Table of Contents

Literature Review............................................................................................................................2

1.1 National culture and dimensions to compare/measure culture.........................................2

1.1.1 National culture defined............................................................................................2

1.1.2 Cross-cultural research..............................................................................................3

1.2 Leadership and leadership styles.......................................................................................6

1.2.1 What is leadership, Leadership perception................................................................6

1.2.2 Types of leadership....................................................................................................7

1.3 Relation between culture and leadership........................................................................10

1.3.1 Role of culture.........................................................................................................10

1.3.2 Linking culture and leadership................................................................................10

References......................................................................................................................................14

1

Literature Review

1.1 National culture and dimensions to compare/measure culture

Culture is part of our everyday life and very often differences in culture contribute to conflicts.

Small arguments to nationwide wars are harder to resolve and sometimes become worse because

of differences in culture. This chapter focuses on the research conducted on culture and cultural

dimensions. But what does culture actually mean? Because culture has a lot of different aspects,

it will be defined in the first paragraph of this chapter, after which in the second paragraph the

focus will be put on cross cultural research and cultural dimensions.

1.1.1 National culture defined

Culture is a very broad concept. To ensure that the right meaning of the term national culture is

used in this thesis, culture is first defined and the different meanings of the word culture are

shown. Hofstede is one of the most outstanding researchers in the field of culture. Hofstede

describes culture as follows:

‘Culture is the collective programming of the mind, which distinguishes the members of one

human group from another’ (Hofstede, 2004). Another researcher who conducted much of

research upon culture is House. House uses another definition of culture than Hofstede, he

defined culture for his GLOBE research program as;

‘Shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and interpretations or meanings of significant events

that result from common experiences of members of collectives and are transmitted across age

generations’ (House, 2002) It is clear that the concept of culture can be described in different

ways however, the underlying thought of the definitions is however the same. All definitions of

the term culture basically share the following basic thought that culture can be described as; a

group of people sharing more or less similar beliefs, values, and traditions. This thesis talks

about national culture, being the culture of a specific nation. It should however be noted that

culture is not always bounded to national borders. Already within countries cultures can differ.

Even more extreme, sometimes national borders cut right through cultural groups. This is for

example the case in some African countries. Culture is a very broad term, however most

definitions of culture identify culture in some way as a shared set of values.

2

1.1.2 Cross-cultural research

Culture is a topic that has been researched over and over again. Sometimes in research culture

follows as a result from researching other things, Geert Hostede for instance started his research

at IBM to investigate, among others, employee satisfaction within the company but as a result he

came up with cultural dimensions (Noorderhaven, 2005). This paragraph focuses on analyzing

cross-cultural researches.

Geert Hostede: Five dimensions of work-related values

As mentioned earlier Geert Hofstede is one of the most outstanding and famous researchers in

the field of cross-cultural research. Hofstede’s original study dates back to 1980. In that time

Hofstede was working for IBM and collected data of 116,000 IBM employees from more than 40

countries. Because the same company employed all respondents, a lot of factors could be

controlled for. All people had the same corporate culture with the same rules etc. The only thing

in which they differed was their national culture. The fact that all respondents were employed by

the same company is sometimes perceived as a negative aspect by other researchers. As a result

of the research Hofstede came up with the following five cultural dimensions.

Power distance: Power distance stands for the degree to which power is not distributed

fairly and equally among people and explains how people accept and expect this. In other

words, power distance stands for the degree of inequality from below (Hofstede, 2004).

Some countries have more power distance than others. For example power distance can

be explained as that in some countries employees always agree with their manager, no

matter if, what the manager says is right or wrong. In other countries it is accepted to

disagree with a manager.

Uncertainty Avoidance: Uncertainty avoidance explains the degree to which a culture

accepts uncertainty. It tells us if members of a certain culture feel either uncomfortable or

comfortable in unstructured situations (Hofstede, 2004). Unstructured situations are

situations different than usual. Cultures with a high degree of uncertainty avoidance try to

avoid unusual situations.

