GROWING TOGETHER: EVIDENCE OF CONVERGENCE IN AMERICAN AND
SINGAPOREAN SOURCES OF SATISFACTION WITH LEADERS
Arran Caza
Griffith University
Gold Coast Campus, Queensland 4222, Australia
[email protected]
Barry Z. Posner
Santa Clara University
500 El Camino Real
Santa Clara, California 95053 USA
[email protected]
Keywords: leadership, cross-national differences, culture, globalization
Presented at the Western Academy of Management Conference
Napa, California (USA)
March 22, 2014
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 1
GROWING TOGETHER: EVIDENCE OF CONVERGENCE IN AMERICAN AND
SINGAPOREAN SOURCES OF SATISFACTION WITH LEADERS
Leadership matters, but since there is no single best way to lead (Fiedler, 1971; House,
1971; Kouzes & Posner, 2012), scholars have examined how context influences leaders and
followers (Cole et al., 2009; Hunter et al., 2007; Liden & Antonakis, 2009; Wang & Rode,
2010). In particular, due to advancing technology, travel, and globalization, there has been a
growing focus on understanding the potential role of culture in leadership (Dickson et al., 2003;
House et al., 2011; Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003). Our paper extends this tradition by examining
which leader behaviors contribute to follower satisfaction and whether national culture
influences these expectations.
Many studies suggest that culture can influence how followers think about and respond to
leadership (Ergeneli et al., 2007; Gerstner & Day, 1994; House et al., 2011). For example, one
recent study found that Chinese cultural values moderate what followers expect from their
leaders: Chinese followers with relatively modern values demanded more integrity from their
leaders than did followers with traditional Chinese values (Zhang et al., 2013). As others have
noted, follower expectations of leaders can vary greatly by county or region (House et al., 1999).
Followers may be more responsive to transformational leadership in collectivistic cultures (Jung,
Bass & Sosik, 1995), and those from high power distance cultures may be more satisfied with
authoritarian leadership (Smith, Peterson & Misumi, 1994; Den Hartog et al., 1999).
At the same time, globalization, and its homogenizing effect on business practice, is
potentially a powerful countervailing force (Guillen, 2001; Mitchell, 2001). There are studies
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 2
suggesting that national culture does not have much influence on individual behavior in
organizations (Dorfman et al., 1997; Javidan & Carl, 2005; Shin, 2004; Sparrow & Wu, 1998).
In fact, it has been suggested that the influence of culture is decreasing as globalization advances
(Chiang & Birtch, 2007).
Taken together, the empirical results seem to suggest that followers’ expectations of their
leaders are being shaped by two opposing forces. On the one hand, local cultural values will
influence followers to view leadership in idiosyncratic or culture-specific (emic) ways; followers
from country X may be more satisfied with one style of leadership, while those from country Y
expect their leaders to behave differently. At the same time, globalization and the international
standards that it creates should move follower expectations toward more universal (etic) norms.
In this paper, we use data from followers in the United States and Singapore to examine
the influence of both culture and globalization. The US is the largest national economy in the
world, typically the default category when discussing Western values, and the culture in which
most theories of leadership were developed (House & Aditya, 1997; Zagorsek et al., 2004).
Singapore offers a useful comparison case in which to examine the competing forces of local
cultural values and global business practice, because of its unique similarities and differences
with the US. Like the US, Singapore has a fully developed, modern economy with all the
institutions of modern business, significant international trade, and a high-level of per capita
GDP (CIA, 2013). At the same time, as we describe below, there are important cultural
differences between the two countries that might be expected to influence what behaviors
followers expect from leaders. Singapore and the US are both full and important participants in
the global economy, but with different cultural values, which makes comparing them ideal for
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 3
our purposes. As described below, we examined whether national culture or global norms had
more influence on followers’ expectations by comparing which leader behaviors contributed to
follower satisfaction in the two countries.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Leadership Model
In this study, we used Kouzes and Posner’s (2012) framework of the Five Practices of
Exemplary Leadership as our model. Their framework reflects the common themes found in
thousands of reports of exceptional leadership from a range of diverse, international sources. The
leadership practices are:
Model the Way (MTW): Leaders must exhibit the behavior they expect of followers.
Leaders need to articulate the organization’s values and act in accordance with them, because
leaders represent the organization. Leaders set the example through their enactment of values.
