Leadership Preferences Across Cultures
Kristin Moan and Hilde Hetland
Are leadership preferences universally
endorsed or culturally contingent?
Kristin Moan1 and Hilde Hetland2*
1 Educational and psychological services, Norway
2 Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Norway
*Hilde Hetland, Christiesgate 12, 5015 Bergen, Norway. E-mail: [email protected]
Received: 30.01.2012 Accepted: 05.09.2012 Published: 15.12.2012
Abstract
In this review we examine the question of whether leadership preferences are universally endorsed or culturally contingent. A systematic
search was conducted, using the search engines Psychinfo and ISI Web
of Knowledge, and cross-cultural leadership literature published in a five
year time span was selected. Though the question of universality of leadership theories has been popular in cross-cultural leadership literature,
leadership preferences across cultures have been investigated in few articles published during the years. In all, seven studies were selected for
this review from the chosen five year time span. Our investigation of
these studies revealed that four studies supported both the notion that
leadership preferences are universally endorsed and the view that leadership ideals are culture-specific, whereas three studies more exclusively
supported the culture-specific stand. None of the reviewed studies solely
supported the universal position. Taken together, the reviewed studies
therefore tend to give more support to the notion that leadership preferences are culturally contingent. Strengths and weaknesses of the reviewed studies are discussed and implications for practice and research
are provided.
Keywords: Leadership, culture, universal, culture-specific, preferences, cross-cultural, implicit leadership, perceptions
Introduction
parts of the world. An important concern
is therefore whether leadership theories
tested in one culture is valid in other cultures
(Yukl, 2006). In light of globalization, the
question is intruding: Are there some ways
of leading that people regardless of cultural
background consider as good? Or, is a more
correct assumption that what people view
as good leadership is highly dependent upon
culture? The issue of universality/cultural
specificity of leadership preferences will be
the focus of this paper. To investigate this
In line with the growing globalization,
research on cross-cultural management has
increased as well (Dickson, Den Hartog, &
Mitchelson, 2003). Many researchers have
investigated whether a certain leadership
style is practiced across the globe. Perhaps
somewhat surprising, only a limited number
have compared how people in different cultures perceive leadership. Most theories on
leadership have been developed in western
5
Scandinavian Journal of Organizational Psychology, June 2012
Volume 4, Issue 1
question, we have reviewed cross-cultural
leadership research literature to examine
what studies from 2003-2008 show in this
respect. Our research question is as follows:
What does the reviewed literature show concerning the question of whether leadership
preferences are universally endorsed or culturally contingent?
stresses that ILTs are also influenced by individual values and beliefs. The assessment of
traits and behaviours that characterize good
leaders shared by a culture is sometimes
called a culturally endorsed implicit leadership theory (CLT).
Before we discuss the findings of recent
cross-cultural leadership research, we will
initially address the phenomena of leadership and culture.
Culture is a complex phenomenon, challenging to deal with in any research context.
How to define culture is a fundamental concern in all cross-cultural research (Holmberg
& Akerblom, 2006). One early, influential
definition describes culture as: “That complex whole which includes knowledge, belief,
art, morals, law, custom, and other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (Taylor, 1871 in Adekola &
Sergi, 2007, p. 163), A shorter description is
“the shared way of life of a group of people”
(Berry, 2002, p. 2). Varying in the degree of
precision, the essence of most definitions is
that culture is a learnt system of values and
beliefs shared by the members of a group
(Ember & Ember, 2001).
Culture
Leadership
According to Lord and Maher (1991), a
prerequisite for being a successful leader is
to be perceived as a leader. Perception involves creating and activating schemes and
organizing information in cognitive categories. In the context of leadership research,
the cognitive categories are often called leadership prototypes (Holmberg & Akerblom,
2006). It is these prototypes, the follower’s
perceptions and implicit theories of leadership, that are in focus in the follower-centred
approach.
Culture - measuring the concept. A central question in cross-cultural research is
how culture best can be represented (Leung,
2008). In research settings, some authors
claim that the culture construct is not always
appropriately applied (Hofstede, 1998 in
Dickson et al., 2003). Nevertheless, a good
framework is necessary to ensure coherence to the research (Dickson et al., 2003).
Hofstede’s way of measuring and classifying
cultures along dimensions (Hofstede, 1980)
is often said to represent a “major advancement” in this respect (Dickson et al., 2003).
His dimension-based approach continues to
be a line many researchers follow. Hofstede’s
dimensions are used, or, at least referred to,
in a major part of the literature on leadership in a cross-cultural perspective.
Based on the categorization, expectations
and perceptions develop through implicit
theories. The implicit theories thus identify
the attributes and behaviours that distinguish leaders from non-leaders and effective
from ineffective leaders (Holmberg & Akerblom, 2006).
Leadership categorization theory (Lord
& Maher, 1991) suggests that the better the
match between a perceived individual and
the leadership concept held by the perceiver,
the more likely it is that the perceiver actually ‘sees’ the individual as a leader. Accordingly, the more people perceive someone as
a prototypical outstanding leader, the more
they should respond positively. Followers
who categorize a manager as a prototypical
leader are likely to allow him/her to exert
leadership influence on them.
According to Hofstede, a dimension is
an aspect of culture that can be measured
relative to other cultures (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Hofstede suggested four central
dimensions: power distance (from small to
large), collectivism versus individualism,
femininity versus masculinity and uncertainty avoidance. Power distance refers to
the degree less powerful members accept
unequally distributed power in an organiza-
Though research in the area is limited,
it is commonly believed that due to shared
cultural values and beliefs, members of
the same cultural group are likely to have
similar implicit theories of leadership (ILTs)
(Holmberg & Akerblom, 2006). This view
is also held by Yukl (2006), who in addition
6
Leadership Preferences Across Cultures
Kristin Moan and Hilde Hetland
tion. Collectivism/individualism regards the
extent individuals are integrated into groups.
Concerning the masculinity/femininity dimension, a masculine society is associated
with assertiveness, materialism and distinct
gender roles, while a society characterized
by femininity has more modest and caring
values and overlapping gender roles. Uncertainty avoidance indicates the degree people
feel comfortable towards uncertainty (Hofstede, 2009).
Relationships can be universal in different
forms: Simple universal, variform universal,
functional universal, variform functional
universal and systematic behavioural universal (Lonner, 1980; Bass, 1997; Dickson
et al., 2003). Since we focus only on the
perception of leadership, the nuances of the
term become less important in regard to our
investigation.
The universality of theories. The distinction between universal and culture-specific
phenomena brings us to the question of how
theories developed in one part of the world
can be tested in other regions. A common
criticism is that this design may have difficulties in discovering the phenomena that might
be unique to a culture as some culture specifics may not be detected without a thorough
knowledge about the actual culture (Dickson
et al., 2003). As mentioned, in the field of
leadership many theories are developed in
western cultures (Yukl, 2006). Several studies concern whether attributes associated
with these leadership styles are perceived
as contributing to outstanding leadership
across cultures (e.g. Den Hartog et al., 1999;
Bass, 1997). Without denying that this method can yield important information, one
can assume that elements of what people in
certain cultures see as good leadership can
be neglected through such an approach. This
criticism is important especially if leadership
ideals to a great degree are cultural contingent.
