Comparing Expected Leadership Styles in Taiwan and the United States: A Study of University Employees

Transcription

1 Comparing Expected Leadership Styles in Taiwan and the United States: A Study of University Employees Ming-Yi Wu Western Illinois University Abstract: This study compares expected leadership styles and cultural values of university employees in two cultures, Taiwan and the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that both similarities and differences are found in work-related cultural values and expected leadership styles. For example, participants in both cultures have a high uncertainty avoidance value and prefer the democratic leadership decision-making style, and the taskoriented leadership conflict management style. However, Taiwanese participants have higher power distance, masculinity, collectivism and Confucian work dynamics values, and higher preference for the relational-oriented leadership style. Thus, both cultural-universal and cultural-specific approaches for leadership study are supported by the results of this study. [China Media Research. 2008; 4(1): 36-46] Keywords: leadership styles; cultural convergence; cultural divergence; Taiwan; the United States Introduction Leadership is one of the most closely examined topics in the fields of organizational communication, applied psychology, and management. Consequently, many leadership theories have been generated, but most of these theories were developed from the perspective of North American culture. According to Hofstede (1984), American theories of leadership have been widely exported to all parts of the world, in a normative way, without cultural provisos (p. 258). Thirty years later, Hofstede (2001) kept arguing that in the past 30 years there has been altogether too much reliance on American-made management and theories for countries in which neither the societal conditions nor the mental programming of the population were similar to those in the United States (p. 462). Hofstede s (1984; 2001) statements have raised several questions for research. For example, is there a universal leadership theory? Can we apply the results of leadership studies from one culture to another? Is there any similarity or difference in leadership expectations among different cultures? Do managerial communication styles, decision-making styles, and conflict resolution styles vary from culture to culture? To answer these questions, the main purpose of this study was to compare expected leadership styles in two cultures, Taiwan and the United States. Taiwan and the United States were chosen for comparison because previous theories and studies implied that these two cultures differ greatly. Hall (1981) categorized cultures as either high or low context. According to his categorization, most Asian cultures are high context cultures, and American culture is a low context culture. In high context cultures, people tend to use indirect strategies (such as hints) to communicate with each other, while in low context cultures, people tend to directly express their opinions and feelings. In addition, Hofstede s (1984; 2001) studies demonstrated that Taiwan and the United States contrast greatly in workrelated cultural values. According to this conceptualization, American culture is a high individualistic and medium power distance culture, whereas Taiwanese culture is a high collectivistic and high power distance culture. Chen and Chung (1994) also argued that Confucianism affects Asian people s organizational communication behaviors. Yet, very few studies have quantitatively examined Confucianism s impact on organizational communication. Thus, since previous studies suggested that Taiwan and the United States have different work-related cultural values, it would be meaningful to compare the differences in expected leadership styles between these two cultures. Participants in this study were university employees in the U.S. and in Taiwan. University employees were chosen as participants for two reasons. First, the domain of educational leadership needs to be explored. Most previous and current leadership studies only examine managerial leadership in business sectors. Very few studies focus on leadership in educational settings. Second, due to the processes of globalization and internationalization, building sisterhood relationships with foreign universities is a trend in academia. In such an internationalized academic environment, it would be beneficial for university leaders to understand their foreign guests leadership expectations. In this study, leaders were defined by the managerial positions they held. In the university administrative system, leaders referred to top administrators in each department or office. Employees were those individuals who directly or 36

2 indirectly report to them. The following section of this paper contains a literature review of globalization, leadership, subordinateship, culture, leadership communication styles in the decision-making process, and culture and conflict management styles. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review Cultural Convergence and Cultural Divergence Globalization has become a current research issue in the fields of intercultural communication and organizational communication studies. According to Stohl (2001), two distinct research rends characterize the research on globalization and cultural variability: convergence and divergence (p. 325). The concept of globalization and both theoretical perspectives have attracted much scholarly attention and have been discussed in contemporary intercultural communication and organizational communication books (e.g., Cheney, Christensen, Zorn, & Ganesh, 2004; Gudykunst, Lee, Nishida, & Ogawa, 2005; Jablin & Putman, 2001; May & Mumby, 2005). The cultural convergence theory emphasizes the process of cultural assimilation. In this approach, cultural similarities, instead of cultural differences, are emphasized. Barnett and Kincaid (1983) proposed the cultural convergence theory and argued that the laws of thermodynamics predict that all participants in a closed system will converge over time on the mean collective pattern of thought if communication is