The masculinity dimension suggests that high masculinity means-a country experiences a higher degree of gender differentiation. In such cultures, males tend to dominate a significant portion of the society and power structure. A low masculinity score indicates that the society has a lower level of differentiation and inequity between genders. In these cultures, females are treated equally to males in all aspects of the society.
Long term-orientation: This fifth dimension is added by Hofstede later on. It measures the degree to which people are long-term oriented. This can be interpreted in this way: whether people think more for today and the present or they are living toward the future.
Hofstede’s cultural research can be viewed as one of the leading cultural researches in the world and his dimensions are used all over the world today.
Another researcher who gives his contribution for better explanation of the national cultures around the world is Shalom Schwartz. He made his research in 1990. At first the study is composed of 20 countries but it has been enlarged through the years. Schwartz’s research is conducted among schoolteachers and university students. Schwartz measure culture using the following three bipolar dimensions:
Embeddedness vs. autonomy:
This first dimension has partial connection with the Hofstede’s individualism/collectivism dimension. It measures if a culture is an embedded culture or it has a high degree of autonomy (Schwartz, 1990). Embedded cultures view people as part of a larger society. The most important for them is to support social relationship. It is expected in embedded cultures that everyone will live up to the normal standards and will not disturb the society. In autonomous cultures people are viewed as autonomous. It is expected from them to show their uniqueness and to express end develop their own ideas. According to Schwartz two types of autonomy exist – intellectual and affective. In intellectual autonomy it is expected from the people to pursue their own ideas. In affective autonomy people pursue positive experience for themselves.
Hierarchy vs. egalitarianism:
The second dimension of Schwartz measures the degree of hierarchy in the culture. In cultures with high degree of hierarchy the distribution of authority, power and wealth is viewed as normal, even if it is distributed very unequal. Organizations in this culture are likely to have and support a very strong authority. In an egalitarian culture, people value each other as equal (Noorderhaven, 2005). This dimension and Hofstede’s power distance dimension seems to be very similar.
Mastery vs. harmony:
The third Schwartz’s dimension measures if culture encourages active self-assertion (mastery), in order to reach goals, or if culture accepts the world as it is (harmony-oriented cultures). When a culture is harmony oriented it is likely that organizations are integrated in society to some extend and try to minimize the competition (Noorderhaven, 2005). The mastery dimension tends to overlap with Hofstede’s masculinity dimension, while the harmony dimension is comparable with the uncertainty avoidance dimension.
GLOBE Project
In 2002 Robert House finished his research which is named GLOBE project. GLOBE is abbreviation for Global Leadership and Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness. This research focuses on leadership and culture and the interrelation between them. The GLOBE project took examples from 61 countries. The research provides nine different dimensions for national cultures and connects them to leadership behaviour. The dimensions are as follows:
- Performance orientation: It reflects the extent to which a community encourages and rewards innovation, high standards, excellence and performance improvement (Grove, 2005).
- Uncertainty avoidance: The cultural dimension named “uncertainty avoidance” also emerged from the research as very important. It is “the extent to which a society, organization or group relies on social norms, rules and procedures to alleviate the unpredictability of future events” (House et al, 2004).
- In-group collectivism: The findings about “in-group collectivism” are important because this cultural dimension emerges as a strong predictor of the two most widely admired characteristics of successful leaders. In-group collectivism is “the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty and cohesiveness in their organizations or families” (House et al, 2004).
- Power distance: This dimension expresses the degree to which people accept and expect unequal distributed power. House used the same dimension for power distance as Hofstede.
- Gender egalitarianism: The findings for “gender egalitarianism” are also significant because it is one of the predictors of the most widely admired characteristic of successful leader. Gender egalitarianism is “the degree to which a collective minimizes gender inequality” (House et al, 2004).
- Human orientation: Human orientation is defined as “the degree to which an organization or society encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring and kind to others” (House et al, 2004).
- Institutional collectivism: Institutional collectivism is defined as ”the degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action” (House et al, 2004).
- Future orientation: Future orientation is “the degree to which a collectivity encourages and rewards future-oriented behaviours such as planning and delaying gratification” (House et al, 2004).
- Assertiveness: “Assertiveness” is “the degree to which individuals are assertive, confrontational and aggressive in their relationships with others” (House et al, 2004).
The purpose of the House’s research is to show the connection between culture and leadership. He achieves this purpose with his dimensions which are specially adjusted to explore the effect of culture over leadership.
Leadership and leadership styles
Leadership is one of the most important aspects of our life. If you are a good leader you will have better relationships with the others because to be a good leader means that you can communicate efficiently with many different people.
Leadership doesn’t have only one definition. It has many different forms. Many scholars have been researched the topic of leadership. According to Yukl, leadership is the process of interaction between the leader and the other stuff, influencing them toward workplace goals achievement (Yukl, 1998). According to Gerstner and Day, the most important characteristic of the leader from the view of the followers is that the leader has to be perceived as a role model of the group (Gerstner and Day, 1994).
