PROTOTYPICAL LEADERSHIP SCALE DEVELOPMENT: A COMPARISON OF LEADERSHIP PROTOTYPES IN CANADA, CHINA AND INDIA

Transcription

1 ASAC 2007 Ottawa, ON Thomas Medcof (student) Ingo Holzinger Schulich School of Business York University PROTOTYPICAL LEADERSHIP SCALE DEVELOPMENT: A COMPARISON OF LEADERSHIP PROTOTYPES IN CANADA, CHINA AND INDIA This study compares the expected leadership behaviors and characteristics of Canadian, Chinese and Indian respondents (n=63) through the development of scales designed to assess attributes of leadership prototypicality. The results indicate that some similarities and relatively strong differences exist between subjects from different cultural regions. Introduction Recent economic, political and social changes in the global market are making knowledge concerning the supervision and leadership of individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds increasingly important to organizations and their managers. Not surprisingly, there has been a similar increase in scholarly interest regarding the impact of culture on leadership processes and outcomes (Dorfman, 2004). Researchers have investigated this phenomenon using existing theories and measures, most of which have been developed in a North American context. While some of the leadership characteristics and behaviors identified in those theories have been found to be universally effective (i.e., aspects of charismatic leadership (Dorfman, 2004; Den Hartog et al., 1999)), research has also demonstrated significant differences in perceptions of effective leadership across different cultures (e.g., Dorfman et al., 1997; Gerstner & Day, 1994; Holzinger, Medcof & Dunham, 2006; Manning 2003; Petzall & Willis, 1996). Research investigating culturally specific leadership prototypes has received considerable attention in the international leadership literature and shown great promise in explaining cultural differences (Dorfman, Hanges & Brodbeck, 2004). Rather than proposing the universal effectiveness of one particular set of leadership characteristics and behaviors, this perspective suggests that culturally influenced prototypes, defined as expectations of presumed effective or preferred leader attributes or behaviors (Lord & Maher, 1991), are the determinants of leader effectiveness. The incorporation of cultural differences into the leadership literature focuses attention on the significance of social construction on perceptions of effective leadership. This perspective suggests that a mismatch between followers cultural expectations and the perceived traits and behaviors of their leaders can result in reduced leader effectiveness (Dorfman, et al., 1997). Hence, to gain a full understanding of what constitutes effective leader behavior, it is necessary to investigate the influence of culture on leader prototypes. This study, which is part of a larger work investigating culturally bounded perceptions of leaders and followers, seeks to build on existing models for exploration of leadership prototypes. It compares the expected leadership behaviors and characteristics of Canadian, Chinese and Indian respondents through the use and expansion of existing scales designed to assess attributes of leadership prototypicality. The current work attempts to encompass aspects of leadership which may have been more difficult to detect using theory and instruments developed primarily in a North 175

2 American setting, thereby gaining insight into the Canadian, Chinese and Indian leader prototypes and differences between them. The following section reviews recent literature on prototypical leadership pertinent to our study. After describing the methods and results, we conclude the paper by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of our findings. Implicit Leadership Theories Previous Research The information-processing approach developed by Lord and his colleagues (e.g., Lord, Brown & Freiberg, 1999; Lord, De Vader & Alliger, 1986; Lord & Emrich, 2000; Lord, Foti & De Vader, 1984; Lord, Foti & Phillips, 1982; Lord & Maher, 1991) is a particularly useful framework for investigating the role of perceptions regarding leadership and its effectiveness. The literature on implicit leadership theories (ILTs) suggests that individuals hold implicit beliefs about the characteristics and behaviors of effective leaders (Lord & Maher, 1991). The more closely a person matches those beliefs, the more likely he or she will be perceived as a leader. This perception will provide an individual with the opportunity to further enact those prototypical leader attributes and, ultimately, be effective as a leader (Gerstner & Day, 1994; Lord & Maher, 1991). This literature has wide ranging implications for the investigation of cross-cultural leadership. An essential implication for prospective leaders is that they must create a fit between their own behaviors and characteristics and the prototypical leadership schemas held by followers to effectively wield influence. According to this perspective, the effectiveness of certain behaviors or perceived personal characteristics depends to a large extent on follower cognitions (Lord & Emrich, 2000). Cultural Research Programs A great deal of cross-cultural analysis has been based on the seminal work of Hofstede (1980, 2001), in which he examined over 50 different countries searching for cultural differences and similarities. Based on his research, Hofstede proposed five major dimensions along which cultures differ: Power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity and long-term vs. short-term orientation. Many of these cultural traits are relevant to the study of the leader-follower relationship (Hofstede, 2001). Hofstede s concept of power distance, for example, is used to identify cultural expectations of the leader-follower dynamic. In countries with a low power distance, individuals are less likely to accept and agree on an unequal distribution of power within an organization or society. Leader-follower relations in these cultures are suggested to be less hierarchically stratified and less formal than in high power distance cultures. Alternately, cultures with high power distance are hypothesized to exhibit greater acceptance of autocratic and paternalistic leadership behaviors. This dimension suggests that there is a clear distinction between cultures concerning which behaviors demonstrated by both leaders and followers are acceptable. Another significant cross-national study explicitly examining cultural differences and their relationship with leadership effectiveness has also been recently released. The GLOBE study (House et al., 2004) elaborates and expands upon Hofstede s findings. This study was even more exhaustive, collecting data from 62 different societies over a seven-year period. In addition to examining differences across cultural dimensions, including power distance, the authors were able to derive culture-specific leadership prototypes for the societies represented in their sample. 176