Individualism: Hofstede’s third dimension measures if members of a culture are

individual. In a very individualistic culture the ties between individuals are loose and

3

people are expected to take care of themselves. The opposite culture is a collectivist

culture. In a collectivist culture people are integrated into groups (Hofstede, 2004). The

group could be seen as more important than the individual. An example of a very

individualistic culture is the U.S. culture, a very collective culture is the Chinese.

Masculinity: The dimension of masculinity vs. femininity describes how emotional roles

between the two sexes are distributed. In general it is believed that women’s values differ

less among different cultures than men’s values do (Hofstede, 2004). Men’s values are

for example being very assertive and competitive. Women’s values are for example

modest and caring. In feminine countries, women have the same caring values as the

men. In masculine countries women show some of the masculine values but not so much,

this creates a gap between the values of the two sexes (Hofstede, 2004).

Long-term orientation: This fifth dimension was added by Hofstede at a later level. It

measures the degree to which people are long-term oriented. This means if people are

living towards the future, or more thinking about today and the present (Noorderhaven,

2005).

Although Hofstede’s first intention of the research was not culture, it is now viewed upon as one

of the leading cultural researches and his cultural dimensions are used worldwide. One could

argue that the research lacks validity because it was only conducted among IBM employees. As

mentioned before this can also be seen as a positive aspect of the research since a lot of external

factors are controlled for because of this.

Robert House: GLOBE

GLOBE stands for Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness. It is a research

focusing on culture and leadership, which was conducted by Robert House. The GLOBE project

took samples from 61 countries. The research examines national cultures in nine different

dimensions and links them to leadership behavior.

Performance orientation: This dimension describes the degree to which people are rewarded and

encouraged by an organization for performance improvement and excellence.

Future orientation: This dimension measures if and to what extent people are living towards the

future and are actively involved in future-oriented behaviors such as planning and saving.

4

Assertiveness: The dimension of assertiveness measures if people are assertive. Another aspect

of assertiveness includes aggression.

Power distance: House uses the same definition for power distance as Hofstede being, the degree

to which members of society accept and expect unequally distributed power.

Humane orientation: This measures the degree to which individuals are kind to others. Kind

behavior can be seen as fair, friendly, generous etc. Social collectivism: This dimension reflects

to the degree of encouraging and rewarding collective distribution of resources within

organizations. In-group collectivism: The dimension of in-group collectivism describes how

individuals express pride, loyalty etc in their organizations and families. Uncertainty avoidance:

House uses the same dimension for uncertainty avoidance as Hofstede does.

Gender egalitarianism: The last dimension that House uses describes the degree to which gender

role differences and discrimination play a role in cultures and organizations (House, 2002).

House already links culture to leadership, therefore his dimensions are specifically tailored to

research the effect of culture upon leadership. Because of the great relevance of this research it

will come back in chapter four.

5

1.2 Leadership and leadership styles

Leadership is an important aspect in ones life. From the day on one is born other people

determine what she is expected to do and what she is supposed not to do. Throughout life people

get to deal with different leaders telling them what to do, including parents, teachers and

managers. One can ask if a leader in one situation is also a leader in another situation. Since

every person is unique, different leaders are likely to lead people in different ways. When talking

about leadership most research focuses on the relation between a leader and his follower. This

chapter will answer the question how people perceive leadership, it will focus on the leader-

follower relation and on different leadership styles. The first part of this chapter focuses on

definitions and the perception of leadership. The second part focuses on describing four

approaches to analyze leadership. The third part will focus on different leadership styles and

explain the differences.

1.2.1 What is leadership, Leadership perception

Leadership has many forms and can be perceived in different ways, Hogan, Curphy, and Hogan

for instance, perceive leadership as when a person leads others, but state that it is important that

one does not dominate but persuade (1994). According to Gerstner and Day, it is important that

the followers perceive a leader as a role model for the group (1994). This means that the leader

should not only have the capabilities to lead the group, but should also be an example of the how

the group should behave. Furthermore Gernster and Day state that followers try to match the

leader to a prototype in their memory (1994). The followers do already have an idea of how the

leader of the group should be like and they try to match the target to that idea. Hogan et al.

discuss that the tasks of a leader differ in terms of specificity. According to them the broadest list

contains 14 categories of leader behavior which are; networking, planning and organizing,

recognizing, problem solving, managing conflicts, clarifying, informing, motivating, consulting,

supporting, team building, monitoring, developing and mentoring, delegating, and last rewarding

(1994). This means that a leader has a very wide variety of tasks and therefore the leader should

have a lot of traits. Leadership is as the name states, about leading other persons who are often

called followers. A leader should be a role model for the group he leads, this is important since

followers match the leader to a target person in their memory. As the leader is a role model for

the group he should have the aspects of a representative person of the whole group.

