newhall, of DDI Europe, an international human resources consultancy, notes that “the danger for any leader is only being able to operate within one of these styles. If you take an autocratic style into a culture that expects a more democratic or meritocratic style, the chances are that you will trip up.”2 In 2012, in particular, conflicts brought about by the euro crisis heightened ethnic differences in attitudes; and in 2015, economic problems continue to cause strife and changing attitudes toward Greece, for example. In addition, attitudes clashed regarding rescuing and accommodating the mounting numbers of refugees from war-torn countries.
Perhaps some people can lead well in firms that stretch across countries in the EU, but consider the complexity in its many forms: different histories and languages, government systems, business practices, educational systems, religions, organizations, and, not least, national cultures. We have already examined, in this book, the many dimensions of culture along which societies differ and that determine how people behave on the job—their attitudes toward work and their superiors, their perspectives on time and scheduling, their level of motivation, and so on. In addition, countries in the EU are fiercely defensive of any incursions on national culture and identity. Given those factors, the prospect of convergence of leadership styles across the EU countries seems dim. On the other hand, argue Kets de Vries and Korotov:
Can European organizations afford not to have some form of European leadership? Can an organization remain Belgian, or Polish, or Italian and not include a “toolset” of European capabilities?3
The strategic argument for convergence of leadership styles for EU business executives is that, whereas the Japanese or Americans, for example, can succeed domestically with their predominantly local leadership style, it is not a good option for executives in most EU companies. For them, retaining national styles and processes will not lead to those companies being competitive in the EU and global markets because of the blending of labor, goods, services, and processes across the EU countries. Rather, EU leaders need an EU style that will work across their markets.4
With that lofty goal in sight—whether one considers that goal desirable or undesirable—research shows that differences in leadership style still dominate. The DDI survey on leadership asked 200 executives what they liked or disliked about being a leader. It was found that, for example, the French are three times more likely than the British and eight times more likely than the Germans to regard being in a position of power as important.5 In other words, there are differences in attitude toward being a leader and making decisions. Whereas French leaders liked to make decisions unilaterally, German executives indicated their concern about the responsibility of their decisions; leaders in the United Kingdom, however, seemed less troubled about their decisions.6
Research on the German culture, for example, tells us that German leaders most likely will evince high assertiveness and high individualism but low humane orientation.7 Their primary focus is on structured tasks and performance and less on relationships. Although very organized, based on technical expertise, they have been criticized for lack of innovation as leaders.8
The status of leaders in France is known to be based on position and the educational institutions that they attended, known as the grand écoles. Title and position are attained through this elite status and thus are paramount over advancement through skills or training. French leadership style is very hierarchical and autocratic. French managers do not typically use a participative leadership style.9 These conclusions about French leaders are supported by Javidan et al., who found that:
To French managers, people in positions of leadership should not be expected to be sensitive or empathetic, or to worry about another’s status because such attributes would weaken a leader’s resolve and impede decision making. Leaders should make decisions without being distracted by other considerations.
Javidan, Dorfman, de Luque, and House10
We also see a predominantly autocratic style in the United Kingdom. Top positions of leadership are usually attained through the old-boy network as a function of the tripartite class system that still permeates British society (upper-, middle-, and working class). In this respect, leadership is based on traits, not skills, and there tends to be a highly cynical attitude throughout this style.11
These brief glimpses of leadership style in three of the EU countries indicate the difficulty, at least for now, of being an EU leader. Clearly, however, any leaders in positions in which they deal with people and processes in several EU countries need to consider the context and cultures where they are operating and try to be flexible with their leadership style.
As the opening profile illustrates, leadership—at any level and in any location—is complicated by the norms and expectations of the people involved and by the local business practices. A successful leader must be an effective motivator, a process that is also culturally contingent. We review the processes of motivating and leading in this chapter, bearing in mind that they are intricately entwined.
Motivating
The Westerners can’t understand that we need the fork on our neck, not all these nice words and baby techniques. The Technique is the fork.
Russian Middle Manager12
After managers set up a firm’s operations by planning strategy, organizing the work and responsibilities, and staffing those operations, they turn their attention to everyday activities. This ongoing behavior of individual people carrying out various daily tasks enables the firm to accomplish its objectives. Getting those people to perform their jobs efficiently and effectively is at the heart of the manager’s challenge.
Motivation—and therefore appropriate leadership style—is affected by many powerful variables (societal, cultural, and political). When considering the Japanese culture, for example, as discussed throughout this book, it is not surprising to find that Fujitsu uses some motivational techniques very different from those used in the West, such as when it cut the salaries of around 14,000 managers to motivate them and their subordinates to work harder. Fujitsu management said that if the company met their profit goal for the year the managers might have their full salaries restored. The logic was to build a sense of urgency and team spirit. Japanese workers typically feel a strong kinship to their employers and will work harder if they see their managers making similar sacrifices for the group goals.13 Clearly, Fujitsu’s decision to cut pay is based on the Japanese tradition of sink or swim, coworkers and employer together, and its collectivist culture.
Our objective in this chapter is to consider motivation and leadership in the context of diverse cultural milieus. We need to know what, if any, differences exist in the societal factors that elicit and maintain behaviors leading to high employee productivity and job satisfaction. Are effective motivational and leadership techniques universal or culture based?
Cross-Cultural Research On Motivation
Motivation is very much a function of the context of a person’s work and personal life. That context is greatly influenced by cultural variables, which affect the attitudes and behaviors of individuals (and groups) on the job. The framework of this context was described in Chapter 3 and illustrated in Exhibit 3-1.
This perspective of the overall context of a person’s life on motivation was confirmed by a recent research study by Irem Uz, published in 2015, of the concept of cultural tightness and looseness (CTL) among 68 countries, which found:
[T]raditional societies to be tighter, and industrialized societies to be looser.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology14
A tight culture is one with pervasive norms and practices of sanctioning deviance from norms; people’s values, norms, and behavior are similar to one another. People in tight societies preferred to live near those who are similar to them; and they tend to feel better when there is order and predictability in their lives; they tend to be risk-averse. Uz found the five most “tight” countries to be Morocco, Indonesia, Egypt, Bangladesh, and Jordan. Loose cultures, then, are at the opposite end of the range of CTL; the most loose, according to the study were Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Great Britain, and Sweden.15 Of course, there is a wide range of differences between tight and loose; and, as always, we caution that any such findings do not take account of individual or regional differences. That is, we cannot stereotype, only generalize to show some ideas of how to lead in various environments.
These findings have considerable implications for both motivation and leadership in that managers must recognize the impact of the commonly accepted norms of behavior in a society and how it affects work attitudes and relationships on the job.
Some overlap with Uz’s findings can be observed by applying Hofstede’s research on the cultural dimensions of individualism—uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and power distance, for example—which allows us to make some generalized assumptions about motivation such as the following.
High uncertainty avoidance suggests the need for job security, whereas people with low uncertainty avoidance would probably be motivated by more risky opportunities for variety and fast-track advancement.
High power distance suggests motivators in the relationship between subordinates and a boss, whereas low power distance implies that people would be more motivated by teamwork and relations with peers.
High individualism suggests people would be motivated by opportunities for individual advancement and autonomy; collectivism (low individualism) suggests that motivation will more likely work through appeals to group goals and support.
High masculinity suggests that most people would be more comfortable with the traditional division of work and roles; in a more feminine culture, the boundaries could be looser, motivating people through more flexible roles and work networks.
More recent research, based on Hofstede’s dimensions of individualism and masculinity, was conducted by Gelade, Dobson, and Auer. They compared what 50,000 workers in a global pharmaceutical company in 29 nations valued most in their jobs and how that positively affected their company. The results, based on Hofstede’s individualism dimension, showed that the higher the level of national individualism (such as is typical in the United States), the more employees valued their autonomy, opportunities for personal achievements, and a work–life balance. This compared with employees in the more collectivistic countries (such as in China and Singapore), who apparently were more motivated when they felt that their jobs fully used their skills and when they felt that the company was providing them with good working conditions, fringe benefits, and training.16 The findings based on the masculinity dimension were that the higher the level of masculinity (such as in Japan and Mexico), the more motivated employees were when given opportunities for high pay, personal accomplishment, and job advancement. This compared with those from more feminine cultures (such as in Denmark and Sweden), who claimed that factors related to their relationships with their managers and coworkers provided more commitment to the organization. The authors conclude that:
These findings show that the sources of organizational commitment are culturally conditioned and that their effects are predictable from Hofstede’s value dimensions.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 3917
Misjudging the importance of these cultural variables in the workplace may result not only in a failure to motivate but also in demotivation. Rieger and Wong-Rieger present the following example.
In Thailand, the introduction of an individual merit bonus plan, which runs counter to the societal norm of group cooperation, may result in a decline rather than an increase in productivity from employees who refuse to openly compete with each other.18
In considering what motivates people, we have to understand their needs, goals, value systems, and expectations. No matter what their nationality or cultural background, people are driven to fulfill needs and achieve goals, but what are those needs, what goals do they want to achieve, and what can motivate that drive to satisfy their goals?
The Meaning of Work
Because the focus in this text is on the needs that affect the working environment, it is important to understand first what work means to people from different backgrounds. For most people, the basic meaning of work is tied to economic necessity (money for food, housing, and so forth) for the individual and for society. However, the additional connotations of work are more subjective, especially about what work provides other than money—achievement, honor, social contacts, and so on.
