The Influence of National Culture (and Other Independent Variables) on Leadership Perceptions

Transcription

1 The Influence of National Culture (and Other Independent Variables) on Leadership Perceptions American Society for Quality- Northern Virginia Section 0511 Monthly Dinner Meeting Information Wednesday August 11, Vienna, VA Presented by Dan Navarro Dan.navarro@vastera.com

2 Agenda Introduction to Leadership Conger & Kanungo s model to Charismatic Leadership Introduction to National Culture concepts The Study Preliminary findings Future Challenges & Conclusions

3 Legends and Myths of Leadership Leaders are powerful individuals who command victorious armies (or direct multinational corporations) They are distinguished individuals who inspire intense fervor and dedication They are the essence of legends and myths (e.g., Gandhi, Mohammed, Mao Tse-tung) Followers are willing to sacrifice their lives for their leaders

4 How about Adolf Hitler,Winston Churchill,Saddam Hussein: Are these leaders too? Some questions for research: Why did some rather undistinguished people rise to positions of great power? Why were certain leaders suddenly deposed despite their records of successful accomplishments? Why are some leaders so despised that subordinates conspire to murder them?

5 Empirical research on Leadership Scientific research did not begin until the XX century Leadership has been defined in terms of: traits, behaviors, influence, interaction patterns, role relationships, and occupation of an administration position Definitions of leadership reflect a process in which intentional influence is exerted by one person over other people to guide activities in a group or organization

6 Leadership defined Leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree 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 (Yukl, 2002).

7 It s who they are: The traits approach Key assumption: Great leaders are born Research from (Ohio State University) The Great man theory ( Great person theory ) Characteristics of the leader: Traits (motives, personality, values, IQ) Confidence and optimism Skills and expertise Behavior Integrity and Ethics Influence tactics

8 It s what they do: The behavior approach Research from (University of Michigan & Harvard) Focused on the behaviors used by effective leaders Behaviors of the leader: Employee-centered leader (Consideration) vs. Taskcentered leader (Taskmaster) Finding: It is not the opposite ends of a single dimension but 2 separate dimensions It prompted leadership development efforts focusing on both dimensions

9 It s the circumstances: The situational approach Research from Focused on the importance of contextual factors that influence leadership processes The secret is in doing the right thing at the right time IF (Task=Clear) AND (Employee=Skilled) THEN Leader leaves the Employee ALONE IF (Task=Complex) AND (Employee=Skilled) THEN Leader offers Directive Advise IF (Task=Complex) AND (Employee=Unskilled) THEN Leader provides step-by-step directions

10 A new paradigm: The integrative approach Research from the 1970s onward. Includes more than one type of leadership variables 1980s: Paradigm shift from transactional (old approaches) to transformational theories (Bass, 1985) Transformational, Charismatic, and Visionary are often used interchangeably The essence of Conger and Kanungo s (1987) model of charismatic leadership (C-K model) lies in the power of follower attribution The charisma and influence of the charismatic leader is directly tied to followers perceptions, and not to individual might.

11 Agenda Introduction to Leadership Conger & Kanungo s model to Charismatic Leadership Introduction to National Culture concepts The Study Preliminary findings Future Challenges & Conclusions

12 Conger & Kanungo s Charismatic Leadership Model Leadership as a set of role behaviors Leadership a relational and an attributional phenomenon Leadership in terms of contents (leadership elements) and leadership relational processes Leadership effectiveness: 1. Instrumental attitudes and behaviors that encourage achievement of group objectives 2. Followers satisfaction 3. Follower s acceptance of their leader s influence

13 Stage Stage 1: 1: Evaluation Evaluation of of Status Status Quo Quo Assessment Assessment of of environmental environmental resources/constraints resources/constraints and and follower follower needs needs Effective Effective articulation articulation Realization Realization of of deficiencies deficiencies in in status status quo quo A Stage Model of Charismatic Leadership Leader Behaviors Stage Stage 2: 2: Formulation Formulation & Articulation Articulation of of Organizational Organizational Goals Goals Formulation Formulation of of environmental environmental opportunities opportunities into into strategic strategic vision vision Effective Effective articulation articulation of of inspirational inspirational vision vision that that is is highly highly discrepant discrepant from from the the status status quo quo yet yet within within latitude latitude of of acceptance acceptance Stage Stage 3: 3: Means Means to to Achieve Achieve Leadership: Leadership: Conveys Conveys goals goals Demonstrates Demonstrates means means to to achieve achieve Builds Builds follower follower trust trust Motivates Motivates followers followers By: By: Personal Personal example example Risk Risk taking taking Countercultural Countercultural empowering empowering Impression Impression management management Hypothesized Outcomes Org. & Group Level: High internal cohesion Low internal conflict High value congruence High consensus Individual (Follower): In relation to the leader Trust Satisfaction Reverence In relation to the task Work group cohesion High task performance High level of empowerment