Hofstede is not the only researcher presenting dimensions to assess cultures, however. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961),
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997),
Schwartz (1999), and the GLOBE study with
its nine dimensions (House et al., 2004), represent other attempts to measure cultures.
There are two main types of cultural
studies comparing cultural differences and
similarities. A cross-cultural study implies a
worldwide investigation, and the results are
held to be generalizable to all kinds of societies (Ember & Ember, 2001). Another type
of comparative study is the cross-national
study, carried out in only a few populations
closely related (Berry, 1992). Although few
cultural studies are in reality cross-cultural,
the two terms are often used interchangeably.
Universality and Culture-Specificity
In the discussions of universal and culture-specific distinctions, elements unique to
a culture are often called emics (Harris, Pike,
& Headland, 1990) or culture-specific. Regarding the focus of this review, emics would
be the leadership preferences of a cultural
group shared by no other cultures. Emics
are per definition held to be incomparable
across cultures. Etics, on the other hand,
refer to universals, things common across
cultures (Harris et al., 1990). In our context,
etics would be the leadership ideals endorsed
in all cultures. As some disagreement prevails concerning the correct use of the terms
emic and etic (Dorfman, 2004a), we will in
this paper use the words culture-specific and
universal.
Prior reviews and Research on CrossCultural Leadership Perceptions
The research literature on cross-cultural
leadership has been reviewed prior to this
study in book chapters (e.g. Dorfman, 1996;
House, Wright and Aditya; 1997, Aycan,
2008). A central review article by Dickson et
al. (2003) described emerging patterns in the
research literature on leadership in a crosscultural context. In this article, the authors
identified what they called “the beginnings
of the decline in the quest for universal
leadership principles that apply equivalently
across all cultures...” (Dickson et al., 2003,
p. 734). We will continue where Dickson
and colleagues ended, and review articles
published after 2003 and in the following
five year span. As none of the former reviews
primarily looked at leadership perceptions
Dickson and colleagues (2003) point out
that the word universal can take on different meanings when applied to leadership.
7
Scandinavian Journal of Organizational Psychology, June 2012
across cultures, this paper aspires to be a
supplement to the field specifically addressing this.
Volume 4, Issue 1
the results from the GLOBE study nevertheless clearly proved charismatic/transformational leadership to be the leadership dimension containing most attributes found to be
universally approved. None of the leadership
attributes rejected universally reflected charismatic/transformational leadership (Den
Hartog et al., 1999). In this manner the
GLOBE results support the view that leadership ideals to a considerable degree are universal. It should be mentioned, however, that
Den Hartog et al. (1999) were careful to remark that their proposition of a universally
endorsed leadership style does not preclude
different enactments across cultures.
According to Den Hartog and colleagues
(1999), there have not been many studies
comparing preferences of leadership across
cultures. In fact, Den Hartog et al. (1999)
stated: ”To date, a study by Gerstner and
Day (1994) is the most widely cited study
focusing on cross-cultural comparisons of
leadership prototypes” (p. 229). That this
widely cited study had a relatively small
sample size (8 nationalities and a total of
142 respondents) (Gerstner & Day, 1994),
certainly calls for an investigation of more
recent studies in the area. In addition, Gerstner and Day (1994) found significant differences in the countries’ prototypes, but did
not focus on leadership preferences across
cultures. In Gerstner and Day’s study the
word prototype indicates the typical leader.
It should be noted, however, that prototype
sometimes refers to an outstanding leader
in other studies (e.g. Brodbeck et al., 2000;
Neal, Finlay, Catana and Catana, 2007).
Results from the GLOBE study can also
reinforce the notion that leadership preferences are culture-specific, however (Dorfman, 2004a; Den Hartog et al., 1999). Culturally endorsed implicit leadership theory
(CLT) profiles were created for 10 groupings
of cultures. A comparison of the CLT profiles identified specific differences in perceptions of some leadership attributes (e.g. being independent and sensitive) between the
countries and between the clusters. The CLT
profiles thus demonstrate that some leadership preferences are culturally unique (Dorfman, 2004a).
In field of cross-cultural leadership, one
particular study stands out and will be
briefly outlined below: the GLOBE study
(“Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Project Home
Page”, 2009). One of the main concerns of
this project was the question of universality/
culture-specificity regarding attributes contributing to outstanding leadership. Starting
in the 1990s, parts of the GLOBE project are
still continuing. Through the GLOBE study,
about 170 researchers from a large number
of nations have been engaged in the study of
leadership in 62 countries. The comprehensiveness of this study is among the reasons
why it has been called “one of the most important advances in the cross-cultural leadership field” (Aycan, 2008, p. 220.) Accordingly, we find it appropriate to present some
of the results from the GLOBE study.
Overall then, lessons drawn from the
GLOBE project are that agreement seems
to prevail across cultures on several leadership attributes (charismatic/transformational
leadership), while other leadership preferences seem to be culturally contingent.
Another example of a large-scale study in
the field of cross-cultural leadership is Brodbeck et al.’s (2000) investigation of leadership prototypes in 22 European countries.
While Den Hartog et al., (1999) tested the
hypothesis that leadership preferences are
universally endorsed, Brodbeck et al. (2000)
tested and found support for the assumption that leadership preferences are culturally contingent. The results of these two
studies do not necessarily contradict each
other. However, the focuses of the studies are
clearly different.
As part of the GLOBE project, Den Hartog et al. (1999) tested and found strong
support for the hypothesis that “attributes
associated with charismatic/transformational
leadership will be universally endorsed as
contributing to outstanding leadership” (p.
219). Though not all aspects of charismatic/
transformational leadership were found to
be universally endorsed (e.g. self-sacrifice),
We will now proceed to a discussion of
what more recent cross-cultural leadership
research literature shows regarding the universality/culture-specificity of leadership ideals. Some overall concerns will be presented,
8
Leadership Preferences Across Cultures
Kristin Moan and Hilde Hetland
and finally, strengths and weaknesses of the
reviewed studies will be discussed.
are aware that we have not provided an extensive inclusion of articles and our lack of
compliance to the formal criteria for a review paper. To handle the challenges we met
while searching for articles, we choose to
address the selected studies in depth, rather
than to include a large amount of studies.
We also discussed our procedure by mail
with several authors of similar reviews to
make our procedure as optimal as possible.
As with all such choices within research procedures, our selection of criteria for inclusion of articles can be questioned.
Method
The search engines used in this review
were Psychinfo and ISI Web of Knowledge.
“Leadership” and “culture” were the broadest keywords used. The search resulted in
670 hits, when limited to articles published
between 2003 and 2008. Other applied
keywords were “cross-cultural“, “crossnational“, “cross-cultural differences“,
“culture-specific“, “universal“, “prototypes“,
“leadership perception” and “implicit theories“. However, most of the results based on
these keywords were covered by the initial
search. The number of investigations published was large and the diversity within the
literature made the selection of criteria for
inclusion of articles a challenge.
The literature on cross-cultural leadership
research has been reviewed several times.
We have chosen to continue where Dickson
et al. (2003) ended, as we review articles
published in the subsequent five years. In all,
seven articles were found suitable for inclusion (see appendix, table 1).