Another way to view work, however, is through its relationship to the rest of a person’s life. The Thais call work ngan, which is the same as the Thai word for “play,” and they tend to introduce periods of play in their workdays. On the other hand, most people in China, Germany, and the United States have a more serious attitude toward work. Especially in work-oriented China, seven-day workweeks with long hours and few days off are common. A study of average work hours in various countries conducted by Steers found that Koreans worked longer hours and took fewer vacation days than workers in most countries.19 The conclusion was that the Koreans’ hard work was attributable to loyalty to the company, group-oriented achievement, and emphasis on group harmony and business relationships.
Studies on the meaning of work in eight countries were carried out by George England and a group of researchers who are called the Meaning of Work (MOW) International Research Team.20 Their research sought to determine a person’s idea of the relative importance of work compared to that of leisure, community, religion, and family. They called this concept of work work centrality, defined as “the degree of general importance that working has in the life of an individual at any given point in time.” The results showed, for example, that the Japanese hold work to be very important in their lives; the Brits, on the other hand (in this author’s birth country), seem to like their leisure time more than those in the other countries surveyed. However, given the complexity of cultural and economic variables involved in people’s attitude toward work, the results are difficult to generalize, in particular as concerns the implications of on-the-job work motivation. More relevant to managers (as an aid to understanding culture-based differences in motivation) are the specific reasons for valuing work. What kinds of needs does the working environment satisfy, and how does that psychological contract differ among populations?
The MOW research team provided some excellent insights into this question when it asked people in the eight countries what they valued about work and what needs their jobs satisfied. Their research results showed the relative order of importance overall as follows.
A needed income
Interest and satisfaction
Contacts with others
A way to serve society
A means of keeping occupied
Status and prestige.21
Note the similarities of some of these functions with Maslow’s need categories22 and Herzberg’s categories of motivators and maintenance factors. (Frederick Herzberg’s research focused on how some people are motivated by internal aspirations and life goals, whereas others are primarily motivated by the job conditions.23) Clearly, these studies can help international managers anticipate what attitudes people have toward their work, what aspects of work in their life context are meaningful to them, and therefore what approach the manager should take in setting up motivation and incentive plans.
In addition to the differences among countries within each category—such as the higher level of interest and satisfaction derived from work by the Israelis as compared with the Germans—it is interesting to note the within-country differences. Although income was the most important factor for all countries, it apparently has a far greater importance than any other factor in Japan. In other countries, such as the Netherlands, the relative importance of different factors was more evenly distributed.
The broader implications of such comparisons about what work means to people are derived from considering the total cultural context. The low rating the Japanese give to the status and prestige found in work, for instance, suggests that those needs are more fully satisfied elsewhere in their lives, such as within the family and community. In the Middle East, religion plays a major role in all aspects of life, including work. The Islamic work ethic is a commitment toward fulfillment, so business motives are held in the highest regard.24 The origin of the Islamic work ethic is in the Muslim holy book, the Qur’an.
Muslims feel that work is a virtue and an obligation to establish equilibrium in one’s individual and social life. The Arab worker is defined by his or her level of commitment to family, and work is perceived as the determining factor in the ability to enjoy social and family life.25 A study of 117 managers in Saudi Arabia by Ali found that Arab managers are highly committed to the Islamic work ethic and that there is a moderate tendency toward individualism.26
Exhibit 11-1 shows the results of the study and gives more insight into the Islamic work ethic. A different study by Kuroda and Suzuki found that Arabs are serious about their work and that favoritism, give and take, and paternalism have no place in the Arab workplace. They contrasted this attitude to that of the Japanese and Americans, who consider friendship to be an integral part of the workplace.27
Exhibit 11-1 The Islamic Work Ethic: Responses by Saudi Arabian Managers
* On a scale of 1–5 (5 = highest)
Source: Based on Abbas J. Ali, Journal of Psychology 126, No. 5 (1992), pp. 507–519.
Other variables affect the perceived meaning of work and how it satisfies various needs, such as the relative wealth of a country. When people have a high standard of living, work can take on a meaning different from simply providing the basic economic necessities of life. Economic differences among countries were found to explain variations in attitudes toward work in a study by Furnham et al. of more than 12,000 young people from 41 countries on five continents. Specifically, the researchers found that young people in Far East and Middle Eastern countries reported the highest competitiveness and acquisitiveness for money, whereas those from North America and South America scored highest on work ethics and mastery (that is, continuing to struggle to master something).28 Such studies show the complexity of the underlying reasons for differences in attitudes toward work—cultural, economic, and so on—which must be taken into account when considering what needs and motivations people bring to the workplace. All in all, research shows a considerable cultural variability affecting how work meets employees’ needs.
The Needs Hierarchy in the International Context
How can a manager know what motivates people in a specific country? Certainly, by drawing on the experiences of others who have worked there and by inferring the likely type of motivational structure present by studying what is known about the culture in that region.
People’s opinions of how best to satisfy their needs vary across cultures also. One clear conclusion is that managers around the world have similar needs but show differing levels of satisfaction of those needs derived from their jobs. Variables other than culture may be at play, however. One of these variables may be the country’s stage of economic development. Whatever the reason, many companies that have started operations in other countries have experienced differences in the apparent needs of the local employees and how they expect work to be recognized. Mazda, of Japan, experienced this problem in its Michigan plant. Japanese firms tend to confer recognition in the form of plaques, attention, and applause, and Japanese workers are likely to be insulted by material incentives because such rewards imply that they would work harder to achieve them than they otherwise would. Instead, Japanese firms focus on group-wide or company-wide goals, compared with the American emphasis on individual goals, achievement, and reward.
When considering the cross-cultural applicability of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, then, it is not the needs that are in question as much as the ordering of those needs in the hierarchy. The hierarchy reflects the Western culture, where Maslow conducted his study; he concluded that people progress from satisfying basic needs on to satisfying belongingness and esteem needs, and then to self-actualization needs.29 However, different hierarchies might better reflect other cultures. For example, Eastern cultures focus more on the needs of society rather than on the needs of individuals. It is difficult to observe or measure the individual needs of a Chinese person because, from childhood, these are meshed with the needs of society. Clearly, however, along with culture, the political beliefs at work in China dominate many facets of motivation. Traditionally, workers have been given exact and detailed prescriptions of what is expected of them as members of a factory, workshop, or work unit. This results in conformity at the expense of creativity. Workers are accountable to their group, which is a powerful motivator. Because being unemployed has not been an option in China until recently, it has been important for employees to maintain themselves as cooperating members of the work group, and this cultural norm still largely prevails in much of China.30 Money is also a motivator, stemming from the historical political insecurity and economic disasters that have perpetuated the need for a high level of savings.31
Although more cross-cultural research on motivation is needed, one can draw the tentative conclusion that managers around the world are motivated more by intrinsic than by extrinsic factors. Considerable doubt remains, however, about the universality of Western theories because it is not possible to take into account all the relevant cultural variables when researching motivation. Different factors have different meanings within the entire cultural context and must be considered on a situation-by-situation basis. The need to consider the entire national and cultural context is shown in the Comparative Management in Focus: Motivation in Mexico feature, which highlights motivational issues for Mexican workers and indicates the meaning of work to them.
Comparative Management in Focus
Motivation in Mexico
In Mexico, everything is a personal matter; but a lot of managers don’t get it. To get anything done here, the manager has to be more of an instructor, teacher, or father figure than a boss.
Robert Hoskins
Manager, Leviton Manufacturing, Juarez
Latin Americans tend to score high on personal authority and collective or group-related cultural dimensions and values relative to people in the United States or Europe.
Davila and Elvira, Journal of World Business, October 201232
To understand the cultural milieu in Mexico, we can draw on research concluding that the Mexican people as a whole rank high on both power distance (the acknowledgment of hierarchical authority) and on uncertainty avoidance (a preference for security and formality over risk). In addition, they rank low on individualism, preferring collectivism, which values the good of the group, family, or country over individual achievement.33 Recent research by Davila and Elvira concluded that, “This cultural trend has given rise to a ‘paternalistic’ leadership style in which personal and social relationships are key to working and leading employees effectively.”34
It is important for managers to recognize that Mexican society is very hierarchical, with a clear power structure for family, religion, business, politics, and other areas of life. People are accorded respect according to their age, sex, and rank or position.35
The Mexican culture, generally, is being-oriented, compared to the doing-oriented culture that prevails in the rest of North America; business takes a backseat to socializing.36 Integral to the being-orientation is the high-context and implicit communication style of most Mexicans; much takes place on the level of nonverbal cues, and the assumption of unspoken communication is based on the personal relationships and trust developed with colleagues. Implicit communication is also based on the importance attached to respect, whereas any conflict would lose face for all concerned.37 On the other hand, they maintain a small personal space with others and are a “touching” society. They are also frequently very expressive and passionate communicators. In addition, that being-orientation leads to a rather fluid attitude toward time, whereas relationships and commitment to individuals frequently take precedence over scheduled time commitments.38
It is said that Mexicans work to live compared to those in the United States, for example, who live to work. One reason for that is that in Mexico the family is of central importance; loyalty and commitment to family and friends frequently determine employment, promotion, or special treatment for contracts. Decisions and actions are usually based on what is good for the family and the group.39 For many Mexican males, the value of work lies primarily in its ability to fulfill their culturally imposed responsibilities as head of household and breadwinner rather than to seek individual achievement. Machismo (sharp role differentiation based on gender) and prestige are important characteristics of the Mexican culture.
