Please refer to the following:
1- Requirement (Attached)
2- text book Chapter 16 in Leadership: Theory and Practice (Attached)
3- Articles:
– Bonsu, S., & Twum-Danso, E. (2018). Leadership style in the global economy: A focus on
cross-cultural and transformational leadership. Journal of Marketing & Management,
9(2), 27-52.
– Warrick, D. D. (2017). What leaders need to know about organizational culture. Business
Horizons, 60(3), 305-404.
Culture And Leadership
Globalization has led to a significant transformation in the business world; besides promoting trade, it makes culture a critical factor in an entity’s success. Warrick (2017) supports this perspective and argues that culture influences an organization’s performance, employees’ morale, and productivity. Bonsu and Twum-Danso (2018) also posit that due to the continually shrinking business world of multiculturalism, it has become more critical for firms to focus on cross-cultural leadership, which most leaders lack. Fortunately, over the years, scholars have explored the concept of culture and leadership and developed a series of theories and concepts against which contemporary leaders can base their leadership styles to influence organization performance, employees’ satisfaction, and employee retention. Among these studies and theories are GLOBE’s six-dimension global leadership behaviours and Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory that leaders can utilize to understand the varying cultures across nations and use the information to implement a leadership style that promotes and sustains a culturally diverse organization for its long-term success.
As mentioned, the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness research program (GLOBE) is a significant study that leaders and organizations in contemporary society can use to create and sustain a culturally diverse entity. As the literature suggests, the GLOBE was a 1991 research program that studied 62 communities regarding cross-cultural interactions and culture’s impact on leadership effectiveness (Northouse, 2019). The GLOBE researchers mainly explored and classified the different leadership styles based on their perceived effectiveness and ineffectiveness across different cultures. This project was primarily based on the implicit leadership theory as suggested by Lord and Maher. According to the two scholars, “individuals have implicit beliefs and convictions about the attributes and beliefs that distinguish leaders from non-leaders and effective leaders from ineffective leaders” (cited in Northouse, 2019, p.635). By basing their research on this theory, GLOBE academicians explored the manner in which different cultures and societies perceive various leadership behaviours.
The GLOBE project acknowledged six global leadership behaviours that various cultures consider vital, among them charismatic/valued-based leadership. According to Northouse (2019), charismatic/value-based leadership reflects the behaviour of inspiring, motivating, and expecting a high performance from other people based on firmly held core values. The authors also add that this leadership behaviour is mainly visionary, self-sacrificing, trustworthy, decisive, inspirational, and performance-oriented (Northouse, 2019). While different cultures consider charismatic/value-based profile a vital leadership behaviour, its desirability and importance vary across various culture clusters across the world. For example, Latin American people perceive an ideal leader as foremost charismatic/value-based. Conversely, the desirability of this leadership behaviour is moderate in Eastern Europe (Northouse, 2019). Therefore, while different cultures endorse charismatic/value-based leadership behaviour, their level of desirability varies significantly.
Besides charismatic/value-based behaviour, GLOBE also identified team-oriented as a highly endorsed behaviour in societies. As the literature suggests, team-oriented leaders are diplomatic, collaborative team-integrators, malevolent, and administratively competent (McNeely et al., 2017). Simply put, this type of leadership focuses mainly on teamwork and joint efforts among team members. Like other leadership behaviours, team-orientation is moderately valued in a majority of culture clusters.
The other leadership behaviour identified by the GLOBE project is participative leadership. McNeely et al. (2017) describe participative leaders as non-autocratic and feedback-seeking individuals. Northouse (2019) also emphasize that these types of leaders involve others in decision-making and implementation. In essence, participative leaders involve all organization members in working and making critical decisions. Despite the studied cultures endorsing this leadership behaviour, it is considered moderately ideal for a leader in Anglo culture and least desirable in Southern Asia.
Humane-oriented leadership is also another global leadership behaviour identified in the GLOBE research project. Northouse (2019) avers that this type of leadership includes sensitivity and modesty to other people and may entail being supportive, considerate, generous and compassionate towards others. Put merely, humane-oriented leaders show compassion and tenderness towards other people. Based on GLOBE research findings, the importance of human-oriented leadership behaviour varies from one culture to another. For example, the Sub-Saharan Africa culture considers this trait vital in leadership, while individuals in Latin Europe put moderate value in the behaviour (Northouse, 2019). This information implies that a human-oriented leadership style would be more successful in the Sub-Saharan African culture than in Latin Europe.