The Universality or
Culture-Specificity of
Preferred Leadership
We were interested in research on the universality/culture-specificity of perceived good
leadership, but found that many articles
exclusively focused on actual leadership behaviours or traits. A principal criterion for
inclusion was therefore that the followers’
perspective should be central in the selected
studies. When investigating cross-cultural
leadership literature, we occasionally found
an unclear distinction between actual leadership practices and followers’ preferences. In
such cases we investigated the methods used
in the studies, and solely chose those studies in which respondents were asked about
perceptions. In the initial phase of the review
process, many studies appeared relevant
to this article. However, using the criteria
mentioned above, several studies had to be
excluded.
Investigating cross-cultural leadership
literature published in the selected five-year
span, we found the question of universality versus culture-specificity dealt with from
several different reference points. Still, leadership preferences across cultures are compared in few studies. A brief presentation
of the seven studies included in this review
follows, and subsequently, the results of the
studies will be discussed. Detailed results
and statistical methods in each study will
not be provided, as we have chosen to focus
on how some of the results contribute to answering our research question.
In addition to the use of search engines,
the reference lists in the chosen articles were
investigated. Some of the authors of the chosen articles were also contacted and consulted concerning our list of literature to ensure
that the relevant studies published between
2003 and 2008 were included.
Presentation of the Studies from 20032008
Two of the reviewed studies used data
from the GLOBE project. Based on Swedish
data and GLOBE data, Holmberg and Akerblom (2006) explored implicit leadership
theories in Sweden, compared with 61 other
countries. Data were obtained from 17,310
(900 Swedish) middle managers through
questionnaires. The authors concluded that a
notion of a Swedish leadership style is meaningful.
We acknowledge the large number of
investigations published and found the diversity within the literature a challenge. This
made us include articles strictly on perceptions of leadership only to limit the literature
to better address the research question. We
9
Scandinavian Journal of Organizational Psychology, June 2012
Also using data from the GLOBE project, Howell et al. (2007) analysed Mexican
culture and the perception of outstanding
leadership in Mexico. Mexican culturally
endorsed leadership theories (CLTs) were
held up against the leadership perceptions
of the other Latin-American countries as a
group, and against the rest of the GLOBE
countries as one entity. Literature review,
media analysis, interviews, focus groups and
questionnaires were used. The quantitative
data were gathered from 152 middle managers. The authors identified both traditional
and emerging themes characterizing Mexican leadership perceptions.
Volume 4, Issue 1
had a total number of 121 respondents, all
managers. However, the level of management was not specified. The authors raised
questions concerning a common European
culture, and suggested that different leadership behaviours should be employed in the
three selected countries, as results from the
study indicated different leadership preferences in the three samples.
Neal and colleagues (2007) investigated
leadership preferences in two different regions of the world. The authors compared
leadership prototypes of Arab (Omani, Lebanese) and European (Romanian and English)
female business students. Quantitative data
were obtained from a total number of 425
respondents. The results revealed strong similarities between the Omani and Lebanese
women’s leadership perceptions, and thus
support the existence of pan-Arab implicit
theories.
Whereas Holmberg and Akerblom (2006)
and Howell et al. (2007) focused on the
leadership preferences of a single culture
compared to a large number of other countries, Fukushige and Spicer (2007) investigated a single culture’s leadership perceptions in light of an acknowledged leadership
theory. More precisely, Fukushige and Spicer
(2007) explored leadership preferences in
Japan, and considered the suitability of Bass
and Avolio’s full-range leadership model in a
Japanese context. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used. The 57 respondents in the quantitative part of study were
employees from a range of industries. The
results of the study suggest the unsuitability
of Bass and Avolio’s leadership model in a
Japanese context.
In the final study included in this review,
Taormina and Selvarajah (2005) investigated
how excellence in leadership is perceived in
five ASEAN nations: Indonesia, Malaysia,
the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand.
Quantitative data were obtained from 289
respondents, employed in private business
and government organizations. The results
revealed four factors as important in leadership preferences in the ASEAN nations: Consideration for others, progressive stability,
strategic thinking and trust in others.
The remaining four studies investigated
leadership perceptions in a number of cultures, ranging from two to five. Looking
at leadership perceptions in Australia and
China, Casimir and Waldman (2007) compared the perceived importance of leadership
traits for effective low- and high-level leaders in the two cultures. The total number
of respondents in the low- and the highlevel sample was 164 for each group. The
respondents were white-collar employees
from a range of occupations, and data were
obtained through questionnaires. The study
revealed cultural differences concerning
traits that are perceived as important for effective leadership.
Categorization of the Results of the
Studies from 2003-2008
In contrast to Den Hartog et al. (1999),
none of the articles in this review approached the field of cross-cultural leadership with an expectancy to find universal endorsement of leadership preferences. On the
contrary, hypotheses and arguments more in
line with a culture-specific stand, or a position that clearly favours leadership preferences as both universal and culture-specific,
seem to be in majority. Of the reviewed articles, four studies (Holmberg & Akerblom,
2006; Howell et al., 2007; Casimir & Waldman, 2007; Taormina & Selvarajah, 2005)
seem to support both the universal and the
culture-specific position, whereas three studies (Neal et al., 2007; Littrell & Valentin,
2004; Fukushige & Spicer, 2007), seem to
Littrell and Valentin (2004) also exclusively used a quantitative approach in their
study. These authors compared leadership
preferences in three European countries:
Romania, Germany and the UK. The study
10
Leadership Preferences Across Cultures
Kristin Moan and Hilde Hetland
support the culture specific position. Thus,
none of the studies exclusively support the
universal position.
culturally contingent perception of leadership. Also, being self-protective was by most
GLOBE countries seen as inhibiting outstanding leadership, but this leadership attribute had no impact on the Mexican CLT. In
addition, paternalism has been identified as
important to Mexican leadership perception
in prior research and the qualitative GLOBE
research (Howell et al., 2007). This result
might also indicate a culture-specific leadership preference, as paternalism was not part
of the quantitative GLOBE results. Thus,
the Mexican study supports the notion that
some leadership preferences are universally
endorsed, whereas others are culturally contingent.
Studies supporting both the universal
and the culture-specific position. Holmberg
and Akerblom (2006) combined a withincountry analysis with a between-countries
analysis. This revealed that important factors from the within-country analysis, but
not distinctive for Sweden, all belong to
the charismatic/value-based leadership dimension. This result speaks for a universal
endorsement of leadership ideals, and supports the finding reported by Den Hartog et
al. (1999) - “that several aspects reflecting
charismatic/transformational leadership are
universally endorsed as contributing to outstanding leadership” (p. 250).
Casimir and Waldman’s (2005) study is
the third study revealing findings in both
universal and culture-specific direction.
These authors found a significant difference
between Australia and China concerning
traits perceived as important for effective
leadership. The findings are thus in line with
the culture-specific position.
On the other hand, Holmberg & Akerblom’s results also point in the other
direction, reinforcing that it is meaningful
to speak of culture-specific assessments of
leadership. Some factors were found to be
both important in Sweden and distinctive as
contributing to outstanding leadership (e.g.