As a people, speaking very generally, Mexicans are very proud and patriotic; respeto (respect) is important to them, and a slight against personal dignity is regarded as a grave provocation.40 Mexican workers expect to be treated in the same respectful manner that they use toward one another. As noted by one U.S. expatriate, foreign managers must adapt to Mexico’s “softer culture”; Mexican workers “need more communication, more relationship-building, and more reassurance than employees in the U.S.”41 The Mexican people are very warm and have a leisurely attitude toward time; face-to-face interaction is best for any kind of business, with time allowed for socializing and appreciating the Mexicans’ cultural artifacts, buildings, and so forth. Taking time to celebrate a worker’s birthday, for instance, will show that you are a simpático boss and will increase workers’ loyalty and effort. The workers’ expectations of small considerations that seem inconsequential to U.S. managers should not be discounted. Personal relationships are of utmost importance to the Mexican people, usually taking priority over work goals. Trust in friends and family takes precedence over purely business relationships, so that networking through personal contacts is the best way to do business. Following are some general guidelines on the Mexican culture to guide foreign managers in Mexico.
Family and friends are first priority; maintaining those relationships and trust takes precedence over outsiders, thus are important for business success.
The Mexican employee works to live; scheduling and time management is secondary.
Mexicans are fatalistic, based on strong religious influence.
Mexicans are nationalistic; history and tradition are important.
Work harmony is important; Mexicans are sensitive to conflict situations and need to maintain face.
Mexicans are very proud; status is evidenced by title, position, and formality in dress and etiquette.
Most managers in Mexico find that the management style that works best there is authoritative and paternal. Paternalism is expected; the manager is regarded as el patrón (pronounced “pah-trone”), or the father figure, whose role it is to take care of the workers as an extended family.42 Employees expect managers to be the authority; they are the elite—power rests with the owner or manager and other prominent community leaders. Frequently, if not told to do something, the workers will not do it, nor will they question the boss or make any decisions for the boss.43 Nevertheless, employees perceive the manager as a person, not as a concept or a function, and success often depends on the ability of a foreign manager to adopt a personalized management style, such as by greeting all workers as they arrive for their shifts. To be effective, managers need to realize that a psychological contract between the manager and the worker encompasses the work group and the community as a whole. This should include:
Investment in employees, including salary, benefits, education, training, and development.
Cooperative efforts in labor relations.
Community-centered CSR practices.44
Generally speaking, many Mexican factory workers doubt their ability to influence the outcome of their lives personally. They are apt to attribute events to the will of God or to luck, timing, or relationships with higher authority figures. For many, decisions are made on the basis of ideals, emotions, and intuition rather than on objective information. However, individualism and materialism are increasingly evident, particularly among the upwardly mobile high-tech and professional Mexican employees.
Corrective discipline and motivation must occur through training examples, cooperation, and, if necessary, subtle shaming. As a disciplinary measure, it is a mistake to insult a Mexican directly; an outright insult implies an insult to the whole family. As a motivation, one must appeal to the pride of the Mexican employees and avoid causing them to feel humiliated. Given that, getting ahead is often associated more with outside forces than with one’s own actions; the motivation and reward system becomes difficult to structure in the usual ways.
Past experiences have indicated that, for the most part, motivation through participative decision-making is not as effective as motivation through the more traditional and expected autocratic methods. With careful implementation, however, the mutual respect and caring that the Mexican people have for one another can lead to the positive team spirit needed for the team structure to be used successfully by companies. One example is GM’s highest-quality plant in the world in Ramos Arizpe, near Saltillo, Mexico.45 In a study by Nicholls et al, the Mexican executives surveyed gave some suggestions for implementing work teams. They suggested the following.
Foster a culture of individual responsibility among team members.
Anticipate the impact of changes in power distribution.
Provide leadership from the top throughout the implementation process.
Provide adequate training to prepare workers for teamwork.
Develop motivation and harmony through clear expectations.
Encourage an environment of shared responsibility.46
For the most part, Mexican workers expect that authority will not be abused but rather will follow the family model in which everyone works together in a dignified manner according to their designated roles.47 Any event that may break this harmony, or seems to confront authority, will likely be covered up. This may result in a supervisor hiding defective work, for example, or, as in the case of a steel conveyor plant in Puebla, a total worker walkout rather than using the grievance process.48 Contributing to these kinds of problems is the need to save face for oneself and to respect others’ place and honor. Public criticism is regarded as humiliating. Employees like an atmosphere of formality and respect. They typically use flattery and call people by their titles rather than their names to maintain an atmosphere of regard for status and respect.
The business culture in Mexico is also attributable to prevailing economic conditions in Mexico, which include low levels of education, training, and technical skills. A context of continuing economic problems and a relatively low standard of living for most workers help explain why Maslow’s higher-order needs (self-actualization, achievement, status) are generally not very high on most Mexican workers’ lists of needs. In discussing compensation, Mariah de Forest, who consults for American firms in Mexico, suggests the following.
Rather than an impersonal wage scale, Mexican workers tend to think in terms of payment now for services rendered now. A daily incentive system with automatic payouts for production exceeding quotas, as well as daily/monthly attendance bonuses, works well.49
Global economic problems and cutbacks in auto manufacturing have also affected Mexico, making money a pressing motivational factor for most employees. Benefits that most workers cannot afford are prized. For example, since workers highly value the enjoyment of life, many companies in Mexico provide recreation facilities—a picnic area, a soccer field, and so forth. Bonuses are expected regardless of productivity. In fact, it is the law to give Christmas bonuses of 15 days of pay to each worker. Fringe benefits are also important to Mexicans; because most Mexican workers are poor, the company provides the only source of such benefits for them. In particular, benefits that help to manage family-related issues are positive motivators for employees at least to show up for work. To this end, companies often provide on-site health care facilities for workers and their families, nurseries, free meals, and even small loans in crisis situations.50 In addition, companies that understand the local infrastructure problems often provide a company bus to minimize the pervasive problems of absenteeism and tardiness.
The foregoing statements are broad generalizations about Mexican factory workers. Increasing numbers of American managers are in Mexico because NAFTA has encouraged more U.S. businesses to move operations there. For firms on U.S. soil, managers may employ many Mexican-Americans in an intercultural setting, and they have become known to be very hard-working people in both business and societal settings. As the second-largest and fastest-growing ethnic group in the United States, Mexican-Americans represent an important subculture requiring management attention as they take an increasing proportion of the jobs there and continue to move up the managerial ladders.
Research shows that little conclusive information is available to answer a manager’s direct question of exactly how to motivate in any particular culture. The reason is that we cannot assume the universal applicability of the motivational theories, or even concepts, that have been used to research differences among cultures. Furthermore, the entire motivational context must be taken into account. For example, Western firms entering markets in both Russia and Eastern Europe invariably run into difficulties in motivating their local staffs. Except for the younger generation, most workers have been accustomed to working under entirely different circumstances and usually do not trust foreign managers. Typically, then, the work systems and responsibilities must be highly structured because workers in Eastern Europe and Russia are less likely to use their own judgment in making decisions and because managerial skills are less developed.51 Russia, for example, while rapidly becoming Westernized in the big cities, still presents foreign managers challenges regarding motivation and leadership styles, as discussed in the accompanying Under the Lens feature.
Under the Lens
Managing in Russia—Motivation and Leadership Challenges
A principal rule in the [Russian] workplace is “Superiors know better.”
Snejina Michailova52
As of this writing in 2015, the business and economic climate in Russia is under considerable pressure because of falling oil prices and Western sanctions following the conflict in the Ukraine, as discussed in Chapter 1 and elsewhere. Although many companies have been holding back on investment there, and a number of them are withdrawing until things settle down, long term, there are always opportunities for foreign investors in Russia because of its vast natural resources, its educated workforce, and a growing middle class of consumers. However, for foreign managers, there are considerable differences and challenges in how best to adapt their styles to motivate and lead employees as well as the company.
A study by Michailova concluded that many Russian employees are still used to the management style that prevailed in a centrally planned economic system. This context resulted in vertically managed hierarchies, one-man authority, and anti-individualism. The continued prevalence of the authoritative, paternalistic leadership style restricts innovation and teamwork. The employees in the study experienced conflict when faced with different managerial styles from their Russian and Western managers in joint venture situations. Those employees were in traditional industries, were on average 45 years old, and were more motivated by the authoritarianism of their Russian managers than the attempts at empowerment by their Western managers. More important, the conflicting motivational techniques left them in a double bind, as shown in Exhibit 11-2 Conflicting Motivational Techniques Western-Russian Joint Ventures.53
Exhibit 11-2 Conflicting Motivational Techniques in Western–Russian Joint Ventures
Source: Based on S. Michailova, “When Common Sense Becomes Uncommon: Participation and Empowerment in Russian Companies with Western Participation,” Journal of World Business 37 (2002): 180–187.
From his studies of Russian managers, Carl Fey found that, typically, they “simply want employees to carry out designated tasks set by top management rather than to think creatively about those tasks.”54 The employees themselves would say:
You don’t understand. Workers work and managers make decisions.55
From his interviews and research, Fey makes a number of suggestions for leaders. For example, employees must be given training and information about the company’s challenges and goals and the reasons for them. Employees then must be encouraged to share ideas and concerns by providing multiple channels for them to do so without fear of reprisals, and there must be involvement by the managers. Constructive feedback must be given in a timely manner, and a reward system should be set up.56
Additional insight can be gleaned from Fey and Stanislav Shekshnia, who have worked and consulted in Russia for 15 years and recently interviewed 36 executives from foreign firms operating in Russia. (Examples are IKEA, Microsoft, SAP, Huawei, Cisco, and Ericsson.) Their paper, based on those interviews, gave a number of recommendations, as discussed in the following paragraph.