Because leadership has a lot of different forms, a good way to analyze leadership is to use the four approaches which Yukl has been conducted in his researches (Yukl, 1989). These approaches are as follow:
- Power-influence approach: Power-influence approach is focusing on the power which the leader has and the way he uses that power. This power can be viewed as the influence which the leader has over attitudes and behaviours of the followers. According to Yukl, one of the most important questions is how a leader exercises his power. The way in which this power is exercised often explains how the subordinates react to the power (Yukl, 1989).
- Behaviour approach: The behaviour approach focuses more on what people perceive as “what leaders really do on the job” (Yukl, 1989). This approach is connected closely to the question what really is the job of the manager. When we are talking about leadership, one of the main questions is which behaviour leads to effective leadership. According to Yukl, there are two different types of behaviours which lead to effective leadership: relationship-oriented behaviour and task-oriented behaviour.
- Trait approach: Trait approach focuses on the personal skills of the leader. Traits such as initiative, energy and self-confidence are of significant meaning for effective leadership (Yukl, 1989). Furthermore, according to Yukl, there are three types of skills which determined the effective leadership: interpersonal skills, conceptual skills and technical skills. Finally Yukl states that to come to effective leadership, the balance of different traits is the most important aspect.
- Situational approach: The situational approach emphasizes on such factors as the leader’s authority and discretion and the nature of the work. Yukl states that some aspects of the situation can change the relationship between leader behaviour and the outcome (Yukl, 1989).
Types of Leadership
There are many different points of view about leadership style. According to Bernard Bass, basically two types of leadership exists and these are transactional leadership and transformational leadership (Bass, 1997). Another leadership styles are explained by Dorfman et al. as a result of their project GLOBE Dorfman et al, 2004). The next part of this paper focuses on the different types of leadership.
Transactional leadership
Transactional leadership, also known as managerial leadership, focuses on the role of supervision, organization and group performance. This type of leadership is based on a system of rewards and punishments. Transactional leadership is often used in business: when employees are successful, they are rewarded, when they fail, they are punished (Bass, 1997). Bass describes transactional leadership with the following characteristics:
- Contingent reward: The transactional leader rewards his followers for their efforts, good performance and achievements.
- Management by exception (active): The transactional leader often seeks for employees which don’t follow the rules and penalize them.
- Passive management by exception: The transactional leader who uses this method for managing, intervening only if the goals set by him are not met.
- Laissez-Faire: The transactional leader who uses this method let his followers to do their own decisions without interfering too much. Manager of this type avoid making of important decisions on his/her own and delegating rights to the followers (Bass, 1990).
Transformational leadership
According to Bass, transformational leadership can be described basically with the impact that it has on followers. Transformational leaders have the respect, trust and admiration of their followers (Bass, 1990). Bass suggests that transformational leadership has four different components, and they are as follows:
- Idealized influence: That means that the transformational leader serves as a role model for the followers. Because followers respect and trust the leader, they follow the example of this individual and internalize his or her ideals.
- Inspirational motivation: Transformational leaders have a clear vision that they are able to help followers to experience the same passion and motivation and fulfill the goals.
- Individualized consideration: Transformational leadership also involves offering support and encouragement to followers.
- Intellectual stimulation: Transformational leaders encourage creativity among followers. The leader encourages followers to explore new ways of doing thinks and new opportunities to learn.
Leadership styles in terms of GLOBE project
In 2002 House et al. use, in their GLOBE project, cultural dimensions in order to describe leadership. Also in the project are used six different leadership styles to describe the relation between leadership and culture (Dorfman et al, 2004). These sic leadership styles are as follows:
- Charismatic/value-based leadership: A leader who uses this style motivates and inspires his followers but in the same time expects high performance from them. Dorfman et al. use six definitions to describe better charismatic/value-based leadership. They are: performance oriented, inspirational, integer, decisive, visionary and self-sacrificing.
- Team oriented leadership: This leadership style focuses on team building and achievement of the goals from the whole team with effectiveness. Important aspects are: collaborative, diplomatic, administratively competent and team integrator.
- Participative leadership: Participative leader expects from the others to take part in the process of decision making. Participative and autocratic are the two main aspects in this style.
- Humane-oriented leadership: In this style of leadership the most important qualities are generosity, supportiveness and compassion. Key aspects are: modesty and human oriented.
- Autonomous leadership: This type of leader is expected to function alone, without interventions. The main aspect in this style is autonomy.
- Self-protective leadership: The focus here is put on security and safety of the members of the group. Important aspects are: status conscious, face server, self-centered and procedural.
In 1974 House and Mitchell describe four styles of leadership, namely supportive, directive, participative and achievement-oriented leadership (House and Mitchell, 1974).