Team-orientation and Participative), and
others to be inhibiting to outstanding leadership (Self-protective). These important and
distinctive factors were by the authors seen
as constituting a culture-specific, Swedish
leadership style. In this manner, the results
challenge what the authors called a “simplified version of universality” (p. 325). Accordingly, Holmberg and Akerblom’s (2006)
study does not exclusively point to any of
the extremes, but holds both the universal
and the culture-specific position in tension.
Unlike Holmberg and Akerblom (2006)
and Howell et al. (2007), Casimir and Waldman’s (2007) support for the universal position is not found in specific shared leadership preferences, but in the way high- and
low-level leaders are perceived differently.
Casimir and Waldman (2007) found a similarity in the way the Australians and the
Chinese evaluated some traits as more or less
important depending on whether the leader
was a high- or a low-level leader. This concord between the two rather different cultures, might speak for a universal agreement
regarding the distinction of high- and lowlevel leaders. Including only two countries,
however, this study has difficulties in providing evidence for the universal position. Nevertheless, the findings concerning high- and
low-level leaders are in line with results from
a Dutch study (Den Hartog, 1997 in Den
Hartog et al., 1999), and could imply a universal agreement on leadership preferences
regarding the distinction between high- and
low-level leaders. Casimir and Waldman
(2007) concluded that preferred leadership
traits are partly determined by “requirements of the leadership role and partly by
culturally endorsed interpersonal norms” (p.
56). Hence, Casimir and Waldman’s study
(2007) at least supports the culture-specific
Another study supporting both positions
and also using GLOBE data is Howell et
al. (2007). As true for most of the GLOBE
countries, charismatic/transformational leadership was endorsed as contributing to outstanding leadership also in Mexico (Howell
et al., 2007). Hence, this result supports the
notion of universal endorsement of leadership preferences.
However, the following findings from the
Mexican study support the culture-specific
stand. As both participative leadership and
human orientation were less important in
the Mexican culturally endorsed implicit
leadership theory (CLT) compared to all the
GLOBE countries, this seems to indicate a
11
Scandinavian Journal of Organizational Psychology, June 2012
position, but also opens for a possible universal agreement on preferences concerning
the level of leadership.
Volume 4, Issue 1
The results of the study revealed both similarities and differences between Romania,
Germany and the UK regarding leadership
preferences. Significant differences were
observed, however, in nine of twelve factors
describing leadership behaviour (at least
between two of the countries). The authors
therefore concluded that the results overall
indicated culturally different preferences for
leadership. Accordingly, Littrell and Valentin’s (2004) study can be categorized among
the studies that to a greater degree support
the culture-specific stand.
The last study supporting both the universal and culture-specific direction was
conducted by Taormina and Selvarajah
(2005). These authors identified four factors
(considerations for others, progressive stability, strategic thinking, and trust in others) as
important to leadership preferences in the
ASEAN nations. Three of the four factors
were considered to have distinct ties to Confucian values, typical to Eastern countries
(Taormina & Selvarajah, 2005). Accordingly,
the results support the culture-specific position.
Fukushige and Spicer’s (2007) study also
belongs to this group. Based on the results
from the study on Japanese leadership preferences, Fukushige and Spicer (2007) questioned the notion that leadership perceptions
are universally endorsed. Whereas Bass
(1997), among others, has proposed that
transformational leadership is perceived as
more effective than transactional leadership,
regardless of cultural differences, Fukushige
and Spicer (2007) demonstrated that this
notion is not valid in a Japanese context.
For instance, contingent reward, an aspect
of transactional leadership, was more appreciated by Japanese followers than some
transformational leadership attributes. As
transformational leadership is frequently
regarded as the closest to a universally endorsed leadership style (Den Hartog, et al.,
1999), Fukushige and Spicer’s findings imply
a weakening of the notion that leadership
preferences are universally endorsed.
On the other hand, Taormina and Selvarajah (2005) also pointed out that the results
show considerable similarities with the Western dimensions of the classical Ohio State
Leadership model. The concord between
Eastern and Western preferences hence reinforce the universal position. Accordingly,
it seems that the conclusion of Taormina
and Selvarajah’s (2005) study is in line with
both the culture-specific and universal stand.
However, what Taormina and Selvarajah’s
(2005) discussion above all illustrates, is that
while leadership preferences could be universally endorsed, the values undergirding the
preferences might be culture-specific.
Studies supporting the culture-specific position. Whereas the studies discussed above
focus on both universal and culture-specific
aspects of leadership preferences, some studies more exclusively support the notion that
leadership preferences are culturally contingent.
Fukushige and Spicer (2007) also identified several leadership styles (liberal, trust,
punctual, network, protective, and afterfive), not covered by Bass and Avolio’s full
range model, but nevertheless specific to Japanese leadership preferences. Fukushige and
Spicer’s (2007) study is therefore one of the
studies more directly supporting the notion
of culture-specificity of preferred leadership.
Neal and colleagues (2007) found strong
similarities between the Arab women’s view
on leadership, compared to the European
women’s perception. Their results are therefore believed to reveal an Arab implicit
theory of leadership (ILT), and corroborate
Abdalla and Al-Homoud’s (2001) identification of an Arab cluster in implicit leadership
theory (Neal et al., 2007). Neal et al.’s identification of a specific Arab ILT clearly supports the notion that leadership ideals vary
across cultures.
Overall Discussion
The lack of recent studies primarily supporting the universal position is somewhat
surprising, given the considerable evidence
that already exists (e.g. Bass, 1997; Den
Hartog et al., 1999; House et al. 1997).
However, this scarcity might reflect the findings of Dickson et al. (2003): a decline in
Littrell and Valentin’s (2004) study also
seems to support the culture-specific stand.
12
Leadership Preferences Across Cultures
Kristin Moan and Hilde Hetland
the quest for simple universals. Still, simple
universals are not of the same relevance to
studies focusing on leadership perceptions,
as these studies do not investigate the enactment of ideas. It is possible, though, that
the decline in the quest for simple universals
reflects a decline in studies focusing on universals overall. As our review only covers
research from the five years after 2003, it is
a far too limited period to make a qualified
assumption in this regard.
for universal endorsement of a specific leadership style can be obtained by small-scale
studies when a single or a few cultures’
leadership preferences are compared to
an acknowledged leadership style. For instance, the evidence Bass (1997) presented
that support transformational leadership as
more preferred than transactional leadership across cultures, comes mainly from
single country studies (Dickson et al., 2003).
Comparing a single culture’s leadership ideals to transformational leadership is also the
approach taken by Fukushige and Spicer in
their study of Japanese leadership preferences. However, the results obtained in this
study are contradictory to the findings of
Bass (1997) and the universal endorsement
of Bass and Avolio’s leadership model (Fukushige & Spicer, 2007).
The review of literature concerning the
issue of whether leadership preferences are
universally endorsed or culturally contingent, demonstrates that recent studies with
this focus, either support both the universal
and the culture-specific stand, or solely the
culture-specific stand. None of the studies
primarily support the universal position.