allowed to continue (p. 195). Kincaid (1988) clearly defined the concept of convergence: Convergence is the process of movement toward one point, toward one another, toward a common interest, or toward uniformity (p. 283). Based on the cultural convergence perspective, leadership communication, thus, is viewed as a culturaluniversal phenomenon, which emphasizes similarities, instead of differences, among cultures. Different from the cultural convergence perspective, the cultural divergence theories emphasize cultural differences. According to Stohl (2005), Theories of divergence (e.g., Hall, 1981; Hofstede, 1984; Triandes, 1983) focus on issues of cultural variability and how those differences make a difference on how people act, organize, and make sense of their organizational experience (p. 228). Victor (1997) also identified nine variables which may affect business communication patterns across cultures. These variables are kinship and family structure, educational systems, economic stratification, gender roles, religion, occupational institutions, political systems, geographic attachment, and recreational institutions. Based on the cultural divergence perspective, each culture has its organizational communication and leadership communication patterns because of the influences of different cultural variables. Many cross-cultural organizational training programs are designed based on the cultural divergence perspective because these programs are designed to sensitize individuals to their own cultural blinders and to increase awareness of cultural differences (Stohl, 2001, p. 342). Is leadership communication a cultural-universal phenomenon or a cultural-specific phenomenon? The debate between cultural convergence and cultural divergence perspectives has brought much scholarly attention and has provided a theoretical background for the design of this current study. The next section of the paper further reviews the literature about leadership, culture, and other related topics. Leadership Leadership is a complicated phenomenon and can be defined in a variety of different ways. After reviewing many leadership literatures, Yukl (1998) categorized the definitions of leadership. He noted, Leadership has been defined in terms of traits, behavior, influence, interaction patterns, role relationships, and occupation of an administrative position (p. 2). This study adopts Yukl s (2002) managerial definition of leadership and investigates followers expected leadership styles in organizations. According to Yukl (2002), Leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how it can be done effectively, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives (p. 7). Yukl s (2002) definition of leadership has clearly defined leaders roles and responsibilities and revealed the importance of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Following his definition, leaders should play multiple organizational roles, including decision-making, conflictresolution, and interpersonal communication roles in organizations. Leadership effectiveness is, thus, the most important factor that affects organizational performance. But, how can leadership effectiveness be evaluated in organizations? The following section briefly reviews the literature in this area. Relationships Among Leadership, Subordinateship, and Culture Similar to definitions of leadership, different researchers have proposed different criteria for evaluating leader effectiveness. According to Yukl (2002), a follower s attitude towards a leader is a common indicator of leader effectiveness. Hofstede (2001) also discussed the relationships among leadership, subordinateship, and culture. According to Hofstede (2001), Leadership and subordinateship are inseparable Ideas about leadership reflect the dominant culture of a country (p. 388). Based on his cross-cultural study of IBM employees in 40 countries, Hofstede (1984) proposed four cultural dimensions: 37

3 power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualismcollectivism, and masculinity-femininity. The first dimension, power distance, refers to the power inequality across a culture. The amount of power distance will affect the openness of upward communication in an organization. In a high power distance culture, employees are afraid of expressing their opinions to their supervisors and expect their superiors to act autocratically. The second dimension, uncertainty avoidance, refers to people s tolerance for ambiguity. Uncertainty avoidance measures the ability of humans to cope with uncertainty. There tend to be more written rules and regulations in high uncertainty avoidance cultures. The third dimension, individualism, refers to how people value themselves and their groups/organizations. People with high individualistic values tend to care about self-actualization and career progress, whereas people with low individualistic values tend to value organizational benefits more than their own interests. The fourth dimension, masculinity (MAS), defines the gender roles in organizations. In high MAS organizations or cultures, very few women can attain higher-level and better-paid jobs. In low MAS organizations, women can achieve an organizational status more equal to men s. Derived from a Chinese cultural survey, Hofstede and Bond (1990) proposed the fifth cultural dimension, called Confucian work dynamics. This dimension represents four important Chinese values ordering relationships, persistence, thrift, and having a sense of shame. The Confucian work dynamics dimension was renamed as long-term orientation in Hofstede (2001). Hofstede s works (1984; 2001) have suggested the relevance of these cultural values when studying management and leadership behavior worldwide. For instance, Wu and Stewart (2005) conducted an empirical study to explore the relationship between work-related cultural values and expected leadership styles in Taiwan and the United States. The results of their study demonstrated that all of Hofstede s (1984; 1990; 2001) work-related cultural values are significantly correlated with subordinates expected leadership styles. For example, power distance, masculinity, collectivism, and Confucian work dynamics