- According to House and Mitchell the supportive leader considers the needs of the followers, shows concern for their welfare and creates a friendly working environment. This includes increasing the follower’s self-esteem and making the job more interesting.
- In directive leadership the leader tells the followers what needs to be done and gives them appropriate guidance along the way. This includes giving them schedules of specific work to be done at specific times.
- Participative leader is consulting with the followers and taking their ideas into account when making decisions and taking particular actions.
- In achievement-oriented leadership the leader shows faith in the capabilities of the followers to succeed. He sets challenging goals, both in work and in self-improvement.
The relation between culture and leadership
The national culture of any manager plays important role in the performance of his international corporation. This is true because national culture has influence upon leadership style (Byrne and Bradley, 2007). In searching a connection between leadership and culture, cultural dimensions such as House’s and Hofstede’s can be used in order to match national culture to leadership style.
Many researchers have been exploring the interrelation between culture and leadership.
Robert House and his associates have been exploring the effects of leadership in the GLOBE project. House et al connect the dimensions of House to specific leadership statement (House et al, 2002). According to House et al, the behaviours of leaders are partly in interrelation with the organizational practices, which are in their turn a reflection of societal cultures (House et al, 2002).
In 1990 Rodrigues describes possible relations between Hofstede’s four dimensions and House and Mitchell’s four leadership styles (Rodrigues, 1990). According to his theory, a supportive style will be more effective in societies with moderate power distance and collectivism, whereas an achievement style is suitable for societies with weak-to-moderate uncertainty avoidance. A directive leadership can work in societies with relatively high power distance, collectivism and uncertainty avoidance. A participative style can work well everywhere except in societies with a combination of relatively high power distance, high uncertainty avoidance and strong collectivism.
In 1994 Gernster and Day made a research which title is “Cross-cultural comparison of leadership perceptions”. The purpose of the research made by them is to show if cultural aspects have influence on leadership perceptions. To do this they use the five Hofstede’s dimensions: Power distance, Masculinity/Femininity, Uncertainty avoidance, Long-term orientation and Individualism/Collectivism. The research was made among 142 American students with different ethnic background and questionnaire with 59 questions were used. The results of the study show that there are reliable connection between culture and leadership (Gernster and Day, 1994).
In conclusion, it can be said that the national culture has some influence over leadership style and leadership styles are affected by the national culture. The researches made by House et al, Gernster and Day and Rodriguez prove that to some extent.
Literature:
1. Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., (1993) Transformational leadership: a response to critiques in Chemers, M.M., Ayman, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives and Directions, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
2. Bass, B.M., (1997) “Does the Transactional- Transformational Leadership Paradigm Transcend Organizational and National Boundaries”. American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139.
3. Boyacigiller, N. and Adler, N.J., (1991) The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in a global context. Academy of management review.
4. Byrne, G.J., & Bradley, F., (2007) Culture’s influence on leadership efficiency: How personal and national cultures affect leadership style. Journal of Business Research, 60, 168-175
5. Cornelius N. Grove, (2005) Introduction to the GLOBE Research Project on Leadership Worldwide.
6. Dorfman P.W. and Ronen, S., (1991) The universality of leadership theories: Challenges and paradoxes. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, Miami.
7. Dorfman, P.W., Hanges, P.J., & Brodbeck, F.C. (2004) Leadership and Cultural Variation: The Identification of Culturally Endorsed Leadership Profiles. In: R.J. House (Ed.), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations; the GLOBE study of 62
societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
8. Gerstner, C.R., & Day, D.V., (1994) Cross-cultural comparison of leadership prototypes. Leadership Quarterly, 5(2), 121-134.
9. Hofstede, G., (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage Publications, London.
10. Hofstede, G., (1993) Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive.
11. Hofstede,G., (2001) Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions, and organizations across nations. 2nd. edition, Sage Publications, London.
12. Hofstede, G., & McCrea R., (2004) Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 36, 52-88.
13. House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dorfman, P., (2002) Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of world Business, 37, 3-10.
14. Noorderhaven, N., & Koen, C.L., (2005) National Cultures and Management. In: C.L. Koen (Ed.), Comparative international management. London, England: McGraw-Hill
15. Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (1985) Clustering Countries on Attitudinal Dimensions: A Review and Synthesis. Academy of Management Review 10.
16. Schwartz, S.H., & Bilsky, W., (1990) Toward a Theory of the Universal Content and Structure of Values: Extensions and Cross-Cultural Replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878-891
17. Sondergaard, M., (1994) Hofstede’s consequences: A study of reviews, citations and replications.
18. Triandis, H.C., (1993) Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes. Journal of Comparative Social Sciences.
19. Yukl, G. (1989) Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251- 289
20. Yukl G, (1998) Leadership in Organizations, 4th ed., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.