Foreign managers can provide meaning for employees by practicing authoritative, not authoritarian, leadership. The researchers conclude that Russians are motivated by powerful, charismatic leaders who reflect leaders in their history, so they respect managers they perceive to have the authority of proven competence. The employees expect foreign managers to be more competent than local managers, and if that expectation is met, they are then more motivated.57 In addition, because of Russia’s tradition of limited empowerment of employees and severe punishment for mistakes, Fey and Shekshnia concluded that considerable motivation and success can be achieved by gradually creating an empowered organization. This means that managers should encourage employees to make decisions and allow them to make mistakes without criticism; in this way employees will gradually understand and accept the value of empowerment.58 Recall that the GLOBE study found that Russian culture was among the least performance oriented and the least future oriented.59 Since that time, Russia’s transitioning society and the influence of more proactive management processes and leadership will, it is hoped, have more positive outcomes for business there. In the past, the owner and manager were usually the same, and little value was placed on management techniques such as motivating. Further, as noted in an interview with Russian entrepreneur Ruben Vardanian, Russian companies have traditionally not considered employees very important—to the extent that there have been no HR people on boards, and no real HR systems in place.60 Because of the continuing level of uncertainty in Russian society, the main motivation for employees and managers is still often just to work for a large company—and thus to feel secure.
In another study, this one by Puffer and McCarthy in 2011, the authors determined that Russian leaders rely on informal personal networks to conduct business due to the weak legitimacy of the country’s formal institutions. Therefore, it is important for Western leaders in Russia to realize that it is informal networks and institutions that drive business and decision making in Russia. Through those networks, people are hired as board members, and contacts with officials are made to speed up the bureaucratic permissions process for business. Foreign leaders are likely to experience a lack of trust by Russians toward them, creating a barrier to communication and therefore to motivation and leadership; they will need to take time to develop relationships and build trust with employees and others in their business and personal interactions while there.61 In particular, it is essential to develop a network of contacts with people in government agencies at all levels. The Russian word svyasi means “connections” and refers to having friends in high places, which is often required to cut through red tape.62
In sum, motivation is situational, and savvy managers use all they know about the relevant culture or subculture—consulting frequently with local people—to infer the best means of motivating in that context. Furthermore, tactful managers consciously avoid an ethnocentric attitude in which they make assumptions about a person’s goals, motivations, or work habits based on their own frames of reference, and they do not make negative value judgments about a person’s level of motivation because it differs from their own.
Many cultural variables affect people’s sense of what is attainable and thus affect motivation. One example is how much control people believe they have over their environment and their destiny—whether they believe that they can control certain events and not just be at the mercy of external forces. Although people in the United States typically feel a strong internal locus of control, others attribute results to, for example, the will of God (in the case of Muslims) or to the good fortune of being born in the right social class or family (in the case of many Latin Americans). For example, whereas most Westerners feel that hard work will get the job done, many Hong Kong Chinese believe that outcomes are determined by joss, or luck. Clearly, then, managers must use persuasive strategies to motivate employees when they do not readily connect their personal work behaviors with outcomes or productivity.
The role of culture in the motivational process is shown in Exhibit 11-3. An employee’s needs are determined largely by the cultural context of values and attitudes—along with the national variables—in which he or she lives and works. Those needs then determine the meaning of work for that employee. The manager’s understanding of what work means in that employee’s life can then lead to the design of a culturally appropriate job context and reward system to guide individual and group employee job behavior to meet mutual goals.
Exhibit 11-3 The Role of Culture in Job Motivation
Reward Systems
“The rewards must be 100 percent street-level local,” says Derek Irvine, Globoforce’s vice president, client strategy and consulting. “Our motto is: ‘Think global, thank local.’”
Workforce Management September 201163
Incentives and rewards are an integral part of motivation in a corporation. Recognizing and understanding different motivational patterns across cultures leads to the design of appropriate reward systems. In the United States, there are common patterns of rewards, varying among levels of the company and types of occupations and based on experience and research with Americans. Rewards usually fall into five categories: financial, social status, job content, career, and professional. The relative emphasis on one or more of these five categories varies from country to country. In Japan, for example, reward systems are based primarily on seniority, and much emphasis is put on the bonus system. In addition, a distinction is made there between the regular workforce and the temporary workforce, which traditionally comprises women expected to leave when they start a family. As is usually the case, the regular workforce receives considerably more rewards than the temporary workforce in pay and benefits and the allocation of interesting jobs.64 For the regular workforce, the emphasis is on the employee’s long-term effectiveness in terms of behavior, personality, and group output. Rewarding the individual is frowned on in Japan because it encourages competition rather than the desired group cooperation. Therefore, specific cash incentives are usually limited. In Taiwan, recognition and affection are important; company departments compete for praise from top management at their annual celebration. O. C. Tanner, a consultant firm on such matters, found in its research, for example, that:
[C]locks or watches, popular gifts in the U.S. for employees celebrating a workplace anniversary, are taboo in Asian countries because timepieces are reminders of mortality. In France, O. C. Tanner learned that workers tend to scoff at effusive gratitude and view thank you notes with skepticism.
Workforce Management September 201165
In contrast, the entire reward system in China is very different from that of most countries. The low wage rates are compensated for by free housing, schools, and medical care. Although egalitarianism still seems to prevail, the recent free-enterprise reform movements have encouraged duo lao, duo de (more work, more pay). One important incentive is training, which gives workers more power. One approach used in the past—and one that seems quite negative to Americans—is best illustrated by the example of a plaque award labeled “Ms. Wong—Employee of the Month.” Although Westerners would assume that Ms. Wong had excelled as an employee, actually this award given in a Chinese retail store was for the worst employee; the plaque was designed to shame and embarrass her.66 Younger Chinese in areas changing to a more market-based economy have seen a shift toward equity-based rewards, most likely resulting from a gradual shift in work values.67
No doubt culture plays a significant role in determining the appropriate incentive and reward systems around the world. Employees in collectivist cultures such as Japan, Korea, and Taiwan would not respond well to the typical U.S. merit-based reward system to motivate employees because that would go against the traditional value system and would disrupt the harmony and corporate culture.
Leading
Research results label French captains of industry as “autocrats,” Germans as “democrats,” and British as “meritocrats.”
DDI, Leaders on Leadership Survey68
This section on leadership (and the preceding quote) prompts consideration of the following questions: To what extent, and how, do leadership styles and practices around the world vary? What are the forces perpetuating that divergence? Where, and why, will that divergence continue to be the strongest? Is there any evidence for convergence of leadership styles and practices around the world? What are the forces leading to that convergence, and how and where will this convergence occur in the future? What implications do these questions have for cross-cultural leaders?
The task of helping employees realize their highest potential in the workplace is the essence of leadership. The goal of every leader is to achieve the organization’s objectives while achieving those of each employee. Today’s global managers realize that increased competition requires them to be open to change and to rethink their old culturally conditioned modes of leadership.
The Global Leader’s Role And Environment
“I don’t want to change Sony’s culture to the point that it’s unrecognizable from the founder’s vision,” he observed. “That’s the balancing act.” He thought for a moment and then concluded, “You can’t go through a Japanese company with a sledgehammer.”
Howard Stringer CEO Sony Corporation, quoted in Organizational Dynamics, 201169
The greatest competitive advantage global companies in the twenty-first century can have is effective global leaders. Yet this competitive challenge is not easy to meet, as observed by the astute British-born leader Howard Stringer when asked to take over as CEO of Tokyo-based Sony Corporation and revitalize its competitive position. People tend to rise to leadership positions by proving themselves able to lead in their home-country corporate culture and meeting the generally accepted behaviors of that national culture. However, global leaders must broaden their horizons, both strategically and cross-culturally, and develop a more flexible model of leadership that can be applied anywhere—one that is adaptable to locational situations around the world.70
In a survey of 197 global HR executives, Thomas et al. found that those executives “believe that tomorrow’s leaders will need to be more diverse than today’s—especially in terms of thought styles and work experiences.”71 The study highlighted the need for global experience, industry experience, and thought styles.
The critical factors necessary for successful leadership abroad have come to be known as the global mind-set. Typically, that mind-set compares with the traditional mind-set in the areas of general perspective, organizational life, work style, view of change, andlearning.72 Harvard Business School authors Javidan et al. describe a leader with a global mind-set as having three major qualities.
“Intellectual capital: the general knowledge and capacity to learn, including global business savvy
Psychological capital: the openness to differences and capacity to change, such as a thirst for adventure
Social capital: the ability to build trusting relationships with and among people who are different from you, including intercultural empathy and diplomacy”73
Other researchers describe the attributes in terms of the manager’s personal work style and general perspective; they articulate some of the typical actions and attitudes of a leader with a global mind-set as shown in Exhibit 11-4.
Exhibit 11-4 The Global Mind-set of Successful Leaders
Source: Based on Walker et al., 2003; and Gary P. Ferraro, The Cultural Dimension of International Business, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2006).
One successful leader with a global mind-set is Carlos Ghosn, a French businessman and CEO of Nissan and Renault as well as the chairman and CEO of the Nissan–Renault alliance. He was born in Brazil of Lebanese parents and educated in France. While at Renault, he was sent to Japan to turn around the ailing auto company, Nissan, which he did very successfully, surprising everyone that he could work so well within the intricate culture of Japanese business. Ghosn was voted Man of the Year 2003 by Fortune magazine’s Asian edition; he also sits on the boards of Alcoa, Sony, and IBM. This global leader and multicultural manager conveyed his high cultural quotient (CQ) when interviewed by Newsweek.