14 Distinguishing attributes of Charismatic and Non-Charismatic leaders Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Influence Strategy Environmental Sensitivity Relation to status quo Future Goals Likableness Articulation Behavior Novelty Trustworthiness Expertise Power Base usage Non-Charismatic Leaders Low need for environmental sensitivity to maintain status quo Essentially agrees with status quo and strives to maintain it Goals not too discrepant from status quo Shared perspective makes her or him likeable Weak articulation of goals and motivation to lead Conventional, conforming to existing norms Desinterested advocacy in persuasion attempts Expert in using available means to achieve goals within the framework of the existing order Position power and personal power (based on reward and/or expert power, and liking for a friend who is similar other) Charismatic Leaders High need for environmental sensitivity to change the status quo Essentially opposes status quo and strives to change it idealized vision that is highly discrepant from status quo Shared perspective and idealized vision make him or her likeable and worthy of identification and imitation Strong and/or inspirational articulation of future vision and motivation to lead Unconventional or counternormative Passionate advocacy, incurring great personal risk and cost Expert in using unconventional means to trascend the existing order Personal power (based on expert power; respect and admiration for a unique hero)

15 The Dark Side of Charisma Personal needs Becoming a Pyrrhic victor Chasing a vision before its time In denial Manipulation

16 Conger & Kanungo s Charismatic Leadership Dimensions (1997) Strategic Vision & Articulation (SVA) Personal Risk (PR) Sensitivity to the Environment (SE) Sensitivity to Member Needs (SMN) Unconventional Behavior (UB)

17 Conger and Kanungo s empirical validation In 1998 performed six empirical studies in Canada, India and the United States with: diverse samples different companies in different organizational contexts Resulted in 20-item validated instrument that measures the 5 dimensions Since 1998 there have been 96 doctoral dissertations that involve Charisma/Charismatic Leadership 34 of the 96 involved religious activities 19 of the 96 involved educational activities

18 Lots of empirical validation but are these results valid for different national cultures? Do employees from different countries perceive leadership behaviors in the same way? Are ideal leadership behaviors the same across national cultures? There is empirical evidence suggesting that: societal cultural values and practices affect what people do, and therefore leaders are likely to be affected by their own societal values and practices

19 The study: Statement of the problem Trend for corporations to expand beyond domestic markets Corporations find it difficult and frequently fail to implement successfully their organizational and management practices in the new countries There is underlying assumption that management practices are universal and may be applied globally There is strong evidence that global solutions to organizational and managerial problems do not exist Empirical evidence shows that whereas national cultures differ in their values, organizational cultures differ in their practices There is scarce research on charismatic leadership across cultural settings

20 Agenda Introduction to Leadership Conger & Kanungo s model to Charismatic Leadership Introduction to National Culture concepts The Study Preliminary findings Future Challenges & Conclusions

21 National Culture defined National Cultures reflect the values, beliefs, and assumptions unique to a country or a nation-state. Inhabitants of a country share values, symbols, heroes and rituals that provide a national identity (Hofstede, 2001).