all positively correlated with authoritarian leadership decision-making style. Uncertainty avoidance is positively correlated with democratic leadership communication style (Wu & Stewart, 2005). Wu and Stewart s (2005) study has investigated the relationships among Hofstede s dimensions and leadership expectations. However, the comparisons between two cultural groups in terms of work-related cultural values and expected leadership styles are not explored by their study. Thus, this current study aims to extend Wu and Stewart s (2005) study and gain more insights into the similarities and differences of cultural values and leadership expectations between two specific national cultures, Taiwan and the United States. Specifically, this study investigates cultural impacts on subordinates expected leadership decision-making styles and leadership conflict-management styles. The following sections will review literature on leadership decision-making and leadership conflict resolution in the cross-cultural context. Leadership Communication Styles in the Decision- Making Process Decision-making and interpersonal communication are important aspects of managerial roles in organizations. According to Hackman and Johnson (1996), a leader s communication style may reflect a philosophical belief about human nature or may simply be a strategy designed to maximize outcomes in a given situation (p. 32). They also compared two types of leadership communication styles, called authoritarian and democratic leadership communication styles. Authoritarian leaders set goals and make decisions individually, whereas democratic leaders involve followers in goal setting and decision making. Authoritarian leaders primarily engage in one-way, downward communication. On the contrary, democratic leaders engage in two-way, open communication with their followers. Previous research (e.g., Hofstede, 1984; 2001) has suggested that followers expectations of appropriate leadership styles vary from culture to culture. Most North American scholars recognize the value of participative leadership. According to Stewart, Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey, and Nishida (1986), participative decision-making has been well-researched in North American organizations. Deetz, Tracy, and Simpson (2000) also discussed the importance of empowerment in order to encourage employee participation. According to Deetz et al. (2000), the principles of empowerment include information sharing, a participatory structure, team building and team-based decision-making, relevant training opportunities, and rewarding employees for risk and initiatives (pp ). Balderson (1995) argued that autocratic, strongly top-down administration is unworkable (p. 143). In contrast, most literature that discusses Chinese leadership stresses the concept of authoritarian leadership. According to Redding and Wong (1986), leadership style within Chinese companies is directive and authoritarian (p. 278). Yates and Lee (1996) also argued that Chinese organizational structures tend to be strong vertically (with respect to relations between supervisors and subordinates) but weak horizontally (with respect to relations among equals) In situations where decision participants differ in rank, more so than in Western or Japanese organizations, Chinese decisions 38

4 are made, or at least monitored, centrally. That is, the person with the highest status makes the decision. (p. 346) Thus, a review of the literature on the North American and Chinese views of leadership communication suggests that participative decisionmaking is culture-bound. Therefore, to investigate cultural differences in the leadership decision-making process, the current study used an empirical approach to compare followers' expected leadership decisionmaking styles in Taiwan and the United States. Culture and Conflict Management Styles Over the past few decades, the topics of conflict and conflict management have become increasingly important to organizational leaders. According to several researchers, In the 1980s, research on organizational conflict indicated that managers were spending between 20 and 50 percent of their time dealing with conflicts (Quinn, Faerman, Thompson, & McGrath, 1996, p. 94). According to this view, to maintain organizational harmony, effective organizational leaders should have the ability to solve interpersonal conflicts among employees. Previous studies suggested that cultural differences would affect individuals preferences for conflict management styles (e.g., Miyahara, Kim, Shin, & Yoon, 1998; Chen, Ryan, & Chen, 2000; Chen, 2002; Kunston, Huang, & Deng, 2000; Brew & Cairns, 2004). For example, Chen et al. s (2000) study compared American students and Chinese students conflict management styles. The result of their study indicated that the Chinese tended to be more group oriented in the conflict situation (p. 168). Chen (2002) argued that Chinese and American used different styles to solve conflicts. Chinese tend to be more non-confrontational, avoiding, and emphasize the importance of face-saving because harmony is an important cultural values in the Chinese culture. The results of Kunston et al. s (2000) study also indicated that Taiwanese business employees tend to use non-confrontational conflict management styles more than U.S. business employees do. Brew and Cairns (2004) study compared Australian professionals and East Asian employees conflict resolution styles in the organizations located at Singapore and Bangkok. The results of their studies demonstrated that the East Asian employees are more likely to use indirect communication strategies than the Australian professionals when communicating with Western supervisors. These studies have provided valuable insights about how cultural differences affect individuals preferred conflict resolution styles. However, most of these studies chose students or business professionals as participants. This study compares university employees preferred conflict management styles in Taiwan and the United States, because the domain of conflict resolution in the educational context needs further investigation. Since the similarities and differences of cultural