Companies are going global, but the teams are divided and scattered all over the planet…. You have to know how to motivate people who think very differently than you, who have different kinds of sensitivities, so I think the most important message is to get prepared to deal with teams who are multicultural.74
Morrison, Gregersen, and Black found further information regarding leadership effectiveness abroad; their research involved 125 global leaders in 50 companies. They concluded that effective leaders must have global business and organizational savvy. They explain global business savvy as the ability to recognize global market opportunities for a company and having a vision of doing business worldwide. Global organizational savvy requires an intimate knowledge of a company’s resources and capabilities to capture global markets as well as an understanding of each subsidiary’s product lines and how the people and business operate on the local level. Morrison et al outline four personal development strategies through which companies and managers can meet these requirements of effective global leadership: travel, teamwork, training, and transfers (the four Ts).75
Travel, of course, exposes managers to various cultures, economies, political systems, and markets. Working on global teams teaches managers to operate on an interpersonal level while dealing with business decision-making processes that are embraced by differences in cultural norms and business models. Although formal training seminars also play an important role, most of the global leaders interviewed said that the most influential developmental experience in their lives was the international assignment. Increasingly, global companies are requiring their managers who will progress to top management positions to have overseas assignment experience. The benefits accruing to the organization depend on how effectively the assignment and repatriation are handled, as discussed in Chapter 10. Many top leaders in the world, for example, have had their start with both a homegrown training and an international assignment, which provided them with considerable skills to operate in the global marketplace, as illustrated in the accompanying Under the Lens: Interview, Yoshiaki Fujimori: Lixil Builds a New Style of Japanese Multinational feature.
Under the Lens
Interview: Yoshiaki Fujimori: Lixil Builds a New Style of Japanese Multinational
Robin Harding and Kana Inagaki – Tokyo FT.com April 22, 2015
Merged construction products group defies predictions of a disastrous clash of cultures.
What do you get when you take five proud but domestic Japanese companies, merge them, and then add four large foreign acquisitions in the space of a few years?
You might expect an almighty mess. The actual result is Lixil, one of the world’s largest makers of building products, and an unprecedented attempt to forge a Japanese multinational out of a declining domestic industry.
The outcome of the experiment is unclear – with operating margins of just 4 per cent last year, Lixil has a long way to go – but under chief executive Yoshiaki Fujimori the group has defied predictions of a disastrous clash of cultures.
“I think we are extremely far ahead from the original state,” says Mr. Fujimori. Of the ten board directors, he says, four are non-Japanese and only one is a survivor from the pre-merger days.
But he says there is further to go, that Lixil is still an internationalized Japanese company and not yet truly global. “It’s still the mind of the people. The Germans are still German, the Japanese are still Japanese, the Americans are still American—we’re trying to create one global company,” he says.
The original companies were Tostem, which made building materials; Inax, a plumbing specialist; Toyo Exterior, a seller of carports and conservatories; Shin Nikkei, a provider of interior fittings; and Sun Wave, which made kitchens. All traditional Japanese operations, they agreed to combine in 2011 in pursuit of survival as their market declines.
That merger was followed by an overseas acquisition spree including American Standard Brands bathroom products for $342m; Permasteelisa, the Italian group that made the façades for London’s Shard, for €573m; and largest of all, Grohe, a German bathroom products group, for €3.06 billion. The deals have boosted sales by 34 percent to $13.5 billion.
Mr. Fujimori, an executive at General Electric in Asia and the United States for 25 years, is an unusual leader for any Japanese company: blunt, forceful and not afraid of a little trash-talking. He says that further acquisitions in plumbing or exteriors would be add-ons in emerging markets; but Lixil’s kitchen segment still needs to move into global markets.
“We’ve acquired the top three big ones already – there’s none left. If Toto wants to sell to us, we’ll buy,” says Mr. Fujimori. His minder winces: Toto is Lixil’s main competitor in Japan, so while it is a joke, it is a joke with an edge.
Hiroki Kawashima, SMBC Nikko Securities analyst, likens Lixil to a “mini-SoftBank” for its acquisitive nature, but he says the real test is to come: “Mr. Fujimori can add the firms together, but creating synergy is another matter. Remember that the original Tostem-Inax merger [in 2001] took a decade to bear fruit.”
Mr. Fujimori is not daunted by the challenge. He is outspoken about the need for corporate Japan to change and calls on his fellow chief executive officers to “be gutsy”.
“The risk of doing nothing is the highest. It’s the highest crime. So don’t be afraid, don’t be afraid of change,” he says. Many Japanese leaders bemoan the conservatism of their staff, he says, but Mr. Fujimori urges them to look in the mirror before telling employees to change: “In my heart – you’ve got to be that before you tell your people.”
One of the big problems for Lixil is growth and profits at home. With Japan’s population falling the market for new housing is in decline. Its annual net profit for the year through March is tipped to have fallen as much as 45 percent due to weak domestic demand, and analysts are calling for more job cuts.
The answer, says Mr. Fujimori, is refurbishment – which he predicts will grow because of ageing, energy policy and the threat of earthquakes.
As people get older, they “don’t want to build new homes, they want to live where they are”, but many will require elderly-friendly adaptations. The shutdown of nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster, meanwhile, requires a renewed focus on energy efficiency.
“Japan is probably the only country where you’re allowed to build with single glazing. We have not been so energy conscious in terms of how you build houses,” says Mr. Fujimori.
He attacks the government’s feed-in tariff for renewable energy as a “horrible” policy and says there should be mandates for homes to generate their own energy instead.
Most of all, though, Mr. Fujimori is calling for Japan to change its ways, moving past the “internationalization” of exports and foreign subsidiaries and creating truly global companies.
“We will fail most of the time if we stick to Japanese management and stick to the Japanese way,” he says.
“If we don’t accept diversity, don’t value diversity and don’t utilize global intellectual capital – then we’ll fail.”
© 2015 The Financial Times Limited
Effective global leadership involves the ability to inspire and influence the thinking, attitudes, and behavior of people anywhere in the world. The importance of the leadership role cannot be overemphasized, because the leader’s interactions strongly influence the motivation and behavior of employees and, ultimately, the entire climate of the organization. The cumulative effects of one or more weak managers can have a significant negative impact on the ability of the organization to meet its objectives.
Managers on international assignments try to maximize leadership effectiveness by juggling several important, and sometimes conflicting, roles as (1) a representative of the parent firm, (2) the manager of the local firm, (3) a resident of the local community, (4) a citizen of either the host country or of another country, (5) a member of a profession, and (6) a member of a family.76
The leader’s role comprises the interaction of two sets of variables—the content and the context of leadership. The content of leadership comprises the attributes of the leader and the decisions to be made; the context of leadership comprises all those variables related to the particular situation.77 The increased number of variables (political, economic, and cultural) in the context of the managerial job abroad requires astute leadership. Some examples of the variables in the content and context of the leader’s role in foreign settings are given below.78 The multicultural leader’s role thus blends leadership, communication, motivational, and other managerial skills within unique and ever-changing environments. We will examine the contingent nature of such leadership throughout this section.
The Leader and the Job79
Leadership experience and technical knowledge
Cultural adaptability
Clarity of information available in host area
Level of authority and autonomy
Level of cooperation among partners, government, and employees
The Job Context
Level of authority granted to leader
Physical location and local resource availability
Host professional contacts and community relations
Organizational structure, scope of internationalization, technology, and so on
Business environment: social-cultural, political-economic, level of risk
Systems of staffing, coordination, reward system and decision making, locally and in home office
Women in Global Leadership Roles
As we consider the variables of the leader, the job, and the job context in the international arena, and the fact that women in leadership positions around the world encounter specific sets of these variables, it is useful to gain some insight into their particular sets of circumstances and challenges, as illustrated in the following Under the Lens section.
Under the Lens
Women in Business Leadership
Clarity and Courage Are Vital on the Glass Cliff
Leadership: Women who make it to the top can find themselves very isolated,” writes Charlotte Clarke.
Sushma Rajagopalan was working in the United States when she was offered the opportunity to become the first female chief executive of ITC Infotech in Bangalore, India. She did not hesitate. It meant a long-distance relationship with her husband, but she wanted a leadership role. “I’m also the first chief executive from outside the group,” she says, adding that her brief at the IT services company, since joining in August 2014, is to turn it into a multibillion-dollar enterprise.
In recent years, there has been a proliferation of headlines beginning, “The first woman to . . . ” Last year alone, stories along these lines featured Tsakani Ratsela as South Africa’s first deputy auditor-general, Paula Schneider as the first to take control of U.S. retailer American Apparel, and Patrice Merrin as the first woman director of Glencore, which was the last FTSE 100 company to have an all-male board.
Furthermore, Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, promised high-profile roles to women once he was appointed, and he promptly made Sweden’s Cecilia Malmstrom trade commissioner and appointed Margrethe Vestager, from Denmark, competition commissioner.
But the benefit of these leadership roles to women is open to debate. For many, each milestone is a step towards gender equality and something to celebrate. Some argue it provides evidence that women are better crisis managers. Others, however, see cause for concern.
Jean Stephens, chief of RSM International, a professional services firm, says, “Women have natural skills of collaboration and consensus building that could fit into the corporate environment in times of difficulty.”As RSM’s first female chief executive, Ms. Stephens mentors women worldwide. “The role of women in senior positions is evolving,” she says. “In every country, the journey is the same. In China, for example, women are at the table, making decisions.”
One high-profile woman is Ana Botin. She became head of Banco Santander within 24 hours of her father’s death and inside two months had engineered a decisive change of leadership, promoting the finance director to chief executive.
Alex Haslam, by contrast, a professor who with a colleague coined the term “glass cliff” to describe the precariousness of women currently being given roles at the top, believes it could amount to a form of gender discrimination. “The first wave [of gender discrimination] was about quantity. The second wave is about quality,” he says. Initially, women were not getting any leadership positions at all; now they are, but “it is not the cushy jobs that are plain sailing, they are [subject to] a lot of pressure, stress, and criticism.” Their tenure, he adds, also tends to be briefer than for men, and he cites a 2005 study that suggests male chief executives in the United States hold their jobs for approximately twice as long as their female counterparts.