6

1.2.2 Types of leadership

There are many different opinions and conclusions about leadership style because of the different

ways to look at leadership. In this part the most used leadership styles will be discussed.

According to Bernard Bass there are basically two types of leaders, there is the transactional

leader and there is the transformational leader (1997). As an extension and part of the GLOBE

project Dorfman et al. (2004) came up with six different leadership styles. In the next paragraphs

the focus will be on discussing the approaches.

Transactional leadership (Bass, 1990)

The transactional leader obtains cooperation by establishing exchanges with followers. For a

transactional leader it is important to monitor the relationship between the leader and the

follower, it is called transactional because it focuses on the transaction between the leader and

the follower (Bass, 1997; Judge & Bono, 2000). One could think of rewards and punishments

given to the group by the leader. Bass describes transactional leadership according to the

following characteristics.

Contingent reward: A transactional leader rewards for effort. He/she promises rewards

for good performance, and recognizes accomplishments.

Management by exception (active): A transactional leader watches and searches for

followers that do not follow the rules and standards and takes action against this, in other

words punishment.

Passive management by exception: A transactional leader who is managing by exception

in the passive way is only intervening if the standards set by the leader or organization

are not met. In contradiction to the active managing leader, the passive one is not

searching for different behavior.

Laissez-Faire: This French saying means to let people do their own things without

interfering too much. A transactional manager does this by avoiding important decision

making and delegating responsibility to followers (Bass, 1990).

A transactional leader focuses on the outcomes of the group. He or she is not so much concerned

with the personal feelings and personal development of the subordinate. The way a transactional

leader tries to make the group achieve the goals he or the organization has set is largely

7

depending on rewards and punishments. People who are not behaving according to the group’s

standards can be punished. A transactional leader can be actively searching for people deviating

from standards. He or she can also be passively managing, in this case intervention is only

needed when standards are not met.

Transformational Leadership (Bass, 1990)

The transformational leader reaches his goals by getting followers to identify with a vision that

reaches further than their own interest, he tries to transform the followers and get them to the

next stage (Bass, 1997; Judge & Bono, 2000). This leadership approach is sometimes called

charismatic leadership. Bass calls this kind of leadership, ‘Superior leadership performance’ he

states that this is done be expanding the interest of followers and generating awareness and

acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group (1990). A transformational leader focuses

on the following aspects:

Charisma: Charisma in transformational leadership means providing followers with vision and a

sense of the group’s mission, the leader gains respect, pride, and trust by his followers. Charisma

is one of the most important aspects in transformational leadership, and as stated earlier

transformational leadership is sometimes referred to as charismatic leadership.

Inspiration: A transformational leader communicates high expectations to his subordinates. In

order to focus efforts the leader uses symbols, furthermore he expresses important purposes in

simple ways.

Intellectual stimulation: A central aspect within transformational leadership is, stimulating

followers to think rational and solve problems carefully. Furthermore intelligence is promoted.

Individualized consideration: A transformational leader gives his subordinates personal attention

and treats each person individually. Besides giving personal attention the leader also coaches and

advises followers on an individual level (Bass, 1990).

To conclude, transformational leadership can be divided into different forms; idealized influence

meaning that a leader is a charismatic role model to his followers. Inspirational motivation refers

to making a clear and appealing vision for the followers. Intellectual stimulation is when the

leader stimulates the followers to be creative and challenge the standards. Individual

8

consideration involves the process of supporting the individual needs of the followers (Judge &

Bono, 2000).

9

1.3 Relation between culture and leadership

The focus of this thesis is to see, if there is a relation between national culture and leadership. In

chapter two, the concept of culture was studied and described as ‘The collective programming of

the mind, which distinguishes the members of one human group from another’ (Hofstede, 2004).