values and leadership expectations were the focus of this study, the following research questions were proposed: RQ1: Do Taiwanese university employees and American university employees have different cultural values? RQ2: Do Taiwanese university employees and American university employees have different expectations about leaders communication styles in the decision-making process? RQ3: Do Taiwanese university employees and American University employees have different preferences about leaders conflict-management styles? Methods Research Instrument A self-administered quantitative survey questionnaire was used in this study. The questionnaire was originally designed in English. Then, the researcher translated the English version to Chinese. According to Brislin (1970), backward translation is needed for effective cross-cultural studies. The Chinese version of the questionnaire was backward translated into English by a Taiwanese Ph.D. student not involved in the study. The researcher compared the original English questionnaire and the back-translated questionnaire. After minor adjustments, the meanings of the two questionnaires matched and met Brislin s (1970) rules for back-translation. The English version was distributed to the American participants. The Chinese version was distributed to the Taiwanese participants. The questionnaire had four parts including: (1) work-related cultural value questions, (2) leadership decision-making communication questions, (3) leadership conflict management questions, and (4) demographic information. The first part represented Hofstede s (1984) original four cultural dimensions (power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism and masculinity) and Hofstede s (1990; 2001) more recent cultural dimension, Confucian work dynamics. However, the results of a pilot study of 80 participants demonstrated that the reliability scores for the power distance cultural dimension and uncertainty avoidance scale were.34 and.49, respectively (based on Cronbach s coefficient alpha). Since the reliabilities for two of the cultural dimensions were low, the first part of the questionnaire was replaced by Dorfman and Howell s (1988) cultural scales. This measure has been used in several crosscultural studies (e.g., Nicholson, 1991; Fernandez, Carlson, Stepina, & Nicholson, 1997). According to Nicholson (1991), Dorfman and Howell s (1988) new scales are psychometrically more reliable than 39

5 Hofstede s (1984) scales. Thus, Dorman and Howell s (1988) new scales and Hofstede s (1990) Confusion work dynamics measure were used for this study. The second part of the questionnaire had eight questions that represented two types of decision-making communication styles, which are the authoritarian leadership communication style and democratic leadership communication style. These questions were adapted from Hackman and Johnson s (1996) analysis of leadership communication styles. Hackman and Johnson (1996) described the characteristics of the) authoritarian leadership communication style, such as one-way, downward communication and setting policy and procedures unilaterally. They also described the characteristics of democratic leadership communication, such as two-way communication and facilitating discussion with followers. The third part of the questionnaire represented three types of conflict management styles, including taskoriented, relational-oriented, and laissez-faire styles. These three styles were also operationalized based on Hackman and Johnson s (1996) descriptions of leadership styles. They described the task-oriented leadership style as focused on facts, data and information as they relate to tasks (p. 44). They described relational-oriented leaders as focused on feelings, emotions and attitudes as they relate to personal needs (p. 44). According to Hackman and Johnson (1996), Laissez-fair, a French word roughly translated as leave them alone refers to a form of leader communication that has been called nonleadership (p. 33). All of the questions in the first three sections were measured by seven-point Likert-type scales. Data Collection and Sampling Employees from a public Taiwanese university and a public American university were surveyed in May and June, According to Hofstede (2001), the popular management literature on leadership often forgets that leadership can exist only as a complement to subordinateship (p. 82). Based on Hofstede s (2001) argument, this study aims to examine subordinates expected leadership styles in order to gain more insights about leadership from subordinates perspective. Therefore, subordinates were surveyed in this study. These two universities differed in size, but the missions of these two universities were similar. For example, both universities encourage academic research activities. The samples for this study were selected based on the criteria of accessibility, functional equivalence, and representativeness. A sampling issue that is welldiscussed in cross-national surveys is equivalence. The author tried to match the samples from two cultural groups as much as possible. The samples in this study were functionally equivalent because all of the participants did administrative work for universities in both countries. Their job titles included secretary, specialist, administrative staff, clerk, human resources personnel, accountant, and administrative teaching assistant. To represent the administrative system of universities, both academic units and administrative units were surveyed in these two universities. A stratified sampling method was used. In both universities, 45 (25%) questionnaires were distributed to academic units, and 135 (75%) questionnaires were distributed to administrative units. In order to make the samples as functionally equivalent as possible, the offices to be surveyed in both universities were matched based on their functions, instead of titles, in the universities. The data set for this study was based on 303 respondents from two public universities, one Taiwanese University and one U.S. University. One hundred and fifty seven (87.2%) Taiwanese participants returned this survey. After checking completion of the questionnaire, one