One leader currently under significant pressure is Elvira Nabiullina, Russia’s central bank governor. While trying to facilitate growth in an economy badly hurt by geopolitical tension and a sliding oil price, she is faced with criticism from all directions. The fact that Ms. Nabiullina and others are able to ride out this pressure is beside the point, says Professor Haslam. They should not be put under such pressure to begin with.
Mireia Gine, professor of financial management at IESE Business School in Spain, agrees with this view. “When we talk about women who reach the top, this is a subsample that may not share the characteristics of the general population,” she says.
It is true that women at the top are still very isolated. According to a report by the World Economic Forum, there are only 26 female chief executives in this year’s Fortune 500 companies and only 54 in the top 1,000.
Allyson Zimmermann, executive director of Catalyst Europe, a nonprofit group, says the best way forward—now that opportunities for women leaders are increasing—is talent management. “If not managed well, diversity can be a disaster,” says Ms. Zimmermann. “Tokenism doesn’t work [and] you can’t blame it for failure.” She points to research produced by her organisation that reveals a positive return on equity occurs when boards consist of about 30 percent women. “This is when critical mass is achieved.”
Ms. Rajagopalan is even more direct. She recommends four things to every leader: “clarity of thought, courage to act, charisma to influence, and character—always.”
Source: Charlotte Clarke, Financial Times [London (UK)] March 5, 2015, p. 4.
© 2015 The Financial Times Limited
Global Team Leadership
As discussed in previous chapters, global teams have become common means of organizing management projects and ongoing operations around the world. Their complexity is evident because the teams comprise people from several countries, various cultures, and probably different languages; add to that multicultural cauldron the usual virtual communication mode, and the leadership challenge is considerable without the personal contact and individual contexts that typically give the leader clues and cement relationships. Studies have concluded that to be effective in such a multicultural mix, teams should be composed of managers willing both to lead and to follow, to have open discussion and decision making; that is to use a team model of shared leadership in which the leadership role can be fluid and flexible as it passes from one to another according to the team goals.80 A study by Lisak and Erez concluded that “individuals who scored high on the three global characteristics—of cultural intelligence, global identity, and openness to cultural diversity—were significantly more likely to emerge as leaders than were other team members.”81 They recommend that the selection of team members and leaders take particular account of the specific global work culture in which the teams will need to operate to succeed; therefore selection of leaders should:
[F]ocus on building the norms and values in their multicultural teams that will be shared by all culturally diverse team members to facilitate their adaptation in the global work context.82
Journal of World Business 50 (2015), pp. 3–14
The Role of Technology in Leadership
Globalization and technology have been and continue to be the two great drivers of change in the content and context of leaders’ jobs at all levels. Although some say that the pace of globalization is slowing down, as discussed in Chapter 1 there is no doubt that all agree that the pace of technological change continues to accelerate, and thus affects leadership.
The Internet of Things—the computers and other inanimate objects that communicate with each other and with people through mobile technologies, sensors, and software—challenges every business model in every industry everywhere.
bcg.com perspectives, April 8, 2015.83
Clearly, the leader’s role at all levels is rapidly changing along with each new technological development. Affecting leaders’ plans and decisions, for example, is the Internet of Things, permitting computer-to-computer instructions and decisions, often controlling a complex global supply chain; the use of robotics in manufacturing, health care, engineering, and so on; and firms’ intranets, which permit knowledge sharing and product information throughout global operations. It is clear that big data analytics (cloud-based intelligence for businesses to collect and analyze large amounts of data) is here to stay and bring considerable benefits to firms’ managers. There is no turning back, and for all leaders, “new technologies will force you to reconfigure your strategy, your operations, and your whole approach to business.”84
Individual managers are realizing that the Internet is changing their leadership styles and interactions with employees as well as their strategic leadership of their organizations. They have to adapt to the hyperspeed environment of e-business as well as to the need for visionary leadership in a whole new set of competitive industry dynamics. Some of these new-age leadership issues are discussed in the following feature, Management in Action: Leadership in a Digital World.
Management in Action
Leadership in a Digital World
What does leadership mean in a digital world in which organizations are flexible and fluid and the pace of change is extremely rapid? What’s it like to lead in an e-business organization? Jomei Chang of Vitria Technology describes it as follows: “There’s no place to hide. [The Internet] forces you to be on your toes every minute, every second.” Is leadership in e-businesses really all that different from traditional organizations? Managers who’ve worked in both think it is. How? Three differences seem to be most evident: the speed at which decisions must be made, the importance of being flexible, and the need to create a vision of the future.
Making Decisions Fast
Managers in all organizations never have all the data they want when making decisions, but the problem is multiplied in e-business. The situation is changing rapidly and the competition is intense. For example, Meg Whitman, then-president and CEO of eBay, said, “We’re growing at 40 percent to 50 percent per quarter. That pace absolutely changes the leadership challenge. Every three months we become a different company. In one year, we went from 30 employees to 140, and from 100,000 registered users to 2.2 million. At Hasbro [where she was previously an executive], we would set a yearlong strategy, and then we would simply execute against it. At eBay, we constantly revisit the strategy—and revise the tactics.”
Leaders in e-businesses see themselves as sprinters and their contemporaries in traditional businesses as long-distance runners. They frequently use the term “Internet time,” which is a reference to a rapidly speeded-up working environment. “Every [e-business] leader today has to unlearn one lesson that was drilled into each one of them: You gather data so that you can make considered decisions. You can’t do that on Internet time.”
Maintaining Flexibility
In addition to speed, leaders in e-businesses need to be highly flexible. They have to be able to roll with the ups and downs. They need to be able to redirect their group or organization when they find that something doesn’t work. They have to encourage experimentation. This is what Mark Cuban, president and co-founder of Broadcast.com, had to say about the importance of being flexible. “When we started, we thought advertising would be the core of our business. We were wrong. We thought that the way to define our network was to distribute servers all over the country. We were wrong. We’ve had to recalibrate again and again—and we’ll have to keep doing it in the future.”
Focusing on the Vision
Although visionary leadership is important in every organization, in a hyperspeed environment, people require more from their leaders. The rules, policies, and regulations that characterize more traditional organizations provide direction and reduce uncertainty for employees. Such formalized guidelines typically don’t exist in e-businesses, and it becomes the responsibility of the leaders to provide direction through their vision. For instance, David Pottruck, co-CEO of Charles Schwab, gathered nearly 100 of the company’s senior managers at the southern end of the Golden Gate Bridge. He handed each a jacket inscribed with the phrase “Crossing the Chasm” and led them across the bridge in a symbolic march to kick off his plan to turn Schwab into a full-fledged Internet brokerage. Getting people to buy into the vision may require even more radical actions. For instance, when Isao Okawa, chairman of Sega Enterprises, decided to remake his company into an e-business, his management team resisted—that is, until he defied Japan’s consensus-charged, lifetime-employment culture by announcing that those who resisted the change would be fired, risking shame. Not so amazingly, resistance to the change vanished overnight.
Source: S. P. Robbins and M. Coulter, Management, 7th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001), used with permission.
Contingency Leadership: The Culture Variable
Modern leadership theory recognizes that no single leadership style works well in all situations.87 A considerable amount of research, directly or indirectly, supports the notion of cultural contingency in leadership. This means that, as a result of culture-based norms and beliefs about how people in various roles should behave, what is expected of leaders, what influence they have, and what kind of status they are given vary from nation to nation. Clearly, this has implications for what kind of leadership style a manager should expect to adopt when going abroad.
The Globe Project
Research by the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) research program comprised a network of 170 social scientists and management scholars from 62 countries for the purpose of understanding the impact of cultural variables on leadership and organizational processes. Using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies to collect data from 18,000 managers in those countries, representing the majority of the world’s population, the researchers wanted to find out which leadership behaviors are universally accepted and which are culturally contingent. Not unexpectedly, they found that the positive leadership behaviors generally accepted anywhere are behaviors such as being trustworthy, encouraging, an effective bargainer, a skilled administrator and communicator, and a team builder; the negatively regarded traits included being uncooperative, egocentric, ruthless, and dictatorial.88 Leadership styles and behaviors found to be culturally contingent are charismatic, team-oriented, self-protective, participative, humane, and autonomous.
The results for some of the countries researched are shown in Exhibit 11-5. The first column (N) is the sample size within that country. The scores for each country on those leadership dimensions are based on a scale from 1 (the opinion that those leadership behaviors would not be regarded favorably) to 7 (that those behaviors would substantially facilitate effective leadership). Note that reading from top to bottom on a single dimension allows comparison among those countries on that dimension. For example, being a participative leader is regarded as more important in Canada, Brazil, and Austria than it is in Egypt, Hong Kong, Indonesia, and Mexico. In addition, reading from left to right for a particular country on all dimensions allows development of an effective leadership style profile for that country. In Brazil, for example, one can conclude that an effective leader is expected to be very charismatic, team-oriented and participative, and relatively humane but not autonomous.
Exhibit 11-5 Culturally Contingent Beliefs Regarding Effective Leadership Styles
Note: Scale 1 to 7 in order of how important those behaviors are considered for effective leadership (7 = highest).
Source: Based on selected data from Den Hartog, R. House et al. (GLOBE Project) Leadership Quarterly 10, No. 2 (1999).