3 Together, the two studies provide valuable information for researchers interested in the effects of different cultures on organizations and management relevant behaviors and processes, including leadership. Culturally Endorsed Implicit Leadership Theory As these studies demonstrate, cultural differences can have a tremendous impact on the formation of ILTs. Just as culture shapes schemas regarding typical or appropriate behaviors, roles and interactions, leader prototypes, like other norms and values, may differ across cultures as well. Shaw (1990), for example, suggested that [m]uch of previous cross-national comparative research on managerial values, beliefs, and styles can be interpreted as showing culturally influenced differences in leader prototypes (p. 635). Along this line of thought, and in association with the GLOBE studies, Dorfman and his associates (1997) developed the Culturally Endorsed Implicit Leadership Theory (CLT). CLT integrates ILTs (Lord & Maher, 1991), value/belief theory on culture (Hofstede, 2001; House, Hanges & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 1997), implicit motivation theory (McClelland 1985), and structural contingency theory (Donaldson 1993) to assert that leadership qualities are not universal, but that prototypical leadership attributes and behaviors exist that are specific to certain cultures. This has been demonstrated in studies examining the desirability of different leader practices within differing cultural contexts (Den Hartog et. al., 1999; Dorfman et al., 1997; Gerstner & Day, 1994; Javidan & Carl, 2004; Popper & Druyan, 2001). Gerstner and Day (1994), for example, investigated perceptions of leadership among students from eight countries and found that prototypes of leadership were affected significantly by the cultural backgrounds of the subjects. Furthermore, the non-u.s. subjects did not rank any of the top five U.S. prototypical leadership traits among their most important traits. CLT, then, emphasizes the role that cultural differences play in affecting leader-follower relations. By shaping follower cognitions regarding appropriate or effective leadership, societal norms and values influence what followers think about and expect of leaders. Individuals who display attributes and behaviors that are congruent with those expectations will be more likely to be accepted as leaders and, as a result, will be more effective in influencing those around them (Dorfman, Hanges & Brodbeck, 2004; Yan & Hunt, 2005). Hence, CLT concludes that in order to understand leadership effectiveness within a specific culture it is important to understand the behaviors and attributes associated with that culture s leadership prototype. Given that prior research suggests differences will be apparent between leadership prototypes held by members of different cultures, we ask the following research question: Which leadership attributes are perceived as facilitators (or inhibitors) of effective leadership in Canada, China and India? Specifically, which similarities and differences exist between the sets of expected leadership behaviours and characteristics in these societies? Methods Sample One hundred and fourteen first year MBA students from a major Canadian university were asked to complete an online survey on a voluntary basis. Sixty-three respondents completed the survey for a response rate of 55.3 percent. Their average age was 29.3 years with a standard deviation of 5.6 years. Seventy-one percent (45) were male. Of the 63 respondents, 61 (97%) had full-time work experience and 43 (68%) had been in a supervisory or managerial position. In this study, participants were asked to report their citizenship and the national culture with which they most 177