Overall, therefore, the reviewed studies tend
to be somewhat more supportive of the
culture-specific stand. A reason for this tendency might be found in some confounding
factors, however. We will now present three
features that seem to be embedded in the
studies, and that might be reasons why the
reviewed studies tend to be sympathetic towards the culture-specific position.
A second tendency disposing the studies to be sympathetic towards the culturespecific position is found in the amount of
attention most of the reviewed studies give
to the selected countries’ historical and
cultural backgrounds in relation to leadership preferences. Some authors extensively
link the countries’ history to the leadership
preferences of today (e.g. Neal et al. 2007;
Taormina & Selvarajah, 2005), and several
hypotheses are developed on the basis of
an analysis of cultural background. This is
perhaps neither surprising nor unreasonable given that the studies are designed to
explore certain cultures’ leadership ideals.
Along this line, there is an important difference concerning where in the study the
cultural analysis is placed. One option is to
begin with a cultural analysis, as done in
several of the studies, and derive hypotheses
concerning leadership from there. A different matter is, however, when leadership
preferences of a culture firstly are examined
and then seen and explained in light of the
culture’s distinct characteristics. It is possible that the first approach makes studies
more sensitive to cultural differences than to
similarities. The clear tendency to choose the
first option might therefore be a reason why
the reviewed studies overall tend to support
the culture-specific, rather than the universal
position. Defence for this procedure can be
found, however, in literature advocating the
emic tradition (Smith, 2008), as rather specific knowledge of a culture can be decisive
in order to design a study that is capable of
Firstly, a tendency to support the culturalspecific position is shown in the results, but
also in the way the studies are designed. In
contrast to Den Hartog et al. (1999), most of
the studies in this review investigate a small
number of nations. Whenever differences in
leadership preferences are found in studies
of a limited number of cultures, this indicates that leadership preferences are culturally contingent. On the other hand, if studies
including the same number of cultures reveal
similarities concerning leadership preferences between the cultures, this can only
more vaguely point towards the universal
direction. Studies of a much larger number
of nations are required in order to support
the notion that leadership preferences are
universally endorsed in a meaningful manner. Here the GLOBE study, with 62 nations
from all regions of the world, is in a unique
position compared to most of the recent
studies.
Apart from identifying similarities between the studied cultures, there is another
way in which results from small-scale studies
can support the universal position. Evidence
13
Scandinavian Journal of Organizational Psychology, June 2012
noticing leadership preferences unique to a
culture.
Volume 4, Issue 1
this review included relatively few cultures.
Though using GLOBE data, Holmberg &
Akerblom (2006) and Howell et al. (2007)
focused on a single culture in light of the rest
of the GLOBE countries. A clear strength
of the studies reviewed is that their focus
on few cultures makes them well suited to
go in-depth in the leadership preferences of
the chosen cultures. Studies including few
cultures have the possibility to obtain the
thorough knowledge of a culture that can
be of great importance in order to register leadership preferences that are unique
to that particular culture. Holmberg and
Akerblom (2006) comment that a problem
related to cross-cultural studies, is that many
researchers seem to concentrate on the more
evident differences between regions, and that
researchers from within the area might be
better suited to detect differences that are
more distinctive to the region. We may add
that researchers focusing on a few cultures
might be in a position which allows a more
nuanced knowledge of the cultures, and
hence, also the leadership preferences. This is
obviously important information, especially
to practitioners.
A final possible reason why the reviewed
studies seem to lean somewhat more towards the culture-specific position, concerns
the researcher. Van de Vijver and Leung
(2000) propose that most of the researchers
who carry out cross-cultural studies have
an interest in cultural differences from the
onset. This is in accordance with Dorfman’s
(2004a) description of his own inclinations:
“My personal interest in cultural differences
predisposes me to think of distinctions, not
sameness” (p. 289). If Van de Vijver and
Leung (2000) are right, the researcher’s
interest in cultural differences may have implications for what the researchers choose
to investigate, for how the designs are constructed, and accordingly, for the results that
are obtained. Following Van de Vijver and
Leung (2000), the researcher’s interest in cultural differences can hence be a reason why
we find that the reviewed studies tend to
support the culture-specific position.
Regarding the position of the researcher,
it is also important to keep in mind that the
historical and cultural descriptions featured
in the studies, represent the researcher’s
extractions of the nations’ history and culture. Even though a given framework, for
instance Hofstede’s dimensions, is used to
measure a certain culture, a considerable
amount of additional information on culture
and history, drawn from different theorists,
is also present in the reviewed studies. The
problem of selecting information on cultural
background that fits the presence of certain
leadership preferences becomes an inevitably
issue. In the literature reviewed, there seem
to be a lack of account given in this respect,
which can be regarded as a weakness.
Dickson et al. (2003) claim that the methods of cross-cultural leadership research
are advancing. Among the methodological
improvements they describe are “more specific delineations of cultural dimensions, the
application of cluster analysis to develop
statistically supported culture clusters“, and
“the use of Hierarchical Linear Modelling
to assess cross-level effects in cross-cultural
leadership research” (Dickson et al., 2003,
p. 757). These improvements could not be
confirmed in this review, as apart from the
studies using GLOBE data, the use of cluster
analysis was not relevant to the reviewed
articles, nor was Hierarchical Linear Modelling used in the studies.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the
Reviewed Studies
Concerning the problem of translation,
Dickson et al. (2003) anticipated improvements in cross-cultural leadership studies. An
adequate translation is important to ensure
that identified differences in leadership preferences across cultures are not due to poor
translations of questionnaires. In the literature reviewed, most of the studies appear
quite thought through in this respect. The
authors discuss the issue and give a rather
detailed account of their use of back transla-
In the following strong and weak points
of the reviewed studies are discussed. When
the studies are seen in light of our research
question, the weaknesses seem to be more
evident.
Strengths. Apart from the studies using GLOBE data (Holmberg & Akerblom,
2006; Howell et al., 2007), the studies in
14
Leadership Preferences Across Cultures
Kristin Moan and Hilde Hetland
tion, the use of native speakers to control the
meaning of sentences and other means used
to pursue measurement equivalence. An exception is Littrell and Valentin (2004), who
did not present any information concerning
translation. As the issue of measurement
equivalence is a well known problem in the
field of cross-cultural leadership, inclusion of
such information seems to be important.
distinction between transformational and
transactional leadership.
The diversity in measurement concerning
both leadership and culture certainly complicates comparisons of results, and illustrates
the difficulties studies including only a few
cultures face in order to relate to other literature in a valid way. This demonstrates a
need for more unified measurements.
Weaknesses. The theoretical and methodological progress in the field of crosscultural psychology has been claimed to
be slow (Van de Vijver & Leung, 2000).
Cross-cultural leadership studies are in their
nature complex and methodological weaknesses common to these studies as a group
(see Dickson et al., 2003; Yukl, 2006; Leung,
2008), seem to follow the studies in this review as well.