The charismatic leader shown in this research is someone who is, for example, a visionary, an inspiration to subordinates, and performance-oriented. A team-oriented leader is someone who exhibits diplomatic, integrative, and collaborative behaviors toward the team. The self-protective dimension describes a leader who is self-centered, conflictual, and status conscious. The participative leader is one who delegates decision making and encourages subordinates to take responsibility. Humane leaders are those who are compassionate to their employees. An autonomous leader is, as expected, an individualist, so countries that ranked participation as important tended to rank autonomy in leadership as relatively unimportant. In Egypt, participation and autonomy were ranked about equally.89
This broad, path-breaking research by the GLOBE researchers can be very helpful to managers going abroad, enabling them to exercise culturally appropriate leadership styles. In another stage of this ongoing research project, interviews with managers from various countries led the researchers, headed by Robert House, to conclude that the status and influence of leaders vary a great deal across countries or regions according to the prevailing cultural forces. Whereas Americans, Arabs, Asians, the English, Eastern Europeans, the French, Germans, Latin Americans, and Russians tend to glorify leaders in both the political and organizational arenas, those in the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and Germanic Switzerland have very different views of leadership.90 Following are some sample comments made by managers from various countries.
Americans appreciate two kinds of leaders. They seek empowerment from leaders who grant autonomy and delegate authority to subordinates. They also respect the bold, forceful, confident, and risk-taking leader, as personified by John Wayne in his movies.
The Dutch place emphasis on egalitarianism and are skeptical about the value of leadership. Terms like leader and manager carry a stigma. If a father is employed as a manager, Dutch children will not admit it to their schoolmates.
Arabs worship their leaders—as long as they are in power!
Iranians seek power and strength in their leaders.
Malaysians expect their leaders to behave in a manner that is humble, modest, and dignified.
The French expect leaders to be cultivated—highly educated in the arts and in mathematics.91
Subsequently, further conclusions were drawn from the GLOBE results by Javidan et al. about which leadership variables are found to be universally effective, about universal impediments to effectiveness, and culturally contingent attributes. Their findings are listed in Exhibit 11-6, with the corresponding GLOBE dimension in parentheses.
Exhibit 11-6 Cultural Views of Leadership Effectiveness
Source: Based on Mansour Javidan, Peter W. Dorfman, Mary Sully de Luque, and Robert J. House, “In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE,” Academy of Management Perspectives 20, No. 1 (2006), p. 75.
In phase three of their follow-up research, the GLOBE team surveyed and interviewed 1060 CEOs and surveyed their more than 5,000 direct reports in 24 countries. Among their many and groundbreaking results, we highlight the one that the team concluded, that:
Leaders who behave according to expectations are effective.
The GLobe Team, Journal of World Business 47 (2012), pp. 504–518.92
In other words, if the leadership style meets the expectations of those reporting to him or her, there is acceptance and an effective balance for success in meeting goals. The most effective leaders are those who do not violate cultural norms.93 We can interpret this finding as confirming other research described here that cross-cultural, cross-border leadership style needs to blend with the norms, values, and expectations of the host people and institution to be successful.
Earlier Leadership Research
Other research also provides insight on the relative level of preference for autocratic versus participative leadership styles. For example, Hofstede’s four cultural dimensions (discussed in Chapter 3) provide a good starting point to study leader–subordinate expectations and relationships. We can assume, for example, that employees in countries that rank high on power distance (i.e., India, Mexico, the Philippines) are more likely to prefer an autocratic leadership style and some paternalism because they are more comfortable with a clear distinction between managers and subordinates than with a blurring of decision-making responsibility.
Employees in countries that rank low on power distance (Sweden and Israel) are more likely to prefer a consultative, participative leadership style, and they expect superiors to adhere to that style. Hofstede, in fact, concludes that participative management approaches recommended by many American researchers can be counterproductive in certain cultures.94 The crucial fact to grasp about leadership in any culture, he points out, is that it is a complement to subordinateship (employee attitudes toward leaders). In other words, perhaps we concentrate too much on leaders and their unlikely ability to change styles at will. Much depends on subordinates and their cultural conditioning, and it is that subordinateship to which the leader must respond.95 Hofstede points out that his research reflects the values of subordinates, not the values of superiors.
In another part of his research, Hofstede ranked the relative presence of autocratic norms in the following countries, from lowest to highest: Germany, France, Belgium, Japan, Italy, the United States, the Netherlands, Britain, and India. India ranked much higher than the others on autocracy.96
In the Middle East, in particular, little delegation occurs. A successful company there must have strong managers who make all the decisions and who go unquestioned. Much emphasis is placed on the use of power through social contacts and family influence, and the chain of command must be rigidly followed.97
Exhibit 11-7 depicts an integrative model of the leadership process that pulls together the variables described in this book and in the research on culture, leadership, and motivation—and shows the powerful contingency of culture as it affects the leadership role. Reading from left to right, Exhibit 11-7 presents contingencies from the broad environmental factors to the outcomes affected by the entire leadership situation. As shown, the broad context in which the manager operates necessitates adjustments in leadership style to all those variables relating to the work and task environment and the people involved. Cultural variables (values, work norms, the locus of control, and so forth), as they affect everyone involved—leader, subordinates, and work groups—then shape the content of the immediate leadership situation.
Exhibit 11-7 The Culture Contingency in the Leadership Process: An Integrative Model
The leader–follower interaction is then further shaped by the leader’s choice of behaviors (autocratic, participative, and so on) and by the employees’ attitudes toward the leader and the incentives. Motivation effects—various levels of effort, performance, and satisfaction—result from these interactions, on an individual and a group level. These effects determine the outcomes for the company (productivity, quality) and for the employees (satisfaction, positive climate). The results and rewards from those outcomes then act as feedback (positive or negative) into the cycle of the motivation and leadership process.
Clearly, then, international managers should take seriously the culture contingency in their application of the contingency theory of leadership. They must adjust their leadership behaviors according to the context, norms, attitudes, and other variables in that society. As noted, leadership refers not just to the manager–subordinate relationship but also to the important task of running the whole company, division, or unit for which a manager is responsible. When that is a global responsibility, it is vital to be able to adapt one’s leadership style to the local context on many levels. Nancy McKinstry, an American leader in Europe, is very sensitive to that imperative. Since she moved to Europe, charged with the task of turning around the troubled Wolters Kluwer, the Dutch publishing group, she “has had plenty of experience of the way national and cultural differences can both bedevil and enliven business.”98 One immediate difference she noticed is that she is one of few women in senior management in Holland. (Since then, as of 2015, the number of women in leadership positions has increased from 20 percent to 50 percent.) That fact, added to the focus of the Dutch media on the executive as a person and the views of the employees rather than the focus on the company, as in the United States, was surprising to her. As she continues her restructuring plan, Ms. McKinstry (whose physician husband commutes every two weeks between his hospital job in New York and his family in Amsterdam) has found that there is a misconception that she will apply an American, bottom-line leadership style. However, she says:
There isn’t that one-size-fits-all approach, not even within Europe. . . . If you have a product or a customer problem in France, there might be an approach that works extremely well. But if you took that same approach and tried to solve the exact same problem in Holland, you might fail.99
Nancy McKinstry Chairman and CEO, Wolters Kluwer Publishing Group, Holland100
Ms. McKinstry explains that in southern Europe, there is far more nuance to what people are saying than in northern Europe and, in particular, compared to the direct, optimistic style of the United States. She finds that they often don’t want to say “No” to her, even though they may not be able to achieve what she is asking them to do. Her leadership approach is to listen hard and ask, “How are you going to go about meeting this goal?”101
Conclusion
Because leadership and motivation entail constant interactions with others (employees, peers, superiors, outside contacts), cultural influences on these critical management functions are very strong. Certainly, other powerful variables are intricately involved in the international management context, particularly those of economics and politics. Effective leaders carefully examine the entire context and develop sensitivity to others’ values and expectations regarding personal and group interactions, performance, and outcomes—and then act accordingly.
Endnotes
1. Nicholas Sambanis, “The Euro Crisis as Ethnic Conflict,” International Herald Tribune, August 27, 2012.
2. A. Maitland, “Le patron, der Chef and the Boss,” Financial Times, January 9, 2006.
3. M. Kets de Vries and K. Korotov, “The Future of an Illusion: In Search of the New European Business Leader,” Organizational Dynamics 34, No. 3 (2005), pp. 218–230.
4. Ibid.
5. Maitland.
6. Ibid.
7. R. J. House, Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004).
8. F. C. Brodbeck, M. Frese, and M. Javidan, “Leadership Made in Germany: Low on Compassion, High on Performance,” Academy of Management Executive 16, No. 1 (2002).
9. R. House and M. Javidan, “Cultural Acumen for the Global Manager: Lessons from Project GLOBE,” Organizational Dynamics (2001).
10. Mansour Javidan, Peter W. Dorfman, Mary Sully de Luque, Robert J. House, “In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE,” The Academy of Management Perspectives 20, No. 1 (2006).
11. N. Payton, “Leaderships Skills Hold Britain Back,” The Guardian, February 22, 2003.
12. S. Michailova, “When Common Sense Becomes Uncommon: Participation and Empowerment in Russian Companies with Western Participation,” Journal of World Business 37 (2002), pp. 180–187.
13. “Fujitsu Uses Pay Cuts as a Motivational Tool,” www.nytimes .com, January 27, 2004.
14. Irem Uz, “The Index of Cultural Tightness and Looseness Among 68 Countries,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 46, No. 3 (2015), pp. 319–335.
15. Ibid.
16. Garry A. Gelade, Paul Dobson, and Katharina Auer, “Individualism, Masculinity, and the Sources of Organizational Commitment,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 39 (2008), p. 599.