Inspire a Shared Vision (ISV): Leaders need to have a vision for the future. To motivate
followers, that vision must be shared and it must engage others. To inspire a vision in others, the
vision must be linked to their motivations and their interests, so that it becomes truly shared and
inspires others to follow.
Challenge the Process (CTP): Leadership involves challenge to the status quo. Leaders
must guide followers through innovation or change. Leaders must be willing to face the
unknown, and more importantly, they must encourage their followers to do the same. Effective
leaders create a climate of experimentation.
Enable Others to Act (EOA): Leaders must empower their followers by fostering
collaboration and building trust. Leaders who are willing to share power and to help followers
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 4
develop the confidence and capabilities necessary to succeed promote teamwork. A leader’s
focus should not be on personal accomplishment, but on how the group can work together to
perform.
Encourage the Heart (ETH): Leaders must demonstrate genuine concern for followers.
Contributions should be recognized; sincere encouragement should be given. By linking rewards
to performance, leaders help followers to understand how their behavior is linked to the values of
the organization.
The Five Practices framework has been in use for over thirty years, both in applied
leadership development and more than 600 research projects (www.leadershipchallenge.com).
More than five million participants, representing over 70 counties, have completed instruments
associated with the framework. For our purposes, the Five Practices provided a parsimonious and
well-established means of conceptualizing leadership that was applicable across cultures (Posner,
2013; Zagorsek et al., 2004).
Effect of National Culture
Culture refers to the fundamental beliefs and ways of thinking that members of a group
use to make sense of the world (Matsumoto & Juang, 2011). To characterize national culture, we
adopted Hofstede’s (2001) five-factor model. Although it has been criticized, Hofstede's cultural
values model continues to be the most influential in cross-cultural studies (Chiang & Birtch,
2007; Newburry & Yakova, 2005; Sagie & Aycan, 2003; Sondergaard, 1994). Hofstede argued
that culture could be usefully represented by five dimensions: power distance, individualismcollectivism, masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation. Of
particular importance to our interests are the three dimensions where the US and Singapore are
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 5
most different, specifically power distance, individualism-collectivism and uncertainty avoidance
(both countries have moderate values on the masculinity-femininity dimension, and slightly low
ones on long-term orientation; Hofstede, 2001).
Power distance may be particularly influential in shaping expectations of leaders,
because it is the cultural value that defines the correct relationship between leaders and followers
(Hofstede. 2001; Ramaswami et al., 2013). The study mentioned earlier, by Zhang and
colleagues (2013), proposed that power distance was an important factor in explaining the
difference between traditional and modern Chinese followers expectations of leaders. Those
authors argued that followers subscribing to a belief in high power distance may not demand as
much integrity from their leaders. In regard to our study, Singapore’s high power distance score,
relative to the US’s moderately low one, suggests that the two countries’ followers might have
quite different expectations of leaders. High power distance followers might be expected to
accept large differences in status and treatment between leaders and followers. They should be
less likely to desire participation and consultation from their leaders.
Individualism-collectivism, as a cultural value, concerns the relative importance that is
assigned to individual versus group goals (Hofstede, 2001; Triandis, 1995). Individualist cultures
place greater value on individual wants and needs, whereas collectivist cultures expect
individuals to transcend or sacrifice their personal interests to work toward group goals. As a
result, followers from collectivist cultures are more likely to support and obey leaders, for the
sake of harmonious solidarity. In addition, collectivist followers should be less concerned with
participation and individual achievement, as their cultural values base success on group results.
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 6
Therefore, consistent with its high observed correlation with power distance (Hofstede, 2001),
collectivism should affect follower expectations in a fashion similar to that of power distance.
Uncertainty avoidance refers to the level of a culture’s desire to control the future, or at
least to avoid suffering from its unpredictability (Hofstede, 2001). High uncertainty avoidance
cultures are more likely to create rules and institutions meant to increase their control over
experiences and outcomes; they feel more anxious and are less willing to be subject to forces
outside their control. In contrast, members of cultures that are low on uncertainty avoidance are
more secure, less concerned about controlling the future and less threatened by the views and
actions of others. In terms of leadership, these differences suggest that followers from high
uncertainty avoidance cultures will want greater participation in the leadership process. Rather
than trusting in a leader or being willing to accept what comes of the leader’s actions, these
followers should desire input and control in order to reduce uncertainty (Zagorsek et al., 2004).
High uncertainty avoidance followers should prefer leaders who give them greater power and
participation.