4 strongly identified. This was done to ensure that cultural identity was accurately recorded, which is plainly important for studies investigating the impact of culture. In multicultural societies, such as Canada or the United States, ones country of employment, or even citizenship, are not always accurate indicators of their cultural predispositions. Many other studies examining cross-cultural leadership (e.g. House et al. 2004; Javidan & Carl, 2005; Matviuk, 2007), match the participants cultural identification with the country in which they work. However, with the commonness of expatriate managers in multinational corporations and the abovementioned concerns regarding cultural identity, this may not always an accurate assessment. This study illustrated that concern, with seven of the 63 respondents (11%) reporting a cultural identity different than their nationality. Larger groups of subjects self-identified with Canadian (n=21), Chinese (n=13) and Indian (n=19) cultures, while the remaining respondents (n=11) identified with other national cultures. This group of subjects affords the opportunity to test for cultural differences within a group that, other than their disparate cultural identification, display relative homogeneity. Similarities in age and work experience, self-selection into a Canadian MBA program and residence in the same country suggest that the most members of the subject pool share similar cultural influences and values other than their cultural identity. Overall, this may lead to greater homogeneity across the sample and, hence, a more conservative test of the influence of culture on expectations for ideal leaders. However, this homogeneity also limits the generalizability of our findings. Hence, this study does not purport to investigate complete culture-specific prototypes. Rather, by comparing the differences (and similarities) among the members of different cultures within this relatively homogenous sample, we hope to identify the more staunchly ingrained elements of culture-specific leadership prototypes. Measures and Procedures To gain insight into the leader prototypes under investigation, scales were developed. To generate items for our scales, we drew from prior quantitative and qualitative studies on cross-cultural leader prototypes. The GLOBE study (House et al., 2004) particularly informed our process of item selection. In this study, items were subjected to first and second order factor analyses that yielded 21 and 6 dimensions of leadership respectively. These dimensions were Charismatic/Value based leadership (visionary, inspirational, self-sacrificial, integrity, decisive, performance orientation), Team-oriented leadership (team orientation, team integrator, diplomacy, malevolent (reversed), administrative competence) Narcissistic leadership (self-centered, status-conscious, conflict inducer, face saver, procedural), Participative leadership (autocratic (reversed), non-participative (reversed)), Humane leadership (modest, humane orientation) and Autonomous leadership (individualistic, independent, autonomous, unique). Several items utilized in the present study were derived from the items used in the GLOBE study. Further items were selected based on the broad body of existing cross-cultural research and prior qualitative work that suggested several other elements, such as a desire to win, adaptability, and expertise, were important to effective leadership in certain cultures while not explicitly addressed in other quantitative studies. Based on face validity, the items were grouped into nine different scales that represented various aspects of leadership covered in the cross-cultural literature: Charismatic, Procedural, Integrity, Humane, Decisiveness, Goal Focus, Openness, Adaptable, Status Conscious. Upon completion of the data collection, confirmatory factor analyses of the individual scales were conducted to test for construct uniformity. As a result of these analyses, several changes were made to the scales. Two of the scales were found not to be uniform and were subsequently divided into smaller scales. The openness scale (11 items) was subdivided into two new scales, communicative (6 items) and servant (5 items). The 10-item scale that was intended to measure decisiveness was also divided into two scales. The new directive and determined scales both comprised of five items. Additionally, four items (selfish, create conflict, outgoing and defer to 178