17. Ibid.
18. F. Rieger and D. Wong-Rieger, “A Configuration Model of National Influence Applied to Southeast Asian Organizations,” Proceedings of the Research Conference on Business in Southeast Asia, May 12–13, 1990, University of Michigan.
19. R. M. Steers, Made in Korea: Chung Ju Yung and the Rise of Hyundai (New York: Routledge, 1999).
20. Meaning of Work International Research Team, The Meaning of Working: An International Perspective (New York: Academic Press, 1985).
21. Ibid.
22. A. H. Maslow, Motivation and Personality (New York: Harper and Row, 1954).
23. F. Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man (Cleveland: Cleveland World Press, 1966).
24. D. Siddiqui and A. Alkhafaji, The Gulf War: Implications for Global Businesses and Media (Apollo, PA: Closson Press, 1992), pp. 133–135.
25. Ibid.
26. A. Ali, “The Islamic Work Ethic in Arabia,” Journal of Psychology 126 (1992): 507–19.
27. Yasamusa Kuroda and Tatsuzo Suzuki, “A Comparative Analysis of the Arab Culture: Arabic, English and Japanese Language and Values,” paper presented at the 5th Congress of the International Association of Middle Eastern Studies, Tunis (September 20–24, 1991), quoted in Siddiqui and Alkhafaji.
28. A. Furnham, B. D. Kirkcaldy, and R. Lynn, “National Attitudes to Competitiveness, Money, and Work among Young People: First, Second, and Third World Differences,” Human Relations 47, No. 1 (1994), pp. 119–132.
29. Abraham Maslow, Motivation and Personality (New York: Harper & Row, 1954).
30. R. L. Tung, “Patterns of Motivation in Chinese Industrial Enterprises,” Academy of Management Review 6, No. 3 (1981), pp. 481–489.
31. Swee Hoon Ang, “The Power of Money: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Business-Related Beliefs,” Journal of World Business 35, No. 1 (2000), p. 43.
32. Anabella Davila and Marta M. Elvira, “Humanistic Leadership: Lessons from Latin America,” Journal of World Business 47, No. 4 (October 2012), pp. 548ser.
33. Geert Hofstede, “National Cultures in Four Dimensions,” International Studies of Management and Organization (Spring–Summer 1983).
34. Davila and Elvira, 2012.
35. D. Walker, T. Walker, and J. Schmitz, Doing Business Internationally, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003).
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid.
39. M. B. Teagarden, M. C. Butler, and M. Von Glinow, “Mexico’s Maquiladora Industry: Where Strategic Human Resource Management Makes a Difference,” Organizational Dynamics (Winter 1992), pp. 34–47.
40. John Condon, Good Neighbors: Communication with the Mexicans (Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, 1985).
41. G. K. Stephens and C. R. Greer, “Doing Business in Mexico: Understanding Cultural Differences,” Organizational Dynamics (Summer 1995), pp. 39–55.
42. Teagarden, Butler, and Von Glinow.
43. Stephens and Greer.
44. David and Elvira, 2012.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. Mariah E. de Forest, “Thinking of a Plant in Mexico?” Academy of Management Executive 8, No. 1 (1994), pp. 33–40.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid.
50. Teagarden, Butler, and Von Glinow.
51. Malgorzata Tarczynska, “Eastern Europe: How Valid Is Western Reward/Performance Management?” Benefits and Compensation International 29, No. 8 (2000), pp. 9–16.
52. Snejina Michailova, “When Common Sense Becomes Uncommon: Participation and Empowerment in Russian Companies with Western Participation,” Journal of World Business 37 (2002), pp. 180–187.
53. S. Michailova, “When Common Sense Becomes Uncommon: Participation and Empowerment in Russian Companies with Western Participation,” Journal of World Business 37 (2002), pp. 180–187.
54. Carl Fey, “Overcoming a Leader’s Greatest Challenge: Involving Employees in Firms in Russia,” Organizational Dynamics 37, No. 3 (2008), pp. 254–265.
55. Ibid.
56. Ibid.
57. Carl F. Fey, Stanislav Shekshnia, “The Key Commandments for Doing Business in Russia,” Organizational Dynamics 40 (2011), pp. 57–66.
58. Ibid.
59. M. Javidan and R. J. House, “Cultural Acumen for the Global Manager: Lessons from Project GLOBE,” Organizational Dynamics (Spring 2001), pp. 289–305.
60. Stanislav Shekshnia, Manfred Kets de Vries, “Interview with a Russian Entrepreneur: Ruben Vardanian,” Organizational Dynamics 37, No. 3 (2008), pp. 288–299.
61. Sheila M. Puffer and Daniel J. McCarthy, “Two Decades of Russian Business and Management Research: An Institutional Theory Perspective,” Academy of Management Perspectives, May, 2011.
62. “Doing Business in Russia,” www.kwintessential.co.uk, accessed May 1, 2012.
63. Rita Pyrillis, “Just a Token of Your Appreciation? Avoid Cultural Faux Pas When Rewarding International Employees,” Workforce Management 90, No. 9 (September 2011), pp. 3–6.
64. M. A. Von Glinow and Byung Jae Chung, “Comparative HRM Practices in the U.S., Japan, Korea and the PRC,” in Research in Personnel and HRM—A Research Annual: International HRM, A. Nedd, G. R. Ferris, and K. M. Rowland, eds. (London: JAI Press, 1989).
65. Pyrillis, 2011.
66. A. Ignatius, “Now If Ms. Wong Insults a Customer, She Gets an Award,” Wall Street Journal, January 24, 1989.
67. T. Saywell, “Motive Power: China’s State Firms Bank on Incentives to Keep Bosses Operating at Their Peak,” Far Eastern Economic Review (July 8, 2000), pp. 67–68.
68. A. Maitland, “Le patron, der Chef and the Boss,” Financial Times, January 9, 2006.
69. Carlos Sanchez-Runde, Luciara Nardon, Richard M. Steers, “Looking beyond Western Leadership Models: Implications for Global Managers,” Organizational Dynamics 40, No. 4 (2011), pp. 207–213.
70. A. Morrison, H. Gregersen, and S. Black, “What Makes Savvy Global Leaders?” Ivey Business Journal 64, No. 2 (1999), pp. 44–51; and Monash Mt. Eliza Business Review 1, No. 2 (1998).
71. Robert J. Thomas, Joshua Bellin, Claudy Jules, and Nandani Lynton, “Developing Tomorrow’s Global Leaders,” Sloan Management Review, Fall 2013.
72. D. Walker, T. Walker, and J. Schmitz, Doing Business Internationally (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003).
73. Mansour Javidan and Mary Teagarden, “Making It Overseas,” Harvard Business Review, April 2010.
74. “In the Driver’s Seat,” Newsweek, June 30, 2008.
75. A. Morrison, H. Gregersen, and S. Black, “What Makes Savvy Global Leaders?” Ivey Business Journal 64, No. 2 (1999), pp. 44–51; and Monash Mt. Eliza Business Review 1, No. 2 (1998).
76. R. H. Mason and R. S. Spich, Management: An International Perspective (Homewood: IL: Irwin, 1987).
77. Ibid., p. 184.
78. Ibid., p. 186.
79. Based on and excerpted from Mason and Spich.
80. Kendall Herbert, Audra I. Mockaitis, and Lena Zander, “An Opportunity for East and West to Share Leadership: A Multicultural Analysis of Shared Leadership Preferences in Global Teams,” Asian Business & Management 13, No, 3, (2015) pp. 257–282,
81. Alon Lisak, Miriam Erez, “Leadership Emergence in Multicultural Teams: The Power of Global Characteristics,” Journal of World Business 50 (2015), pp. 3–14.
82. Ibid.
83. Hans-Paul Bürkner, Vincent Chin, and Ranu Dayal, “There’s No Such Thing as Corporate DNA,” www.bcgperspectives.com, April 8, 2015.
84. Ibid.
85. B. M. Bass, Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership (New York: Free Press, 1990).
86. D. McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960). See, for example, R. M. Stogdill, Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire—Form XII (Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1963); R. R. Blake and J. S. Mouton, The New Managerial Grid (Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1978).
87. F. E. Fiedler, “Engineering the Job to Fit the Manager,” Harvard Business Review 43, No. 5 (1965), pp. 115–122.
88. Den Hartog, N. Deanne, R. J. House, Paul J. Hanges, P. W. Dorfman, S. Antonio Ruiz-Quintanna, et al., “Culture Specific and Cross-Culturally Generalizable Implicit Leadership Theories: Are Attributes of Charismatic/Transformational Leadership Universally Endorsed?” Leadership Quarterly 10, No. 2 (1999), pp. 219–256.
89. Ibid.
90. R. House et al., “Cultural Influences on Leadership and Organizations: Project GLOBE,” Advances in Global Leadership, 1 (JAI Press, 1999).
91. Ibid.
92. Peter Dorfman, Mansour Javidan, Paul Hanges, Ali Dastmalchian, and Robert House, “GLOBE: A Twenty-Year Journey into the Intriguing Word of Culture and Leadership,” Journal of World Business 47 (2012), pp. 504-518.
93. Ibid.
94. Geert Hofstede, “Motivation, Leadership and Organization: Do American Theories Apply Abroad?” Organizational Dynamics (Summer 1980): 42–63.
95. Ibid.
96. Geert Hofstede, “Value Systems in Forty Countries,” Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (1978).
97. M. K. Badawy, “Styles of Mid-Eastern Managers,” California Management Review (Spring 1980), p. 57 various newscasts, 2001.
98. Alison Maitland, “An American Leader in Europe,” leadership interview with Nancy McKinstry, Wolters Kluwer, Financial Times, July 15, 2004.
99. Ibid.
100. Ibid.
101. Ibid.