Dickson et al. (2003) comment that a
weakness in many cross-cultural leadership
studies is the reliance on survey as the sole
method. Concerning the reviewed studies, we found that four studies exclusively
used questionnaires, three studies used both
questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, and one study used literature review
and media-analyses in addition. The use of
questionnaires developed in one part of the
world, can, as earlier mentioned, be problematic. To enhance sensitivity towards leadership preferences unique to a culture, we
therefore advocate the approach taken by,
for instance, Fukushige and Spicer (2007),
who developed questionnaires on the basis
of interviews, as well as on literature on the
given culture. However, when this approach
is used in small-scale studies, the problem
concerning relating results to other literature
is encountered. Inclusion of two sets of questionnaires might be a step towards a possible
way to address both the problem of cultural
insensitivity and the problem of being unable to relate results to other literature. For
instance, one set of questionnaires could be
developed with a specific culture in mind,
while an additional, standardized instrument
could be included, linked to acknowledged
theories and measurements. Regardless of
the approach chosen in measurement, the
researcher ought to consider pros and cons
and the purpose of the study carefully.
Methodological issues. As mentioned,
most of the studies in this review included
few cultures or cultures from only one region of the world (e.g. ASEAN). Though this
can be seen as a strength, as noted above,
results obtained by studies with few cultures might be rather difficult to relate to
other literature (Dickson et al., 2003). Even
though several studies share the same quest,
different variables, measurements, sampling
strategies and levels of statistical analyses
were used.
For instance, the measurement of culture
was performed in different ways. Some researchers measured culture themselves (e.g.
Fukushige & Spicer, 2007), whereas others used cultural data obtained from others
through a variety of methods (e.g. Neal et
al., 2007). A unifying element in the field of
cross-cultural leadership literature is, however, the rather common use of Hofstede’s
dimensions. Though Hofstede’s dimensions
are criticized (see Dickson et al., 2003), and
perhaps not perfectly suited for all studies,
the use of Hofstede’s dimensions may enable
the relating of studies to each other.
Finally, weaknesses of the material used
in this review, concern the studies’ samples.
The issue of generalizability from samples
to populations can be questioned in some
of the studies, as inadequate sampling procedures can threaten the generalizability
(Kraemer & Thiemann, 1987). According to
Yukl (2006), lack of representative samples
from which to generalize about countries, is
a common challenge in cross-cultural leadership research. The issue is especially relevant
when countries have large regional differ-
The way leadership preferences were
measured also varied. This diversity can for
example be seen in that Neal et al. (2007)
measured the perception of leadership using
Weber’s ideal types of authority, while Fukushige and Spicer (2007) measured leadership
preferences according to Bass and Avolio’s
15
Scandinavian Journal of Organizational Psychology, June 2012
ences (Yukl, 2006). In the reviewed studies,
the number of respondents ranged from 22
to 900 per culture. However, samples per
culture typically included around 50-100
respondents. The use of small sample sizes
can threaten the statistical power of a study
(Kraemer & Thiemann, 1987).
Volume 4, Issue 1
All the articles in this review belong to
the first stream of literature in the sense that
culture and nation are used as equivalents.
Some authors discuss to a considerable degree the dilemma of using culture and nation
as counterparts, and explicitly account for
the position they take (e.g. Holmberg and
Akerblom, 2006). Howell et al. (2007), for
instance, argue that although Mexico is a
country with distinct regional cultures, an
overall analysis of Mexican society is meaningful due to unifying socioeconomic and
political trends in the history of the country.
According to Thomas (2002), a common weakness of cross-cultural leadership
studies is the reliance on a single organizational level - the middle managers. This also
concerns some of the studies in this review,
as two studies obtained data from solely
middle managers (Holmberg & Akerblom,
2006; Howell et al., 2007). Littrell and Valentin (2004) obtained data from managers,
but did not specify from which level. Neal et
al. (2007), on the other hand, relied on data
from business students, whereas samples
used by Casimir and Waldman (2007),
Taormina and Selvarajah (2005) and Fukushige and Spicer (2007) seem to be from a
variety of employees.
Other studies in this review, however, lack
a discussion concerning the dilemma of using culture and nation as parallels. Casimir
and Waldman (2007), for instance, do not
discuss problems concerning nation as a
level of analysis. If researchers investigating
smaller countries believe that a justification
of the use of nation and culture as equivalents is needed, then Casimir and Waldman’s
(2007) study, involving the large countries
Australia and China, certainly would benefit
from a discussion of the issue.
Theoretical issues. Several theoretical
issues arise when investigating leadership
perceptions across cultures. These matters
complicate the comparison of cross-cultural
studies. Issues concerning the concept of
culture become particularly evident. In the
literature we found a variation in the assumptions different researchers make regarding the concept of culture (e.g. the issue
of whether cultures are stable or prone to
change), and especially the degree these presumptions are accounted for.
Den Hartog and colleagues (1999) propose that strong and uniform societies are
more likely to share leadership prototypes,
while a greater variance is expected in heterogeneous societies with multiple subcultures. A discussion of the characteristics of
the selected countries and a justification of
why a country as one entity is a meaningful
level of analysis, seem to be important, as
the issue of equivalence between nation and
culture is debated. Omitting such a discussion can be a potential weakness of a study.
We adopt Holmberg and Akerblom’s
(2006) division of literature on cross-cultural research into two different streams: crossnational comparisons and the multicultures
approach. Cross-national comparisons have
an essentialist understanding of culture, and
assume that nationality and culture matter
concerning leadership preferences. In this
literature, culture is also seen as relatively
stable. From the multiple culture perspective,
on the other hand, culture is seen as something always being constructed. This stream
of literature is critical to country as a meaningful level of cultural analysis and believes
that only smaller groups, such as people
from the same region, the same company or
occupational group, share cultural values in
a meaningful way (Holmberg and Akerblom,
2006).
The issue of whether cultures are relatively stabile over time or prone to change
is another important question in all cultural
research. As the issue of cultural change
is also widely debated, a discussion of the
topic seems to be called for when leadership
preferences across cultures are investigated.
This especially concerns studies containing
cultural data obtained decades ago. Concerning research on Japanese leadership,
for instance, Fukushige and Spicer (2007)
comment that researchers often refer to cultural data obtained by Hofstede between
1967 and 1973. In the use of such data lies
a strong presumption that cultural data
from decades ago are still valid today. In the
reviewed studies we found that the oldest
16
Leadership Preferences Across Cultures
Kristin Moan and Hilde Hetland
Limitations
cultural data used were collected the 1980s.
When data originate from several decades
back, we consider it as a weakness if a discussion of cultural change is left out.
Limitations of this review first of all concern the challenge of selecting studies that
are comparable and suitable to help answering the question of whether leadership
preferences are universally endorsed or culturally contingent. Though we have aspired
to be consistent in the selection of studies
according to the criteria mentioned in the
method, the selected studies vary in several
other respects (e.g. in the way leadership is
measured), making a meaningful comparison
challenging.
Holmberg and Akerblom (2006), however,
represent researchers who carefully present
their position concerning change in cultural
values: “culturally endorsed leadership ideals, do not change as quickly or dramatically
as the proponents of a changing world order
would seem to suggest” (p. 308). Contrary
to most of the authors in the reviewed literature, Holmberg and Akerblom (2006)
are not only explicit on their position in this
matter, but also give an account for why they
believe cultural leadership ideals are stable
over time.