5 greater experience) were removed due to misfit in the scales. Finally, reliability analysis was conducted on each scale, yielding values ranging from.63 for the smallest (four-item) scale to.85 indicating moderate to strong reliability throughout the instrument. Table 1 shows the alpha and items included for each scale. Table 1: Reliability Coefficients (Cronbach s Alpha) for Developed Scales Scale Alpha Items Charismatic 0.83 Charismatic, Able to develop a vision, Positive, Enthusiastic, Sets examples for others, Likable, Courageous Procedural 0.76 Follow rules, Follow instructions, Defer to authority, Sacrifice Themselves for the organization, Avoid risk, Avoid conflict, Non-confrontational Integrity 0.82 Honest, Fair, Treat everyone as equal, Have personal integrity, Responsible, Trustworthy, Hardworking Humane 0.85 Understanding, Care about others at work, Kind, Generous, Respect others, Support others, Patient Directive 0.78 Provide Direction, Well educated, Specific expertise, Disciplined, Persuasive Determined 0.77 Determined, Decisive, Competitive, Strong willed, Confident Goal Focused 0.80 Organized, Goal-oriented, Know the goals of the organization, Committed to the organization, Understand their own role within the organization, Intelligent, Have comprehensive general knowledge Communicative 0.73 Communicate well, Delegate, Offer feedback, Listen to others, Seek input from others, Avoid embarrassing others Servant 0.77 Modest, Share information, Share emotions, Loyalty, Democratic Adaptable 0.83 Learn from mistakes, Adapt to change, Willing to learn, Open-minded, Flexible, Collaborate with others Status Conscious 0.63 Pay attention to differences in status, Strict, Have formal authority, Uncompromising Challenger 0.64 Take risks, Challenge norms, Outspoken, Independent, Control emotions Results Table 2 shows the means, the rank order and the degree to which each dimension facilitates or impedes effective leadership. Although the rank orders of the items show relative similarity, subtle yet important distinctions exist which differentiate the leadership preferences of the three countries. All three countries ranked integrity as the leadership attribute that best facilitates effective leadership. After integrity, both India and China favor the same three attributes, goal orientation, adaptability and humane orientation, as the second, third and fourth best facilitators of leadership respectively. Canadians also emphasized the importance of adaptability, ranking it second behind integrity, but then chose charisma and communication skills as the next most important traits, ranking humane and goal orientation as less important as their Indian and Chinese counterparts. As the fifth and sixth best facilitators of leadership, Indians and Chinese chose the dimensions charisma and communication, with means for the two items indicating that the importance of both was considered to be almost equal. The Canadian and Chinese respondents had an identical rank order for their bottom five dimensions: decisive, challenger, servant, status and procedural. Indian 179

6 subjects differed slightly, flipping the order of servant (8 th ) and challenger (9 th ) as well as procedural (10 th ) and status (11 th ). Table 2: Ranking of Leadership Attributes by Country CANADA INDIA CHINA Scale Mean Rank Scale Mean Rank Scale Mean Rank High Positive Integrity Integrity Integrity (greatly facilitates) Adaptable Goal Focused Goal Focused Charismatic Adaptable Adaptable Communicative Humane Humane Humane Communicative Charismatic Goal Focused Charismatic Communicative Decisive Decisive Decisive Low Positive Challenger Servant Challenger (slightly facilitates) Servant Challenger Servant Procedural Status Procedural Low Negative Status Status (slightly impedes) Procedural Still greater differences can be discerned through a close examination of the means and their implications. Because the instrument asked respondents to indicate both impediments and facilitators to effective leadership we can gain insight beyond a simple rank ordering of the leadership dimensions. All three cultures consistently valued the same seven leadership dimensions as highly positive. Means for integrity, adaptable, goal oriented, charisma, humane, communicative, and decisive all fell within the range indicating that they were considered to be strong facilitators of leadership. Similarly, both the challenger and servant dimensions were found to be slight facilitators of effective leadership across the three countries. While the Chinese also valued the final two items, status and procedural, as slight facilitators of effective leadership, the Canadians in the sample instead viewed this dimensions as impediments to effectiveness (low negative) while the Indian respondents saw maintenance of procedure as positive and emphasis of status as a negative. Our subject responses were further compared through one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs). Table 3 shows the results of the three ANOVAs comparing each country against the other. As the table demonstrates, there are strongly significant results comparing the results of Chinese and Canadian respondents on the status (p<.005) and procedural (p<.05) scales and marginal significance on the charismatic scale (p<.01). Comparing the Chinese and Indian samples, status (p<.005) stands out as significant while procedural (p<.001) serves to differentiate Canada and India. 180