Furthermore, GLOBE research identified autonomous as a highly endorsed leadership behaviour during the global project. According to scholars, autonomous leaders are independent and individualistic (Northouse, 2019). Unlike other individuals, autonomous leaders have unique attributes that make them influential leaders. However, similarly to other leadership behaviours, independent leadership’s desirability varies from one culture to another. For example, Eastern Europe and Germanic Europe’s cultures have higher desirability for autonomous administration than the Latin Europe culture. Similarly, individuals in the Anglo culture endorse charismatic/value-based leadership than they do independent leadership. This comparison implies that an organization would have to adopt autonomous leadership to succeed in Eastern Europe.
The sixth global leadership behaviour, as proposed by academicians, is self-or group-protective leadership. Scholars posit that this cluster reflects habits that promote the safety and security of leaders and the team. Studiers also add that self-centeredness, status consciousness, face-saving, procedural and conflict inducing are unique attributes of this leadership behaviour (Northouse, 2019). In essence, self-protective leadership is a management style that emphasizes the team and leader’s safety. Based on the GLOBE findings, self-protective leadership is highly endorsed in Confucian Asia, Southern Asia and Middle East culture and least significant in Germanic Europe, Anglo, Nordic Europe. Therefore, organizational leaders that wish to enhance employees’ morale, productivity and performance in the Middle East and Confucian Asia would have to adopt a self-centred leadership.
Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory is the other tool proposed by scholars that organizations and their leaders can use to create and sustain a culturally diverse organization. According to scholars, Hofstede’s theory reduces cross-national cultural diversity to country scores based on six dimensions: power distance vs closeness, uncertainty avoidance vs acceptance, individualism vs collectivism, masculinity vs femininity, long-term vs short term orientation and indulgence versus restraint (Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018). The six dimensions illustrate the different cultures across nations globally. For example, in the power distance index, cultures are analyzed depending on their degree of acceptance of power differences and inequality. On the one hand, scholars classify countries with a high-power distance index as highly receptive to inequality and power differences. Therefore, leadership and management styles that emphasize authority and are bureaucratic are likely to succeed in such a culture. Fundamentally, Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory identifies the six cultural clusters based on their acceptance scores in various countries.
As is evident from the overview, Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory and GLOBE six global leadership behaviours analyze traits and cultures acceptable in different countries. Therefore, organizations and their leaders can use the two concepts to understand and discern the most appropriate leadership style that would promote and sustain cultural diversity in the organization. For example, suppose a multinational company expands its operations to Latin America. In that case, it can utilize the six global leadership behaviour tool to understand the most desired leadership behaviour in the culture. The leaders may, in turn, use this cultural knowledge to build strong and successful organizational cultures that bring out the best in people (Warrick, 2017). Similarly, corporate leaders can use Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory to understand the varying global cultures, including the different ways in which firms are run worldwide. Leaders can also utilize this information to discern the most appropriate ways to run their businesses in the environment they choose to operate.
In summary, GLOBE’s six-dimension global leadership behaviours and Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory are essential tools that organizations and their leaders can use to promote and sustain a culturally diverse organization for its long-term success. On the one hand, leaders can utilize Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory to understand and discern the varying ways in which business is undertaken in various cultures. On the other hand, organizations and their leaders can use six-dimension global leadership behaviours to understand leadership styles that are considered effective or ineffective in different cultures. This information can, in turn, assist leaders in selecting leadership styles that would positively influence performance and employees’ productivity.
This essay also proves that leadership styles are not a one-fit for all. Arguably, leadership behaviours that are acceptable in one culture may be ineffective in another. Fortunately, the two theories and studies used to propose leadership behaviours for various cultures are empirically proven; therefore, leaders can confidently apply them in the business environment to promote and sustain cultural diversity and foster organizational success.
References
Beugelsdijk, S., & Welzel, C. (2018). Dimensions and dynamics of national culture: Synthesizing Hofstede with Inglehart. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(10), 1469–1505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022118798505
Bonsu, S., & Twum-Danso, E. (2018). Leadership style in the global economy: A focus on cross-cultural and transformational leadership. Journal of Marketing and Management, 9(2), 37-52. https://gsmi-ijgb.com/wp-content/uploads/JMM-V9-N2-P04-Samuel-Bonsu-Global-Economy.pdf
McNeely, J. P., Duncan, P., & Ree, M. J. (2017). GLOBE US leadership preferences versus Black American Catholics’ GLOBE leadership preferences. The International Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Society, 7(3), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.18848/2154-8633/cgp/v07i03/69-80
Northouse, P. (2019). Leadership : Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Los Angeles Sage.
Warrick, D. D. (2017). What leaders need to know about organizational culture. Business Horizons, 60(3), 395–404. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/bushor/v60y2017i3p395-404.html
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