Taken together, the above discussion suggests that Singaporean followers, being from a
culture that is higher in power distance, higher in collectivism, and lower in uncertainty
avoidance than the US, would expect to be less directly involved with leadership. That is, they
are more likely to be content obeying traditional hierarchical authority; whereas, American
followers will be more satisfied with leaders who involve their followers more, encouraging
them to take part and have influence. As a result, the types of leader behaviors that increase
follower satisfaction should be different in the two countries.
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 7
H1: American and Singaporean followers’ satisfaction with their leader is
influenced by different leadership behaviors.
Effect of Globalization
Hypothesis 1 derives from the influence of traditional national culture, without taking
account of possible homogenizing effects from globalization. However, the failure to consider
value convergence created by globalization is problematic, as there is increasing evidence of its
power. That is, although we believe that the culture in which one is raised will have a powerful
influence on what one expects from a leader, we also expect that the forces of globalization are
acting to reduce the differences created by national culture. For example, one study found that
experienced Singaporean managers reported power distance and collectivism levels that were
more similar to those of Americans than is the norm in Singapore; the managers’ values were
still different from American ones, but less so than one might expect based on their national
culture (Chew & Putti, 1995). Others have similarly found that cultural differences in leadership
beliefs and reactions among experienced workers were relatively small (Posner, 2013; Zagorsek
et al., 2004).
As such, while globalization is doubtless acting through popular media and other
channels (Miller, 1998; Mitchell, 2001), we suspect that organizational practice is the strongest
agent of globalization. In fact, evidence from the international GLOBE study shows that
organizational culture is at least as strong a predictor of leadership expectations as is national
culture (Dickson et al., 2003; House et al., 2011). If one assumes that the forces of globalization
are acting on all businesses, then work experience means exposure to global culture norms and a
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 8
reduction of culture-based differences. We therefore predict that followers’ expectations will
become more similar as a result of work experience.
H2: The differences between the expectations of American and Singaporean
followers are reduced by work experience.
METHODS
The data for this study were collected using the Student Leadership Practices Inventory
(S-LPI; Kouzes & Posner, 2005). The S-LPI is an instrument specifically developed to measure
leadership behavior for participants in formal educational programs. The survey is completed
online as part of a 360-degree assessment. Individual leaders select the followers from whom
they would like feedback, and these followers provide an anonymous evaluation of the leader.
The S-LPI includes six items to measure each of the five leadership practices, as well as a fiveitem scale that measures followers’ satisfaction with the leader (e.g., “Overall, how satisfied are
you with the leadership exhibited by this person?”). All items are measured using 5-point scales.
We used followers, not the leaders themselves, in this analysis. Specifically, we had four
groups: 232 American followers aged 18-23, 235 Singaporean followers aged 18-23, 234
American followers aged 28-33, and 199 Singaporean followers aged 28-33. The older
Singaporean group represented all of the available responses; the other three groups were
selected randomly from the larger pool so as to maximize statistical power without creating
undue imbalance among group sizes (Neter et al., 1996).
These groups were assumed to reflect each nation’s relatively inexperienced followers
(18-23 years of age) and their somewhat more experienced followers (28-33 years). We used a
16-year range in our sample because that is less than the 25-30 years associated with a generation
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 9
(Berger, 1960). Our sample should therefore exclude any significant generational differences,
allowing for a clearer test of our predictions concerning work experience. The respondents are all
young people, among whom work experience should be the most important difference. The
overall sample was 40% male.
To assess the measurement properties of the scales, we conducted a maximum likelihood
estimation confirmatory analysis. We tested our hypotheses using ordinary least-squares
regression in each group, using satisfaction with leader as the dependent variable. We used the
satisfaction score as an indicator of expectations, assuming that followers would be more
satisfied with leaders who met their expectations (Shondrick et al., 2010). The five leadership
practices were entered as predictors, so that significant values would indicate which leader
behaviors were associated with greater follower satisfaction in each group. Participant gender
was included as a control variable, because gender has been shown to influence responses to
leadership (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995; Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995).
RESULTS
Table 1 provides summary statistics. The confirmatory factor analysis yielded a
satisfactory fit with the data (Χ2=2472.21, df=579, CFI=.90, RMSEA=.06), and all items loaded
significantly on the appropriate construct at .57 or above. These results suggest that the measures
performed well (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998). Because some of the correlations among variables
were large, we assessed multicollinearity diagnostics in all regression models (see Table 2), but
the largest variance inflation factor (VIF) was 5.8. VIF values up to 10 are considered acceptable
(Neter, Kutner, Nachtsheim, & Wasserman, 1996), suggesting that multicollinearity was not a
threat to these analyses.