7 Table 3: Between Country Analyses of Variance Canada vs. China Canada vs. India China vs. India F p F p F p Adaptability Challenger Charismatic Communicative Decisive Goal Focused Humane Integrity Procedural Servant Status Discussion With the increasing degree of integration in the world economy and the increasing presence of multinational companies, it is progressively more likely that individuals from disparate national cultures will find themselves in leader-follower relationships. In order to be perceived as a leader and, ultimately, be effective, it is necessary to understand how ones own leadership expectations may differ from the leadership prototypes of others. To this end, this study set out to examine the similarities and differences between leadership attributes that Canadian, Chinese and Indian respondents perceive as facilitators (or inhibitors) of effective leadership. Consistent with prior research, (e.g. Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004), our data analysis indicates that some similarities and relatively strong differences do exist between subjects from different cultural regions. Many of these differences in preferred leader attributes can be linked to variation in the strength of cultural dimensions, such as power distance and individualism/collectivism (Hofstede, 2001). Respondents from countries where power distance has been reported as higher (India, China) were generally more accepting of leaders who emphasized status and adherence to protocols and procedures. In contrast, Canadian respondents, who are accustomed to a lower societal level of power distance, viewed both traits as negative. This finding supports prior studies that indicate hierarchical stratification is common in high power distance countries. Resultantly, following these societal norms is seen as standard practice for leaders in these cultures and are viewed as more appropriate than in low power distance countries. Similarly, individuals identifying with the Chinese culture, where a strong hierarchy has traditionally been more readily accepted, did not see charisma as being as strong a facilitator of effective leadership as in the Canadian sample. This result suggests that it is more important to Canadians for their leaders to provide motivation by building enthusiasm and being positive, and to model appropriate behaviors by setting examples and establishing a vision. While Chinese respondents also see these traits as very positive, our results suggest that it is not as crucial to win over followers in order to be perceived as an effective leader. This result aligns well with previous studies investigating Chinese culture. The cultural tendency towards accepting greater power distance and hierarchical structure (Farh & Cheng, 1999) causes leadership to be tied more tightly to status and hierarchical position than personal traits. This combination of an attribution of power to the position held and high power distance make both personal interaction and demonstration of 181

8 leadership ability less necessary. Therefore, it is less important for a leader to motivate followers through personal interaction. Furthermore, qualitative investigation regarding follower prototypes in Asian countries, such as China, has suggested that the role of the follower is characterized by high power distance and an obligation toward the leader and her/his goals (Holzinger, Medcof & Dunham, 2006). This sense of obligation may provide the follower with an inherent sense of motivation, further contributing to a reduced need for the leader to personally motivate their followers. The agreement amongst the three countries in grouping the remaining nine attributes as high positive and low positive and the similarity of means are an interesting outcome of this study. As previously discussed, few attributes, such as certain aspects of charismatic leadership (Dorfman, 2004; Den Hartog et al., 1999) have been demonstrated to be desirable across cultures. In fact, Gerstner and Day (1994, 130) conclude that reliable differences exist in leadership perceptions regarding Specifically those traits considered to be most (as well as moderately and least) characteristic of business leaders. Instead, our data analysis demonstrates that none of the ratings of the top nine attributes other than charisma are significantly distinguishable between the three cultures. This finding is echoed in recent research which has uncovered non-traditional elements of leadership in Chinese culture such as the focus on the instrumental use of interpersonal skills, the ability to establish goals or a vision, and winning (Holzinger, Medcof & Dunham, 2006). This is in stark contrast to the paternalistic and benevolent prototype suggested in previous research on the Chinese culture (Farh and Cheng, 1999). A possible explanation of this finding is the degree of homogeneity demonstrated by our sample. Other authors have made note of a tendency for business leaders own personal prototypes and expectations to gradually shift from those of their culture of origin to a more globally oriented, market-based business culture (Alavi, Yasin & Zimmerer, 2004; Romero, 2004). As described above, our sample has had a fair degree of emersion into the international business culture. It is possible that exposure to these different cultural norms have altered their perceptions as to which attributes enable effective leadership. In the course of their studies and business experiences, it is possible that they have begun to integrate attributes that are considered facilitators of effective leadership by cultures to which they have been exposed into their own personal leadership schemas. These findings reinforce our suggestion that there is a large degree of homogeneity within our sample and, therefore, the differences that have emerged can be attributed to deeply rooted cultural biases. Future Directions Despite research that has identified relatively stable cultural characteristics and resulting leadership perceptions (Dorfman, Hanges & Brodbeck, 2004; Yan & Hunt, 2005), many other authors suggest that leadership prototypes have a tendency to change when their holders are exposed to different cultural environments and face different economic and social pressures (Alavi, Yasin & Zimmerer, 2004; Romero, 2004). For example, authors such as Graen (2006) have recently suggested that the behaviors and attitudes of the new generation of Chinese business leaders are significantly different than the cultural findings of the Confucian grouping identified in the GLOBE study (House, et al., 2004). One proposed explanation for this finding is the degree of rapid internal and external change China has experienced over the past few decades (Casmir & Li, 2005). It is suggested that an influx of nontraditional, Western values, some of which are inconsistent with traditional Chinese cultural values, are responsible for this shift in cultural norms regarding interpersonal and organizational dealings (Shenkar and Ronen, 1987; Lew, 1998; Ng, 1998). In this study, despite their differing cultural identifications, our subjects have been exposed to many similar cultural influences. Most subjects fall within a tightly bounded 182