hundred and fifty six (86.7%) questionnaires were determined to be valid. One hundred and forty seven (81.7%) U.S. participants returned this survey. All of them contained sufficient data to be considered valid responses. For the Taiwanese sample, 46 participants (29.5%) were male; 109 participants (69.9%) were female. One participant (0.6%) did not report gender. For the U.S. sample, 41 participants (27.9%) were male; 104 (70.7%) were female. Two participants (1.4%) did not report gender. The average age for the Taiwanese participants was about 38 (M=37.52). The average age for the U.S. participants was about 43 (M=42.68). The average year working for the Taiwanese university was about 9 (M=8.84). The average year working for the American university was also about 9 (M=9.20). All of the Taiwanese and American participants had a high school degree or above. Forty-two Taiwanese participants (26.9 %) worked for academic units; 108 Taiwanese participants (69.2%) worked for administrative units. Six Taiwanese participants (3.8%) did not answer the question. Fortyone American participants (27.9%) worked for academic units; 103 American participants (70.1 %) worked for administrative units. Three U.S. participants (2.0%) did not answer the question about units. Scale Development Factor analysis was conducted to ensure that all scales were uni-dimensional. The Principle Component method (PA) was used for the factor analysis. Varimax Rotation was also used when there were more than two factors extracted in a scale. The results of the factor analysis demonstrated that most of the sub-scales were uni-dimensional because only one factor was extracted. But, the factor loading of one item, avoiding off-job interaction, in the power distance scale was low (.392). 40

6 Thus, the avoiding off-job interaction item was deleted from the power distance Scale. The only sub-scale which included two factors was the collectivism scale. Based on the results of factor analysis, two items, suffering individual goals and giving up individual goals, were deleted from the Collectivism scale. After running the factor analysis, a reliability test was used to check for the internal consistency of each scale. For the Taiwanese sample, the reliability scores for power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, collectivism, Confucian work dynamics, democratic leadership style, authoritarian leadership style, taskoriented leadership style, and relational-oriented leadership style were.55,.71,.78,.67,.57,.64,.64,.57, and.81, respectively. For the U.S. sample, the reliability scores for power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, collectivism, Confucian work dynamics, democratic leadership style, authoritarian leadership style, task-oriented leadership style, and relational-oriented leadership style were.72,.77,.86,.64,.58,.71,.69,.52, and.71, respectively (Based on Cronbach s coefficient alpha). Results RQ1: Work-Related Cultural Values The first part of the? data examined Hofstede s work-related cultural dimensions experienced by university employees in Taiwan and the United States. To test the differences in cultural values of university employees in Taiwan and the United States, independent-samples t-tests were conducted. Table 1 shows the statistical results demonstrated that most of the results were statistically significant. Uncertainty Avoidance was the only work-related cultural dimension that did not show a significant difference between these two cultural groups. The independent-samples t-test results for each work-related cultural dimension were as follows. Table 1. Means for Cultural Dimensions A B t Power Distance 1. Managers should make most decisions without consulting subordinates It is frequently necessary for a manager to use authority and power when dealing with subordinates. 3. Managers should seldom ask for the opinions of employees Employees should not disagree with management decisions Managers should not delegate important tasks to employees Total *** Uncertainty Avoidance 1. It is important to have job requirements and instructions spelled out in detail so that employees always know what they are expected to do. 2. Managers expect workers to closely follow instructions and procedures Rules and regularities are important because they inform workers what the organization expects of them. 4. Standard operating procedures are helpful to employees on the job Instructions for operations are important for employees on the job Total Masculinity 1. Meetings are usually run more effectively when they are chaired by a man It is more important for men to have a professional career than it is for women to have a professional career. 3. Men usually solve problems with logical analysis; women usually solve problems with intuition. 4. Solving organizational problems usually requires an active, forcible approach which is typical of men. 5. It is preferable to have a man in a high level position rather than a woman Total *** Collectivism 1. Group welfare is more important than individual rewards Group success is more important than individual success

7 3. Being accepted by the members of your workgroup is very important Employees should pursue their goals after considering the welfare of the group Total *** Confucian Work Dynamics 1. Ordering relationships by status and observing this order is important in the workplace. 