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 10
Insert Tables 1 & 2 here
Model 1 shows that inexperienced American followers’ satisfaction was predicted by
four types of leader behavior: ISV, CTP, EOA and ETH. That is, the more of these behaviors
followers saw in their leader, the more satisfied they were with that leader. In contrast, Model 2
shows that inexperienced Singaporean followers’ satisfaction was predicted by only two types of
leader behavior: ISV and ETH. There were some shared expectations between the two countries:
inexperienced followers from both countries were more satisfied with leaders who provided an
inspiring vision (ISV) and who recognized accomplishment (ETH). However, there were also
differences: inexperienced American followers were more satisfied with leaders who also
fostered innovation (CTP) and who empowered followers (EOA), while their Singaporean
counterparts showed no evidence that they expected or valued these behaviors from leaders. The
differences between these Model 1 and Model 2 support H1. Followers from the two countries
have different expectations of leaders.
However, comparing all of the models provides support for H2, that follower
expectations converge with work experience. In Model 3 (experienced American followers) and
Model 4 (experienced Singaporean followers), the same behaviors predicted satisfaction. Both
groups seem to expect their leaders to set an example (MTW) and to empower followers (EOA).
Moreover, within-country comparisons (i.e., Model 1 versus Model 3 and Model 2 versus Model
4) show different predictors. In both countries, the satisfaction of the more experienced group
(28-33 years) is based on different behaviors than that of the inexperienced group (18-23 years).
In sum, the more experienced followers are more like each other than they are like their less
experienced country-mates.
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 11
DISCUSSION
Our aim in this study was to test for evidence of convergence among leadership
expectations caused by the globalization of business practice. In particular, we predicted that
relatively inexperienced followers would hold expectations consistent with their cultural values,
but that work experience would reduce these international differences. We tested these
predictions using four groups of followers which contrasted work experience (based on age: 1823 years old versus 28-33 years old) and national origin (United States versus Singapore). The
results supported our predictions. The less experienced, younger groups had different
expectations of their leaders, and those differences were consistent with the cultural values of
their home nation. The two more experienced groups did not have different expectations. These
findings extend our understanding of leadership in the global era, and have important
implications.
From an etic, or universal, perspective, our findings suggest that leaders who model the
way and who enable others to act will have the most satisfied followers. That is, leaders who
serve as an example and who empower others to take action will better meet the expectations of
their followers. Interestingly, in a different, but related analysis, Zagorsek and colleagues (2004)
also found that these two practices were the most highly rated among moderately experienced
MBA students in the United States, Nigeria, and Slovenia. While we do not doubt that all five
practices can contribute to follower performance (Kouzes & Posner, 2012), it may be that some
practices are more popular than others. The consonance between our findings and those of
Zagorsek and colleagues (2004) provide some evidence of an international convergence in which
followers expect leaders to set an example and to empower their subordinates.
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 12
However, our findings also revealed some emic, or culture-specific, results. There were
differences in the sources of leadership satisfaction between inexperienced Americans and
inexperienced Singaporeans. While both groups expected leaders to inspire a shared vision and
to encourage the heart, young Americans also preferred their leaders to challenge the process and
enable others to act. Thus, both groups of inexperienced followers preferred inspiring and caring
leaders, but unlike the Americans, the Singaporeans did not expect their leaders to be particularly
empowering or change-oriented. The differences between these two groups are consistent with
the general differences between American and Singaporean national culture, which suggests that
the inexperienced followers’ expectations varied based on culture.
Taken together, these findings suggest that while there is an emerging global consensus
about what followers expect from leaders, it takes time for followers to adopt those expectations.
We believe that this perspective offers reconciliation between those studies claiming that culture
powerfully influences leadership and those studies claiming that it does not. Both groups may be
correct, and to integrate them, we need to take account of the process and time period in which
globalization acts. Our data suggest that leaders may need to be most culturally adaptable when
dealing with young or inexperienced followers. There appears to be relatively rapid convergence
of expectations (i.e., approximately five years), but those formative years may represent an
important leadership challenge.