9 age range, all have voluntarily entered and received instruction from a Western style MBA program, and all have resided for at least a brief time in a Western country. Yet, our results reveal that while many similarities exist in what our subjects consider prototypical leadership behaviors, cultural differences cannot be erased simply through short-term exposure to or immersion in different cultural climates. Despite the rich literature on the effects of culture on leadership prototypes, there has been little research examining corresponding follower prototypes. Although many streams of research have revealed that both leader and follower perceptions are important to the understanding of perceived effectiveness in the dyadic leader-follower relationship (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl- Bien, 1995; Lord & Maher, 1991) and that socially constructed prototypes are significant determinants of that relationship (Lord and Maher, 1991; Dorfman et al., 1997), thusfar the literature has primarily focused on social construction regarding the role of the leader and examined expected leadership behaviors, attitudes and characteristics (Lord & Maher, 1991). However, the dyadic nature of the leader-follower relationship suggests that understanding what individuals consider prototypical follower behavior may have just as great an impact on how the relationship evolves, and whether or not it is perceived as effective. As a follower in an unfamiliar culture, conducting oneself according to cultural expectations and norms may enhance acceptance and effectiveness. Leaders in cross-cultural settings, on the other hand, need to know what they can and cannot expect of their followers. Expecting behaviors from followers that are not endorsed by the host culture may not only have negative performance implications, but also taint the image of the leader in the eyes of the followers. In addition, even though leaders placed in a cross-cultural context may be informed of cultural expectations and prepared to behave appropriately, their own cultural biases may prevent them from receiving appropriate feedback. For example, a manager working in a foreign culture may demonstrate the prototypical leader behaviors for that culture and may be received very positively by the followers. However, without awareness of appropriate follower behavior, that leader may not be able to interpret the followers responses correctly. In fact, the leader may perceive the responses as negative or even hostile because they do not match the responses expected from followers in the leader s native culture. A logical continuation, and perhaps a necessary next step for this line of research, is the linking of leadership prototypes to concrete measures of effectiveness. At this juncture studies regarding prototypical leadership, especially those focusing on cross-cultural leadership, have primarily focused on understanding leadership profiles in different regions and the manner in which prototypical behaviors affect perceptions of leader effectiveness. In fact, studies often caution against the conflation of perceived leader effectiveness and actual performance as a leader. However, without a means to evaluate the effects of prototype match and mismatch on the leaderfollower relationship, it is difficult to evaluate the true impact and importance of research into cultural prototypes. 183