22 Hofstede s National culture dimensions Model developed upon theoretical reasoning and statistical analysis of responses about values in 72 countries 1. Power distance, the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations expect and accept that power is distributed unequally 2. Collectivism vs. individualism, the degree to which individuals are supposed to look after themselves or remain integrated into groups 3. Femininity vs. masculinity, the distribution of emotional roles between the genders 4. Uncertainty avoidance, the extent to which a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations

23 Hofstede s National Culture Scores for USA, PL & MX Power Individualism Uncertainty Distance Avoidance Masculinity USA Poland Mexico

24 Agenda Introduction to Leadership Conger & Kanungo s model to Charismatic Leadership Introduction to National Culture concepts The Study Preliminary findings Future Challenges & Conclusions

25 The study: Conceptual framework The influence of national culture on charismatic leadership perceptions: An exploratory study of Mexico, Poland and the United States of America. Theory National Culture (Hofstede, 1980) Charismatic Leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1998) Construct National Culture Charismatic Leadership Variables Power Distance (PDI) Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) Individualism/Collectivism (IDV) Masculinity/Femininity (MAS) Strategic Vision and Articulation (SVA) Sensitivity to the environment (SE) Sensitivity to Member Needs (SMN) Personal Risk (PR) Unconventional Behavior (UB)

26 The study: Research questions Is there a significant difference in the way Mexican, Polish, and U.S. employees perceive leadership behaviors in their respective subsidiaries of a U.S. based multi-national corporation as measured by The Conger- Kanungo Charismatic Leadership Questionnaire? In addition to the main research question, this study also seeks answers to the following questions: 1. Does age make a difference in the way employees perceive leadership behaviors in the countries researched? 2. Does gender make a difference in the way employees perceive leadership behaviors in the countries researched? 3. Do years of work experience make a difference in the way employees perceive leadership behaviors in the countries researched? 4. Does position in the organization make a difference in the way employees perceive leadership behaviors in the countries researched?

27 The study: Methodology Random selection of employees currently working for specific organizations in Mexico, Poland, and the United States (346 survey questionnaires) All respondents identified themselves as natives of their respective countries (Mexico, Poland, and United States), and stated to have been employees of the same multi-national organization for at least a year People working for the same multinational, but in different countries, represent very well matched samples from the same populations of their countries, similar in all respects but nationality Hofstede (1993)

28 Agenda Introduction to Leadership Conger & Kanungo s model to Charismatic Leadership Introduction to National Culture concepts The Study Preliminary findings Future Challenges & Conclusions

29 The study: Sample Country Surveys sent Usable surveys returned Return rate MEXICO % POLAND % USA % Totals % MEXICO POLAND USA Totals Gender Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 1. Male % 2. Female % Total % Age > 30 Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 1. Up to 30 years old % 2. More than 30 years old % Total % Yrs. Work Exp. Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 1. Up to 8 years % 2. More than 8 years % Total % Org. Level Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 1. Management % 2. Non-Management % Total %

30 One-way ANOVA analysis for C-K LQ All population/ SVA Scale Mexico, Poland and U.S. Mexico vs. Poland Mexico vs. U.S. Poland vs. U.S. Strategic Vision and Articulation Strategic Vision and Articulation Strategic Vision and Articulation Strategic Vision and Articulation Sum of Mean df Squares Square F Sig. Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total SVA Mean Power Individualism Uncertainty Distance Avoidance Masculinity Mexico Poland USA Total

31 All population/ SVA Scale Power Distance PDI Poland Mexico 20 USA SVA Power Distance

32 One-way ANOVA analysis for C-K LQ All population/ SE Scale Mexico, Poland and U.S. Mexico vs. Poland Mexico vs. U.S. Poland vs. U.S. Sensitivity to the Environment Sensitivity to the Environment Sensitivity to the Environment Sensitivity to the Environment Sum of Mean df Squares Square F Sig. Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total SE Mean Power Individualism Uncertainty Distance Avoidance Masculinity Mexico Poland USA Total

33 All population/ SE Scale Power Distance PDI Poland Mexico 20 USA SE Power Distance

34 One-way ANOVA analysis for C-K LQ All population/ SMN Scale Mexico, Poland and U.S. Mexico vs. Poland Mexico vs. U.S. Poland vs. U.S. Sensitivity to Member Needs Sensitivity to Member Needs Sensitivity to Member Needs Sensitivity to Member Needs Sum of Mean df Squares Square F Sig. Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total SMN Mean Power Individualism Uncertainty Distance Avoidance Masculinity Mexico Poland USA Total

35 All population/ SMN vs PDI Scale Power Distance 100 PDI Poland Mexico USA SMN Power Distance

36 All population/ SMN vs IND Scale Individualism Mexico IND Poland USA SMN Individualism

37 One-way ANOVA analysis for C-K LQ All population/ PR Scale Mexico, Poland and U.S. Mexico vs. Poland Mexico vs. U.S. Poland vs. U.S. Personal Risk Personal Risk Personal Risk Personal Risk Sum of Mean df Squares Square F Sig. Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total PR Mean Power Individualism Uncertainty Distance Avoidance Masculinity Mexico Poland USA Total