However, our study includes three important limitations that should be taken into
consideration and which offer promising directions for future research. The first of these
limitations is that we were not able to measure actual work experience. We used age groups (1823 and 28-33) as a proxy. This approach is a reasonable one, since most young people in both
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 13
nations have relatively little work experience. Nonetheless, we cannot preclude the possibility of
exceptions in our sample (e.g., individuals who did undergraduate, masters and doctoral studies
with little work experience). Future studies should measure work experience more directly.
Doing so would eliminate possible confounds, and also allow for a more precise estimate of the
speed at which expectations converge.
The second weakness of our study is that we did not measure personal values, but instead
used national norms. While this approach is not uncommon in cross-cultural studies, it does have
limitations. Experience and evidence show that individual members of every culture vary in their
personal values (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2011). The most individualistic people in
Singapore are almost certainly less collectivistic than the most collectivistic Americans, for
example. As others have shown, individuals within in a country can have quite different levels of
belief in the prevailing norms (Zhang et al., 2013). It will be useful in future studies to include
measures of individuals’ personal values (e.g., the extent to which each person endorses power
distance or uncertainty avoidance), which will provide a more accurate representation of their
beliefs and expectations.
The third limitation in our data is that they are from only two nations. We noted that
America and Singapore did provide a useful comparison, and that our results appear to be
consistent with those from other nations (Zagorsek et al., 2004). Nonetheless, we cannot assume
that our findings are generally representative. In order to define the content of the global
consensus about effective leadership, it will be necessary to sample more broadly across
nationalities. It may be particularly useful to also choose nations that differ on the two values
that were not relevant to our study, to include any effect they may have on follower expectations.
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 14
Our results raise an interesting question in finding that three of the five practices were
non-significant predictors of experienced followers’ satisfaction with their leaders. We can
imagine two possible explanations for this result. One explanation is that the three nonsignificant practices genuinely do not contribute to follower satisfaction; experienced followers
may not expect these behaviors from leaders. An alternative explanation would be that the
practices are important to followers’ satisfaction, just not in a monotonic fashion. That is, there
may be some threshold level of those practices that is required and sufficient. For example, it
may be that leaders need to engage in a moderate level of challenging the process and doing any
more does not further improve follower responses. Further investigation is required to fully
understand these results.
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 15
REFERENCES
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1995). An investigation of female and male constructs of leadership and
empowerment. Women in Management Review, 10, 3–8.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach to representing constructs in
organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45–87.
Berger, B. M. (1960). How Long Is a Generation? British Journal of Sociology, 11, 10.
Chew, I. K. H., & Putti, J. (1995). Relationship on Work-Related Values of Singaporean and
Japanese Managers in Singapore. Human Relations, 48, 1149–1170.
Chiang, F. F. T., & Birtch, T. (2007). The transferability of management practices: Examining
cross-national differences in reward preferences. Human Relations, 60, 1293–1330.
Cole, M. S., Bruch, H., & Shamir, B. (2009). Social distance as a moderator of the effects of
transformational leadership: Both neutralizer and enhancer. Human Relations, 62, 1697–
1733.
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P. W.
(1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories:
Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?
Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219–256.
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, 729–768.
Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997). Leadership
in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 16
processes across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 233–274.
Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the Effectiveness of Leaders:
A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin January 1995, 117, 125–145.
Ergeneli, A., Gohar, R., & Temirbekova, Z. (2007). Transformational leadership: Its relationship
to culture value dimensions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 703–
724.
Fiedler, F. E. (1971). Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership
effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 128–148.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1994). Cross-cultural comparison of leadership prototypes.
Leadership Quarterly, 5, 121–134.
Guillen, M. F. (2001). Is Globalization Civilizing, Destructive or Feeble? A Critique of Five Key
Debates in the Social Science Literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 235–260.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
House, R. J. (1971). A Path Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16, 321.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis?
Journal of Management, 23, 409–473.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2011). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M.,
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 17
& Gupta, V. (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project
GLOBE. In W. H. Mobley, M. J. Gessner, & V. Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global
leadership (pp. 171–233). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). The typical leadership study:
Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 435–446.
Javidan, M., & Carl, D. E. (2005). Leadership across cultures: A study of Canadian and
Taiwanese executives. Management International Review, 45, 23–44.
Jung, D. I., Bass, B. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1995). Bridging Leadership and Culture: A Theoretical
Consideration of Transformational Leadership and Collectivistic Cultures. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 2, 3–18.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2005). The Student Leadership Practices Inventory. San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Liden, R. C., & Antonakis, J. (2009). Considering context in psychological leadership research.