2. Thrift is important in the workplace Persistence is important in the workplace Having a sense of shame is important in the workplace Total *** A=Taiwanese data, N=156, Scale=1-7; B=the U.S. data, N=147, Scale=1-7 Note: *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 The mean difference on Power Distance was significant. The Taiwanese participants have medium scores on Power Distance, whereas the U.S. participants have low scores on this work-related cultural dimension. The mean difference was 0.47, ω 2 = About 7.6% of the variance in Power Distance was explained by culture. The mean difference on Uncertainty Avoidance was not significant. The Taiwanese participants and the U.S. participants did not significantly differ in Uncertainty Avoidance. Both of these two cultural groups had a high Uncertainty Avoidance value. The mean difference on Masculinity was significant. The Taiwanese participants had higher scores on Masculinity than the U.S. participants did. The Taiwanese participants had a medium value on Masculinity, whereas the U.S. participants had a low Masculinity value. The mean difference was 1.68, ω 2 = Therefore, about 43.42% of the variance in Masculinity was explained by culture. The mean difference on Collectivism was significant. The Taiwanese participants had higher scores on Collectivism than the U.S. participants did. The mean difference was 0.39, ω 2 = Therefore, about 4.4% of the variance in Collectivism was explained by culture. The mean difference on Confucian Work Dynamics was significant. The Taiwanese participants had higher scores on Confucian Work Dynamics than the U.S. participants did. The Taiwanese participants scored high on Confucian Work Dynamics, whereas the U.S. participants had a medium score on this cultural dimension. The mean difference was 1.27, ω 2 = Therefore, about 38% of the variance in Confucian Work Dynamics was explained by culture. RQ2: Expected Leadership Decision-Making Style The second part of the data analysis compared the expected leadership communication styles in decisionmaking processes in two cultures. To test the difference in subordinates expected leadership communication styles in the decision-making process, independentsample t-tests were conducted. Table 2 summarizes the means for items which measured Taiwanese and American participants expected leadership decisionmaking styles. Table 2. Means for the Authoritarian Communication Style and the Democratic Communication Style A B t Authoritarian Communication Style 1. An effective leader should set up departmental goals by himself/herself in the meeting. 2. An effective leader should make decisions by himself/herself in the meeting, and ask subordinates to implement his/her decision. 3. An effective leader should primarily use one-way communication to inform his/her subordinates in the meeting. 4. An effective leader should personally direct subordinates in the process of completing a task in the meeting. Total *** 42

8 Democratic Communication Style 1. An effective leader should invite his/her subordinates to set up the departmental goals together in the meeting. 2. An effective leader should invite his/her subordinates to make decisions together in the meeting. 3. An effective leader should use two-way communication and open discussion to communicate with his/her subordinates in the meeting. 4. An effective leader should let subordinates decide the process of completing a task in the meeting. Total *** A=Taiwanese data, N=156, Scale=1-7; B=the U.S. data, N=147, Scale=1-7 Note: *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 The result demonstrated that the mean difference on Authoritarian Leadership Communication Style was significant. Taiwanese participants scored higher on Authoritarian Leadership Communication Style than the U.S. participants did, ω 2 = Therefore, about 12.89% of the variance in Authoritarian Leadership Communication Style was explained by culture. The mean difference on Democratic Leadership Style was significant. Both the Taiwanese participants and the U.S. participants had high scores on Democratic Leadership Decision-Making Style. But, the Taiwanese participants scored slightly lower on Democratic Leadership Style than the U.S. participants did, ω 2 = Therefore, about 7.08% of the variance in Democratic Leadership Communication Style was explained by culture. RQ3: Expected Leadership Conflict Management Styles The third part of the data analysis compared the expected conflict management styles of Taiwanese university employees and U.S. university employees. To test the differences in subordinates expected conflict management styles, independent-samples t-tests were conducted. Table 3 summarizes the means for the items that measured the three conflict management styles. Table 3. Means for Different Leadership Conflict Management Styles A B t Task-Oriented Leadership Style 1. An effective leader should understand the problem and re-allocate the resources or tasks to deal with the conflict. 2. An effective leader should hold meetings to resolve the conflict through open discussion. Total Relational-Oriented Leadership Style 1. An effective leader should privately persuade his/her subordinates to consider the departmental harmony issue and compromise to each other. 2. An effective leader should privately persuade his/her subordinates to save face for each other and stop the conflict. Total *** Laissez-Faire Leadership Style 1. An effective leader should avoid getting involved into the conflict, and let his/her subordinates solve the problems by themselves. Total A=Taiwanese data, N=156, Scale=1-7; B=the U.S. data, N=147, Scale=1-7 Note: *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 The mean difference on Task-Oriented Conflict Management Style was not significant. The Taiwanese participants and the U.S. participants did not significantly differ in expected Task-Oriented Leadership Conflict Management Style. Both of these two cultural groups had high scores on this conflict 43

9 management style. The mean difference on Relational-Oriented Leadership Conflict Management Style was significant. Taiwanese participants scored higher on Relational- Oriented Leadership Conflict Management Style than the U.S. participants did. The Taiwanese participants had a medium high score, whereas the U.S. participants had a medium score on the Relational-Oriented Leadership Conflict Management Style. The mean difference was 0.62, ω 2 = Therefore, about 5.36% of the variance in Relational-Oriented Leadership Conflict Management Style was explained by culture. The mean difference on Laissez-Faire Leadership Style was not significant. The Taiwanese participants and the U.S. participants did not significantly differ in Laissez-Faire Conflict Management Style. Both cultural groups had low scores on this leadership style. Discussion As discussed earlier, the research questions of this study ask whether Taiwanese university employees and American university employees have different workrelated cultural