38 All population/ PR Scale Power Distance 100 PDI Mexico USA Poland PR Power Distance

39 One-way ANOVA analysis for C-K LQ All population/ UB Scale Mexico, Poland and U.S. Mexico vs. Poland Mexico vs. U.S. Poland vs. U.S. Unconventional Behavior Unconventional Behavior Unconventional Behavior Unconventional Behavior Sum of Mean df Squares Square F Sig. Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total UB Mean Power Individualism Uncertainty Distance Avoidance Masculinity Mexico Poland USA Total

40 All population/ UB Scale Power Distance Mexico PDI USA Poland UB Power Distance

41 One-way ANOVA analysis for C-K LQ: Male employees - SE Scale Mexico, Poland and U.S. Mexico vs. Poland Mexico vs. U.S. Poland vs. U.S. Sensitivity to the Environment Sensitivity to the Environment Sensitivity to the Environment Sensitivity to the Environment Sum of Mean df Squares Square F Sig. Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total SE Mean Power Individualism Uncertainty Distance Avoidance Masculinity Mexico Poland USA Total

42 Male population/ SE Scale Power Distance - Male population Mexico PDI Poland USA SE Power Distance

43 One-way ANOVA analysis for C-K LQ: Female employees - SE Scale Mexico, Poland and U.S. Mexico vs. Poland Mexico vs. U.S. Poland vs. U.S. Sensitivity to the Environment Sensitivity to the Environment Sensitivity to the Environment Sensitivity to the Environment Sum of Mean df Squares Square F Sig. Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total SE Mean Power Individualism Uncertainty Distance Avoidance Masculinity Mexico Poland USA Total

44 Female population/ SE Scale Power Distance - Female population PDI Mexico Poland USA SE Power Distance

45 One-way ANOVA analysis for C-K LQ: Male and Female employees - UB Scale Mexico, Poland and U.S. Mexico vs. Poland Mexico vs. U.S. Poland vs. U.S. Unconventional Behavior Unconventional Behavior Unconventional Behavior Unconventional Behavior Sum of Mean df Squares Square F Sig. Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Mexico, Poland and U.S. Mexico vs. Poland Mexico vs. U.S. Poland vs. U.S. Unconventional Behavior Unconventional Behavior Unconventional Behavior Unconventional Behavior Sum of Mean df Squares Square F Sig. Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total

46 One-way ANOVA analysis for C-K LQ: Employees in management positions vs. Non-management positions - SMN Scale Mexico, Poland and U.S. Mexico vs. Poland Mexico vs. U.S. Poland vs. U.S. Sensitivity to Member Needs Sensitivity to Member Needs Sensitivity to Member Needs Sensitivity to Member Needs Sum of Mean df Squares Square F Sig. Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Mexico, Poland and U.S. Mexico vs. Poland Mexico vs. U.S. Poland vs. U.S. Sensitivity to Member Needs Sensitivity to Member Needs Sensitivity to Member Needs Sensitivity to Member Needs Sum of Mean df Squares Square F Sig. Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total

47 Individualism: Managers vs Non-Managers Individualism - Managers IND Poland USA Mexico SMN Individualism - Non-Managers Individualism USA IND Poland Mexico SMN Individualism

48 Agenda Introduction to Leadership Conger & Kanungo s model to Charismatic Leadership Introduction to National Culture concepts The Study Preliminary findings Future Challenges & Conclusions

49 Conclusions A lot more data to analyze.. Today s highly competitive business environment is not likely to slow down and corporations will keep expanding globally National cultures differ in their values, organizational cultures and practices, so we can no longer assume that our management practices will be successful in other geographies. It is necessary to adapt them to the local cultures

50 Conclusions It is particularly relevant to extend the understanding of leadership across national cultures because leadership behaviors have been related to organizational performance Other independent variables, such as gender, age, position in the organization, and years of work experience should also be considered Cultural differences between countries in similar regions of the world (e.g., Canada, USA & Mexico) are likely to decrease due to cultural and economical links

51 Q & A Thank you! Gracias