Leaving out studies that exclusively focus
on actual leadership behaviour can also be
criticized, as actual leadership behaviour
may reflect what cultural groups perceive as
good leadership. However, since this is not
necessarily the case, we chose studies that
clearly investigated perceptions of leadership.
In line with Dickson et al. (2003), we also
suggest to follow the advice given by Hofstede and Peterson (2000) to consider any evidence of unusual change within the culture
of interest. The advantage of following this
advice was seen in the study of Fukushige
and Spicer (2007). Due to the recent economic recession in Japan, these authors designed their study in order to be sensitive to
changes in cultural values. This precaution
might be a reason why Fukushige and Spicer
(2007) seem to have detected recent changes
in Japanese cultural and leadership values.
The discussion concerning the culture concept demonstrates that a clear use of central
concepts is complicated, but vital, in order
to unify questions concerning cross-cultural
leadership into a coherent theoretical advancement.
Another limitation might be that this
review does not go into depth concerning
methodology. Due to limitations in the format, we have chosen only to briefly sum up
a few methodological issues in our discussion.
Studying whether leadership preferences
are universally endorsed or culture-specific
is a complicated task. In the literature on
cross-culture leadership, we found that the
issue is often discussed, but even if the opinions are many, there are few studies of quality in the field. This situation is illustrated
in Dorfman’s (2004a) comment that more
anecdotal than empirical evidence exist concerning the influence of cultural dimensions
on leadership.
A last theoretical concern regarding crosscultural leadership research has been stressed
by Dorfman (2004b). He emphasizes that
in the study of leadership preferences across
cultures, it is always important not to ignore
individual differences within a culture. Even
though a culture’s implicit leadership theory
can be detected, one should keep in mind the
variance that nevertheless can prevail in that
given culture. In the search for similarities
and differences concerning leadership preferences across cultures, this perhaps obvious
fact should not be left out of sight.
This review can possibly be criticized
for attempting to investigate the question
of universality/culture-specificity regarding
leadership preferences by including studies
investigating a limited number of cultures.
In a strict sense, only comprehensive studies like the GLOBE project, where the same,
large spectrum of leadership attributes are
investigated in a range of cultures, are truly
in position to allow conclusions to be drawn
about whether people across cultures have
more in common than not. At best, studies
of a limited number of cultures can demonstrate whether certain cultures share or
17
Scandinavian Journal of Organizational Psychology, June 2012
have different leadership ideals, or contribute to the investigation of whether a certain
leadership style seems to be universally endorsed by exploring the perception of that
leadership style in the given culture. In our
opinion, the inclusion of studies of a limited
number of cultures may be a valid critique
of this review.
Volume 4, Issue 1
is likely that the GLOBE project will gain a
similar position concerning leadership preferences across cultures a long time ahead.
Smaller studies may, however, prevent the
field of cross-cultural leadership from being dominated by a few mindsets. We feel
that though small-scale studies indisputably
have their limitations, they still enrich the
field. More research conducted by groups
of researchers from different nations is also
of great interest; as such studies may have a
better chance to avoid cultural biases in the
research. As the advantages of large-scale
studies are significant because they include a
large number of cultures from all regions of
the world, we hope to see more of this kind
of research in the future. To help overcoming
the problems of small-scale studies in relating results to other literature, we advocate
a thoroughly considered choice of variables
and measurements, as well as an incisive
careful use of theoretical concepts and research questions.
Conclusions and
Implications
The issue of whether leadership preferences are universally endorsed or culturally contingent is an interesting question
in a time characterized by globalization.
However, few studies specifically concern
leadership preferences across cultures. The
studies included in this review support both
the notion that leadership preferences are
universally endorsed, as well as the view that
leadership ideals are culture-specific. Of the
seven studies, four studies support both positions, whereas three studies more exclusively
support the culture-specific stand. Finally,
none of the reviewed studies solely support
the universal position. Overall, the reviewed
articles therefore tend to provide more evidence supporting the culture-specific stand.
However, as most of the reviewed studies
include relatively few cultures, the studies have a limited possibility to support the
universal stand. It is interesting to notice,
though, how the two positions do not necessarily contradict each other. The existence of
culture specifics is not the same as rejection
of universality, and the existence of universality is not equivalent to not acknowledging
differences.
Dickson et al. (2003) commented that
progress concerning computer technology
and internet have enabled researchers in the
endeavour to conduct cross-cultural leadership research. Based on this, some researchers state that “the GLOBE project could
not have existed a decade earlier” (Dickson
et al., 2003, p. 760). Accordingly, we may
perhaps anticipate interesting steps forward
in the field of cross-cultural leadership research.
Practical implications can also be drawn
from the findings. The fact that leadership
preferences may differ culturally, indicates
that providing knowledge and training to expats can be of value. Research on prototypes
is important for practice. Lord and Maher
(1991) assume that leaders are more likely
to be accepted and that leader–follower relationships are more likely to be characterized
by trust, motivation and high performance
when the congruence between the implicit
leadership theories of the persons involved is
high. If leadership concepts differ as a function of cultural differences, they can constrain the influence of expatriate managers:
in other words, the more leadership concepts
differ between managers and subordinates
or colleagues, the less influence will be exerted. Finally, also making leaders aware of
leadership preferences within their native
Research on cross-cultural leadership is
known for having several methodological
and theoretical challenges. Cross national
validation of instruments are important for
future research in this area. Multilevel studies and recommended. Moreover, in-depth
qualitative studies from different cultural
contexts can be of value to the topic of
leadership preferences. In this context, the
GLOBE study certainly represents an important advancement. The challenges and costs
of conducting large-scale cross-cultural studies, is perhaps a reason why Hofstede’s work
on cultural dimensions has been a milestone
in the field since the 1970’s and 1980’s. It
18
Leadership Preferences Across Cultures
Kristin Moan and Hilde Hetland
culture can be of importance. As we all have
implicit leadership preferences, becoming
aware of them can be a starting point in the
process of learning more about the similarities and differences in our views on what the
phenomenon of leadership should entail.
of leadership prototypes across 22
European countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(1), 1-29.
Casimir, G., & Waldman, D. A. (2007). A
cross cultural comparison of the
importance of leadership traits for
effective low-level and high-level
leaders: Australia and China. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 7(1), 47-60.
References
Abdalla, I. A., & Al-Homoud, M. A. (2001).
Exploring the implicit leadership theory in the Arabian Gulf states. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 50(4), 506-531.
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P.
J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S., Dorfman, P.
W., & et al. (1999). Culture specific
and cross-culturally generalizable
implicit leadership theories: Are
attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10(2),
219-256.
Adekola, A., & Sergi, B. S. (2007). Global
business management: A cross-cultural perspective. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:
Sage Publications.
Dickson, M. W., Den Hartog, D. N., &
Mitchelson, J. K. (2003). Research
on leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising
new questions. Leadership Quarterly,
14(6), 729-768.
Aycan, Z. (2008). Cross-cultural Approaches
to Leadership. In P. B. Smith, D. C.
Thomas & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The
Handbook of cross-cultural management research (pp. 219-239). Los
Angeles: Sage
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactionaltransformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and
national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139.
