Cross Cultural Leadership Model
Faculty Advisor Name
Margaret F. Sloan
Department
School of Strategic Leadership Studies
Description
Although leadership is broadly considered to be universal across countries, regions, and cultures, the operationalization of leadership phenomena and preferences are often regarded as culturally specific. In the face of global challenges, there is a need to integrate the different leadership practices across cultures to address these challenges. The purpose of this paper was to explore the orientation of both the North-West (individualistic culture) and the South-East leadership theories (a collectivist culture), explore the most dominant models used to explain leadership behaviors in these contexts, and propose elements of an integrated leadership model that accounts for variation in preferences and styles across cultures. The key issues discussed include variations in meaning and scope of leadership across cultures, global differences in leadership practices and preferences, historical and emergent leadership models in the North-West, and South-East (with a key focus on Africa), and areas of convergence.
Hofstede (2011) defines cultures portrayed by collectivism as a tight social framework in which people distinguish between the social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member and in which he/she does not. Individualistic culture, on the other hand, is defined as loosely woven social structures in which people are expected to take care of themselves and exclusively look after their own and close family interests (Hofstede, 2011). Individualism is concerned with each person's rights and concerns. According to Hofstede (2011) collectivism occurs in developing and Eastern countries, while individualism tends to exist in developed and Western countries, only Japan takes a central position on the dimensions. In the North-West, leadership theories have evolved over time, from a focus on self attributes to the concentration on the distinctiveness of individual employees who must be molded via serving and guiding in order for their potentials to develop for the greater good of their enterprises. According to Chen et al. (2011), one of the relatively common leadership themes across these societies is a “paternalistic” leadership style that is high on status orientation, high on involvement in nonwork lives, and highly directive.
The chapter found that the key ingredients to a successful Integrated leadership Model among others were 1. Cross-Cultural Competence - the individual’s effectiveness in drawing upon a set of knowledge, skills, and personal attributes to work successfully with people from different national cultural backgrounds at home or abroad, and 2. Intercultural perspective-taking, - a particular trait relating to multiethnic leadership: the capacity of such leaders to take the viewpoint of another within the cultural setting, to apply cultural lenses, and adjust easily when facing individuals from unfamiliar cultures. Components of cross-cultural competence include knowledge and cognition, cultural awareness, cross-cultural schema, and cognitive complexity (Abbe et al., 2007). Additionally, Li (2020) defines CCC as personal characteristics which arguably make individuals more culturally competent based on a Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral (CAB) paradigm). The most studied construct under the CAB paradigm is Cultural Intelligence (CQ) which Earley and Ang (2003) as a four-dimensional construct that includes metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral dimensions.
Cross Cultural Leadership Model
Although leadership is broadly considered to be universal across countries, regions, and cultures, the operationalization of leadership phenomena and preferences are often regarded as culturally specific. In the face of global challenges, there is a need to integrate the different leadership practices across cultures to address these challenges. The purpose of this paper was to explore the orientation of both the North-West (individualistic culture) and the South-East leadership theories (a collectivist culture), explore the most dominant models used to explain leadership behaviors in these contexts, and propose elements of an integrated leadership model that accounts for variation in preferences and styles across cultures. The key issues discussed include variations in meaning and scope of leadership across cultures, global differences in leadership practices and preferences, historical and emergent leadership models in the North-West, and South-East (with a key focus on Africa), and areas of convergence.
Hofstede (2011) defines cultures portrayed by collectivism as a tight social framework in which people distinguish between the social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member and in which he/she does not. Individualistic culture, on the other hand, is defined as loosely woven social structures in which people are expected to take care of themselves and exclusively look after their own and close family interests (Hofstede, 2011). Individualism is concerned with each person's rights and concerns. According to Hofstede (2011) collectivism occurs in developing and Eastern countries, while individualism tends to exist in developed and Western countries, only Japan takes a central position on the dimensions. In the North-West, leadership theories have evolved over time, from a focus on self attributes to the concentration on the distinctiveness of individual employees who must be molded via serving and guiding in order for their potentials to develop for the greater good of their enterprises. According to Chen et al. (2011), one of the relatively common leadership themes across these societies is a “paternalistic” leadership style that is high on status orientation, high on involvement in nonwork lives, and highly directive.
The chapter found that the key ingredients to a successful Integrated leadership Model among others were 1. Cross-Cultural Competence - the individual’s effectiveness in drawing upon a set of knowledge, skills, and personal attributes to work successfully with people from different national cultural backgrounds at home or abroad, and 2. Intercultural perspective-taking, - a particular trait relating to multiethnic leadership: the capacity of such leaders to take the viewpoint of another within the cultural setting, to apply cultural lenses, and adjust easily when facing individuals from unfamiliar cultures. Components of cross-cultural competence include knowledge and cognition, cultural awareness, cross-cultural schema, and cognitive complexity (Abbe et al., 2007). Additionally, Li (2020) defines CCC as personal characteristics which arguably make individuals more culturally competent based on a Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral (CAB) paradigm). The most studied construct under the CAB paradigm is Cultural Intelligence (CQ) which Earley and Ang (2003) as a four-dimensional construct that includes metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral dimensions.