10 References Alavi, J., Yasin, M. M., & Zimmerer, T. W., An Empirical Investigation of the Values of Iranian Executives: Traditional versus Global Market-Based Orientations, International Journal of Management, 21(1), Casimir, G. & Li, Z., Combinative Aspects of Leadership Style: A Comparison of Australian and Chinese Followers, Asian Business & Management, 4, (2005), Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., & GLOBE Associates, Culture Specific and Cross-Culturally Generalizable Implicit Leadership Theories: Are Attributes of Charismatic/Transformational Leadership Universally Endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), (1999), Donaldson, Lex, (ed.), Contingency Theory. History of Management Thought Vol. 9, Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company, Dorfman, P. W. International and Cross-Cultural Leadership Research. In B. J. Punnett & O. Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook for International Management Research 2 nd edition: Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J. and Brodbeck, F. C., Leadership Prototypes and Cultural Variation: the Identification of Culturally Endorsed Implicit Theories of Leadership. In R. J. House, et al., (Eds.) Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, Dorfman, P.W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U. & Bautista, A., Leadership in Western and Asian Countries: Commonalities and Differences in Effective Leadership Processes Across Cultures, Leadership Quarterly, 8, (1997), Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S., A Cultural Analysis of Paternalistic Leadership in Chinese Organizations, In J. T. Li, A.S. Tsui & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and Organizations in China: Current Issues and Future Research Directions, , London: Macmillan, Graen, G. B., In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross-Cultural Lesson in Leadership from Project GLOBE: A Response Viewed from the Third Culture Bonding (TCB) Model of Cross-Cultural Leadership, Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(4), (2006), Graen, G. B. & Scandura, T. A., Toward a Psychology of Dyadic Organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, (1987), Graen, G. B. & Uhl-Bien. M., Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader Member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level perspective, Leadership Quarterly, 6, (1995), Hofstede, G., Culture s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Value, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, Hofstede, G., Culture s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, Thousand Oaks: Sage, Holzinger, I., Medcof, T. & Dunham, R., Leader and Follower Prototypes in an International Context: An Exploratory Study of Asia and South America, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, (2006), International Business Division 184

11 House, R. J., Hanges, P. J. and Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A. (1997). GLOBE: The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Program, Polish Psychological Bulletin, 28, (1997), Javidan, M. and Carl, D. E., East meets West, Journal of Management Studies, 41(4), (2004), Lew, W., Understanding the Chinese Personality, New York: Mellen, Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J. and Freiberg, S. J., Understanding the Dynamics of Leadership: The Role of Follower Self-Concepts in the Leader Follower Relationship, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 78(3), (1999), Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., Harvey, J. L. and Hall, R. J., Contextual Constraints on Prototype Generation and Their Multilevel Consequences for Leadership Perceptions, Leadership Quarterly, 12(3), (2001), Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. and Alliger, G., A Meta-Analysis of the Relation Between Personality Traits and Leadership Perceptions: An Application of Validity Generalization Procedure, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), (1986), Lord, R. G. and Emrich, C. G., Thinking Outside the Box by Looking Inside the Box: Extending the Cognitive Revolution in Leadership Research, Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), (2000), Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J. and De Vader, C., A Test of Leadership Categorization Theory: Internal Structure, Information Processing, and Leadership Perceptions, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), (1984), Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J. and Phillips, J. S., A Theory of Leadership Categorization,. In J. G. Hunt, et al, (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond Establishment Views: Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, Lord, R. G. and Maher, K. J., Leadership and Information Processing. London: Routledge, Manning, T. T., Leadership Across Cultures: Attachment Style Influences, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(3), 2003, Matviuk, S., Cross-Cultural Leadership Behavior Expectations: A Comparison Between United States Managers and Mexican Managers, Journal of American Academy of Business, 11(1), 2007, McLelland, D, C., Human Motivation, Glenview, Ill: Scott, Foresman, Ng, R., Culture as a Factor in Management: The Case of the People s Republic of China, International Journal of Management, 15, (1998), Petzall, S. & Willis, Q., Leadership Styles: How Important are Cultural Values? An Analysis of Managers in the Asia-Pacific Region, Management Research News, 19(10), 1996, Popper, M. & Druyan, N., Cultural Prototypes? Or Leaders Behaviors? A Study on Workers Perceptions of Leadership in an Electronics Industry, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(7/8), 2001,

12 Romero, E. J., Latin American Leadership: El Patron & El Lider Moderno, Cross Cultural Management, 11(3), 2004, Shaw, J. B., A Cognitive Categorization Model for the Study of Intercultural Management, Academy of Management Review, 15(4), (1990), Shenkar, O. & Ronen, S. The Cultural Context of Negotiations: The Implications of Chinese Interpersonal Norms, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23, (1987), Yan, J. & Hunt, J. G., A Cross Cultural Perspective on Perceived Leadership Effectiveness, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 5(1), (2005),