Dorfman, P. W. (1996). International and
cross-cultural leadership research. In
B. J. Punnett & O. Shenkar (Eds.),
Handbook for international management research (pp. 267-349). Oxford: Blackwell
Berry, J. W. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dorfman, P. W. (2004a). Theoretical letters:
Letter #2. Leadership Quarterly,
15(2), 281-293.
Berry, J. W. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (2nd
ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dorfman, P. W. (2004b). International and
Cross-Cultural Leadership Research.
In O. Shenkar & B. J. Punnett
(Eds.), Handbook for international
management research (2nd ed., pp.
265-356). Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Bowers, D. G., & Seashore, S. E. (1966).
Predicting Organizational Effectiveness with a Four-Factor Theory of
Leadership. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 11(2), 238-263.
Ember, C. R., & Ember, M. (2001). Crosscultural research methods. Lanham,
Md.: AltaMira Press.
Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., Akerblom, S.,
Audia, G., Bakacsi, G., Bendova,
H., et al. (2000). Cultural variation
Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of
supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(1), 1-6.
19
Scandinavian Journal of Organizational Psychology, June 2012
Fukushige, A., & Spicer, D. P. (2007). Leadership preferences in Japan: An exploratory study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(6),
508-530.
Volume 4, Issue 1
analysis and a proposed theory. In
P. C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New
Perspectives on International Industrial/Organizational Psychology (pp.
535-625). San Fransisco: The Lexington Press.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1994). Crosscultural comparison of leadership
prototypes. Leadership Quarterly,
5(2), 121-134.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M.,
Dorfman, P., Gupta, V. & Associates. (2004). Culture, leadership, and
organizations: The GLOBE study of
62 societies. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:
Sage.
Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Project
Home Page
Howell, J. P., DelaCerda, J., Martinez, S. M.,
Prieto, L., Bautista, J., Ortiz, J., et al.
(2007). Leadership and culture in
Mexico. Journal of World Business,
42(4), 449-462.
(2009). Retrieved 10.02.09, 2009, from
http://www.thunderbird.edu/wwwfiles/ms/globe/
Harris, M., Pike, K. L., & Headland, T. N.
(1990). Emics and etics : The insider/
outsider debate. Newbury Park, Cal.:
Sage.
Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961).
Variations in value orientations.
Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences:
International differences in workrelated values. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.
Kraemer, H. C., & Thiemann, S. (1987).
How many subjects? Statistical
power analysis in research. Newbury
Park: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. J. (2009). Geert Hofstede™
Cultural Dimensions Retrieved Feburary 11, 2009, from http://www.
geert-hofstede.com/
Leung, K. (2008). Methods and measurements in cross-cultural management.
In P. B. Smith, D. C. Thomas & M.
F. Peterson (Eds.), The Handbook of
cross-cultural management research
(pp. 59-73). Los Angeles: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software
of the mind (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Littrell, R. F., & Valentin, L. N. (2005).
Preferred leadership behaviours:
Exploratory results from Romania,
Germany, and the UK. Journal of
Management Development, 24(5),
421-442.
Hofstede, G., & Peterson, M. F. (2000). Culture: National values and organizational practices. In M. F. Peterson, N.
M. Ashkanasy & C. P. M. Wilderom
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational
culture & climate (pp. 401-416).
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Lonner, W. J. (1980). The search for psychological universals. In H. C. Triandis
& W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook
of cross-cultural psychology (Vol.
1, pp. 143-205). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Holmberg, I., & Akerblom, S. (2006). Modelling leadership--Implicit leadership
theories in Sweden. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 22(4), 307329.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing:
Linking perceptions and performance. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
House, R. J., Wright, N. S., & Aditya, R. N.
(1997). Cross-cultural research on
organizational leadership. A critical
Meindl, J. R. (1990). On leadership: An
20
Scandinavian Journal of Organizational Psychology, December 2012
alternative to the conventional
wisdom. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp.
159-203). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Volume 4, Issue 2
Taormina, R. J., & Selvarajah, C. (2005).
Perceptions of Leadership Excellence
in ASEAN Nations. Leadership, 1(3),
299-322.
Thomas, D. C. (2002). Essentials of international management : A cross-cultural
perspective. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:
Sage.
Neal, M., Catana, G., Finlay, J. L., & Catana, D. (2007). A comparison of leadership prototypes of Arab and European females. International Journal
of Cross Cultural Management, 7(3),
291-316.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C.
(1997). Riding the waves of culture:
Understanding cultural diversity in
business (2nd ed.). London: Nicholas
Brealey.
Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership: Theory
and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Van de Vijver, F. J., & Leung, K. (2000).
Methodological issues in psychological research on culture. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(1),
33-51.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural
values and some implications for
work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 23-47.
Smith, P. B. (2008). Indigenous aspects of
management. In P. B. Smith, D. C.
Thomas & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The
Handbook of cross-cultural management research (pp. 319-332). Los
Angeles: Sage.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual
weaknesses in transformational and
charismatic leadership theories. Leadership
Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305.
Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
21
Scandinavian Journal of Organizational Psychology, June 2012
Volume 4, Issue 1
Appendix
Table 1
List of included studies
Authors and
country
Title and description, country, sample
Year
Journal
Holmberg, I., &
Akerblom, S.
Modelling leadership - Implicit leadership theories
in Sweden
(Sweden)
(Data based on global questionnaires from 17,310
(900 Swedish) middle-managers, quantitative
method)
2006 Scandinavian
Journal of
Management
Neal, M., Catana, A comparison of leadership prototypes of Arab
G., Finlay, J. L.,
and European females
& Catana, D.
(Data based on 425 subjects from the Arab
Levant (Lebanon); the Arabian Gulf (Oman);
Northwestern Europe (England) and Southeastern
Europe (Romania), quantitative method)
2007 International
Journal
of Cross
Cultural
Management
Casimir, G., &
Waldman, D. A.
2007 International
Journal
of Cross
Cultural
Management
A cross-cultural comparison of the importance of
leadership traits for effective low-level and highlevel leaders
(Questionnaire data from 84 employees from
Australia and 244 employees from China,
quantitative method)
Taormina, R. J.,
& Selvarajah, C.
Perceptions of leadership excellence in ASEAN
nations
2005 Leadership
(Data from 289 managers in five ASEAN
(Association of South-East Asian Nations)
countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines,
Singapore, and Thailand, quantitative method)
Fukushige, A., &
Spicer, D. P.
Leadership preferences in Japan: an exploratory
study
(Japanese managers. In fase 1=12 managers,
in fase 2=57 managers, both quantitative and
qualitative methods used)
Littrell, R. F. &
Valentin, L. N.
Preferred leadership behaviours: Exploratory
results from Romania, Germany, and the UK
(Questionnaire data from 121 managers from
Romania, Germany, and the UK, quantitative
method)
Howell, J. P.,
DelaCerda, J.,
Martinez, S.
M., Prieto, L.,
Bautista, J., Ortiz,
J., Dorfman, P.,
Mendez, M. J.
Leadership and culture in Mexico
(Data from 152 Mexican managers, literature
review, media analysis, interviews, focus groups,
questionnaires used in oth quantitative and
qualitative method)
22
2007 Leadership &
Organization
Development
Journal
2004 Journal of
Management
and
Development
2007 Journal
of world
business