Human Relations, 62, 1587–1605.
Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. (2011). Culture and Psychology, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Cengage
Learning.
Miller, T. (1998). Technologies of truth: Cultural citizenship and the popular media.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Mitchell, L. E. (2001). Corporate irresponsibility: America’s newest export. Yale University
Press.
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 18
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical
models (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Newburry, W., & Yakova, N. (2005). Standardization preferences: a function of national culture,
work interdependence and local embeddedness. Journal of International Business
Studies, 37, 44–60.
Posner, B. Z. (2013). It’s how leaders behave that matters, not where they are from. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 34, 573–587.
Ramaswami, A., Huang, J.-C., & Dreher, G. (2013). Interaction of gender, mentoring, and power
distance on career attainment: A cross-cultural comparison. Human Relations,
forthcoming. doi:10.1177/0018726713490000
Sagie, A., & Aycan, Z. (2003). A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Participative Decision-Making in
Organizations. Human Relations, 56, 453–473.
Sciascia, S., Mazzola, P., & Chirico, F. (2013). Generational Involvement in the Top
Management Team of Family Firms: Exploring Nonlinear Effects on Entrepreneurial
Orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 69–85.
Shin, M. (2004). Convergence and Divergence of Work Values among Chinese, Indonesian, and
Korean Employees. Management International Review, 44, 105–129.
Shondrick, S. J., Dinh, J. E., & Lord, R. G. (2010). Developments in implicit leadership theory
and cognitive science: Applications to improving measurement and understanding
alternatives to hierarchical leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 959–978.
Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F., & Misumi, J. (1994). Event management and work team
effectiveness in Japan, Britain and USA. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 19
Psychology, 67, 33–43.
Sondergaard, M. (1994). Hofstede’s Consequences: A Study of Reviews, Citations and
Replications. Organization Studies, 15, 447–456.
Sparrow, P., & Wu, P.-C. (1998). Does national culture really matter? Predicting HRM
preferences of Taiwanese employees. Employee Relations, 20, 26–56.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism (Vol. xv). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Lawler, J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations: transformational
leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes and withdrawal behaviours in
three emerging economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14,
1083–1101.
Wang, P., & Rode, J. C. (2010). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The
moderating effects of identification with leader and organizational climate. Human
Relations, 63, 1105–1128.
Zagorsek, H., Jaklic, M., & Stough, S. J. (2004). Comparing leadership practices between the
United States, Nigeria, and Slovenia: does culture matter? Cross Cultural Management:
An International Journal, 11, 16–34.
Zhang, G., Bai, Y., Caza, A., & Wang, L. (2013). Leader Integrity and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior in China. Management and Organization Review, forthcoming.
doi:10.1111/more.12023
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute
without express written permission
Growing Together
page 20
Table 1. Summary statistics *
1
2
3
4
5
6
Variable
Mean SD α
1
2
3
4
5
Satisfaction with leader 4.16 .81 .91
Model the way
3.80 .71 .83 .67
Inspire a shared vision
3.71 .82 .88 .68 .85
Challenge the process
3.72 .79 .86 .68 .84 .87
Enable others to act
4.06 .67 .85 .62 .67 .61 .65
Encourage the heart
3.84 .82 .90 .62 .73 .74 .73 .73
* Statistics are for the entire sample (N=900). All correlations p<.05.
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute without express written permission
Growing Together
page 21
Table 2. Regression tests of leadership practices predicting satisfaction with leader in four groups ϯ
Follower gender
Model the way
Inspire a shared vision
Challenge the process
Enable others to act
Encourage the heart
R2
N
Model 1
US 18-23 years
-.13*
-.07
19*
.21*
.28*
.19*
.53
(F=45.25, df=6, 225)
232
Model 2
Singapore 18-23 years
-.02
.16
.34*
.01
.12
.17*
.48
(F=37.63, df=6, 228)
235
Model 3
US 28-33 years
-.04
.29*
.06
.14
.35*
-.08
.47
(F=35.32, df=6, 227)
234
Model 4
Singapore 28-33 years
-.07
.23*
.21
.17
.18*
-.01
.48
(F=32.08, df=6, 192)
199
ϯ Dependent variable = Satisfaction with leader. Gender was coded as Female=1, Male=2.
* p<.05
© 2014 Arran Caza and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce or distribute without express written permission