values, expected leadership decisionsmaking styles, and expected conflict-management styles. The results of this study demonstrated that there are both similarities and differences in work-related cultural values and expected leadership styles between participants from these two cultures. The results have significant theoretical implications. Similar to Stohl s (2001; 2005) discussions on cultural convergence and cultural divergence perspectives, Tayeb (1988) identified two approaches, the cultural-universal approach and the cultural-specific approach, in studying cross-cultural organizational behaviors. In the field of leadership studies, researchers who adhere to the cultural-specific approach make the argument that North American leadership theories are limited in their applicability to other cultures. On the contrary, researchers who hold the cultural-universal point of view believe that universal tendencies in leadership processes also exist. After reviewing many studies of leadership, Bass (1990) concluded that both of these two perspectives have demonstrated validity. According to Bass (1990), some behaviors, attitudes, causes, and effects are found everywhere in similar fashion. But other elements tend to be concentrated in some cultures and countries rather than others (p. 761). The results of this study supported Bass s (1990) and Scandura and Dorfman s (2004) argument that both cultural-universal and cultural-specific leadership styles exist because some leadership expectations seem to be similar, but others are different between participants from Taiwan and the United States. Consider the results of expected leadership decision-making style as an example. On the one hand, participants from both cultures preferred a democratic leadership decision-making style. This result demonstrated the validity of the cultural convergence (cultural-universal) perspective because university employees from two different cultures preferred the same type of leadership style which demonstrated the universal tendency and supported the cultural-universal approach. This finding also supported Stohl s (2001) summary about the cultural convergence perspective: Overall, increasing experience with the processes of globalization has resulted in practitioners and scholars alike arguing for the inappropriateness of traditional hierarchical structuring and thinking the development of alternative forms of organizing (p. 332). On the other hand, Taiwanese participants had a higher tolerance level for an authoritarian leadership decision-making style than the U.S. participants did probability because of the historical influence of Confucian value of ordering relationship in the Chinese society. This significant result supported the cultural divergence (cultural-specific) phenomenon because cultural differences in expected leadership behaviors were found between two different cultures. Both the cultural convergence (cultural-universal) and cultural divergence (cultural-specific) approaches were supported by the results of this cross-cultural leadership study. This finding was significant because it demonstrated that the cultural-universal and culturalspecific approach may complement each other, rather than contradict each other. Instead of debating which approach is better, future researchers should try to integrate both approaches and build an integrated theoretical model for cross-cultural leadership studies. Bond and Smith (1996) reviewed recent theoretical and empirical studies in the field of cross-cultural social and organizational psychology. After reviewing current studies in this field, they argued that the culturaluniversal approach and the cultural-specific approach are inseparable from each other, instead of contradicting each other. According to Bond and Smith (1996), "the search for universals and emphasis upon indigenous cultural-specifics are often cast as contradictory enterprises that amplify contrasting etic and emic approaches. Yet these concepts are no more separable than nature and nurture" (p. 226). Conclusion This study has provided significant insights about cross-cultural leadership in the educational context. According to Eddy and Murphy (1997), "leadership in today's society demands recognition of the diversity and difference present in our culture. The effective academic leader of the future must negotiate the multicultural environment by fully recognizing diversity and difference while exercising leadership that unites all toward a common goal" (p. 330). This study used 44

10 universities as an example to study occupational culture. One of the important findings was that university workers in both cultures had a high uncertainty avoidance value. Another important finding was that university workers in both cultures preferred the democratic leadership decision-making style. The similarity in this expected democratic leadership decision-making style could be the trend of campus democracy. As sated earlier, many universities have academic programs or sisterhood programs with foreign universities. These programs may facilitate the processes of intercultural communication and globalization in higher education. However, cultural differences on work-related cultural values and expected leadership styles were still found between two cultural groups because of the influences of traditional cultural values. This study is an exploratory study of comparative leadership communication in the educational context. Nevertheless, there is still much to be learned from cross-cultural leadership studies. First, this study only surveyed individuals employed by public universities. Future studies may explore leadership expectations in different types of universities, such as private universities, and compare the results with this study. Second, this study focused on expected leadership styles in different cultures. But, university leaders' actual leadership behaviors have not been studied yet. Future studies may use qualitative approaches, such as observations or interviews, to investigate leaders' behaviors in different cultures. * This paper is drawn from the author s dissertation. The author would like to thank Dr. Lea P. Stewart for her advice on the dissertation project, Dr. Dale Hample for his suggestions for an earlier draft, and Dr. Brent Ruben, Ms. Sherrie Tromp, Ms. Yung-Jean Chiou, and Ms. Su-Shiu Chen for their assistance with data collection. Correspondence to: Dr. Ming-Yi Wu Department of Communication Western Illinois University 1 University Circle Macomb, IL m-wu2@wiu.edu; mingyiwu@att.net References Barnett, G. A., & Kincaid, D. L. (1983). Cultural convergence. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp ). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill s handbook of leadership: Theory, research & management applications (3 rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Balderson, F. E. (1995). Managing today's university: Strategies for viability, change, and excellence (2 nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brew, F. P. & Cairns, D. R. (2004). Do culture or situational constraints determine choice of direct or indirect styles in intercultural workplace conflicts? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, Brislin, R. (1970). Back-translation for crosscultural research. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 1, Brislin, R. W., & Baumgardner, S. R. (1971). Non random sampling of individuals in cross cultural research. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 2, Bond, H. M., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Cross-cultural social and organizational psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, Chen, G. M., & Chung, J. (1994). The impact of Confucianism on organizational communication. Communication Quarterly, 42, Chen, G. M., Ryan, K, & Chen, C. (2000). The determinants of conflict management among Chinese and Americans. Intercultural Communication Studies, 9, Chen, G. M. (2002). The impact of harmony on Chinese conflict management. In G. M. Chen & R. Ma (Eds), Chinese conflict management and resolution (pp. 3-19). Westport, CT: Ablex. Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Zorn, E. E., and Ganesh, S. (2004). Organizational communication: In an age of globalization: Issues, reflections, practices. Prospect heights, IL: Waveland Press. Deetz, S. A., Tracy, S. J., & Simpson, J. L. (2000). Leading organizations through transition: Communication and cultural change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. In E.G. McGoun (Ed.), Advances in international comparative management (Vol. 3, pp ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Eddy, J, P. & Murphy, S. D. (1997). 21 st century leadership practices needed for higher education. Education, 117, Fernandez, D. R., Carlson, D. S., Stepina, L. P., & Nicholson, J. D. (1997). Hofstede s country classification 25 years later. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, Gudykunst, W. B., Lee, C. M., Nishida, T., & Ogawa, N. (2005). In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 3-32). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage. Hackman, M. Z. & Johnson, C. E. (1996). Leadership: A communication perspective (2 nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Hall. E. T. (1981). Beyond culture. Garden City, 45

11 NY: Anchor. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1990). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jablin, F. M., & Putman, L. L. (2001). The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kincaid, D. L. (1988). The convergence theory of intercultural communication. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds), Theories of intercultural communication (pp ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kunston, T. J., Hwang, J. C., & Deng, B. C. (2000). Perception and management of conflict: A comparison of Taiwanese and US business employees. Intercultural Communication Studies, 9, May S., & Mumby, D. K. (2005). Engaging organizational communication theory and research: Multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miyahara, A., Kim, M. S., Shin, H. C., & Yoon, K. (1998). Conflict resolution styles among collectivist cultures: A comparison between Japanese and Koreans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, Myers, R. H. (1996, December). A new Chinese civilization: The evolution of the Republic of China on Taiwan. The Chinese Quarterly, Nicholson, J. D. (1991). The relationship between cultural values, work belief, and attitudes towards socioeconomic issues: A cross-cultural study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University. Quinn, R. E., Faerman, S. R., Thompson, M. P., & McGrath, M. R. (1996). Becoming a master manager: A competency framework (2 nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Redding, G., & Wong, Y. Y. (1986). The psychology of Chinese organizational behavior. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp ). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2 nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Stewart, L. P., Gudykunst, W. B., Ting-Toomey, S., & Nishida, T. (1986). The effects of decision-making style on openness and satisfaction within Japanese organizations, Communication Monographs, 53, Scandura, T., & Dorfman, P. (2004). Leadership research in an international and cross-cultural context. Leadership Quarterly, 15, Stohl, C. (2001). Globalizing organizational communication. In F. M. Jablin and L. L. Putman (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tayeb, M. H. (1988). Organizations and national culture: A comparative analysis. London: Sage. Triandis, H. C. (1982). Review of Culture s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Human Organization, 41, Victor, D. A. (1997). International business communication. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Wu, M. Y. and Stewart, L. P (2005). Work-related cultural values and expected leadership styles: A study of Taiwanese and American university employees. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 34, Yates, F. J., & Lee, J. W. (1996). Chinese decision-making. In M H Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp ). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4 th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5 th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 46