It is interesting to see whether this programming of the mind, which is called culture, influences

us as human beings in the way we lead others. The two dominant leadership styles are the two

styles defined by Bass being, transformational and transactional leadership (1990), besides these

two leadership styles Dorfman et al (2004) came up with six different leadership styles. This

chapter examines if there is a relevant link between one or more of these styles and national

culture? Is the way of leading partially being determined by national culture? The first part of

this chapter will describe the role of culture in leadership. The second part will focus on research

conducted that links culture to leadership.

1.3.1 Role of culture

A manager’s national culture plays an important role in the success of multinational

corporations, because of the influence of cultural values upon leadership (Byrne & Bradley,

2007). However, Kelley, Whatley, & Worthly argue that it is very hard to see what impact

culture has on managerial behavior (1987). They say that the hard part is to determine to what

extent culture actually impacts an individual’s behavior with respect to the work place. An

argument for this is that individuals are forced to adapt to comply with the industrial standard

(Kelley et al., 1987). On the other hand leadership is a cultural phenomenon linked to the values

and customs of a group, therefore differences in leader prototypes will not be random (Gernster

& Day, 1994). To measure culture, cultural dimensions such as Hofstede’s and House’s can be

used, these dimensions can then be used to match leadership aspects in searching a relation

between national culture and leadership. According to almost all researchers there is some link

between national culture and leadership, but to what extend is this link reaching?

1.3.2 Linking culture and leadership

In this paragraph a more detailed description of the role of culture will be given with the use of

conducted research studying the link of culture and leadership. A lot of researches have analyzed

the link between culture and leadership.

10

Robert House and his associates have been researching the effects of leadership in the GLOBE

project. The sample was taken from different managers with cultural backgrounds of 61

countries with a total of 17,000 respondents. House et al. linked House’s nine dimensions to

specific leadership statements (2002). With the help of questionnaires it was tested whether the

statements linked to the cultural dimensions were right. The researchers came up with the

following conclusions in their framework in the GLOBE project; cultural values affect what

leaders do. The original leaders of the firm or founders are most likely to use leader behavior,

which is common in their own culture (House et al. 2002). The founders of the organization

influence the behavior of subordinate leaders etc. by using selective management selection

criteria. According to House et al. the attributes and behaviors of leaders are in part a reflection

of the organizational practices, which are in their turn a reflection of societal cultures (2002).

Dorfman, Hanges, & Brodbeck linked the results of the outcomes of the surveys in the GLOBE

project to the six leadership styles by Dorfman et al. (2004) described in chapter three of this

thesis. They found out that the six leadership styles had different links with the dimensions of

House et al. (2002). A leadership style can have both negatively and positively related

dimensions, it can best be seen as that a certain leadership style will be preferred by a culture

with a high value of the positive dimensions and low levels of negatively related dimensions

(Dorfman et al, 2004). For example autonomous leadership will be preferred by cultures scoring

high on performance orientation and low on institutional collectivism. By linking the cultural

dimensions to leadership styles, a direct link between the two concepts is shown since the type of

culture determines which leadership styles will be preferred.

Den Hartog, House, Hanges, & Ruiz-Quintanilla in their turn processed the GLOBE research

even further, they linked cultural attributes to transformational leadership and searched for a

relation between the two. They found out that transformational leadership aspects are the same

around the world (1999). This means that transformational leadership is perceived of the same

effectiveness and meaning in most places. They do however say that it is very likely that

transformational leadership is more effective in collectivist cultures than individual cultures

(Hartog, Den et al. 1999). This is because a transactional leader focuses on the group as a whole

and the well being of others in the group, instead of just focusing on the results, just as in

11

collective cultures. Besides collectivism vs. individualism also other dimensions can be linked to

transformational leadership, for example the dimension of uncertainty avoidance.

Innovation and taking risk are aspects that transformational leaders seek, in high uncertainty

avoidant cultures these aspects are very unlikely, therefore a transformational leader is better

able to seek these aspects in low uncertainty avoidance cultures (Hartog, Den et al. 1999).

To conclude, House and associates examined 61 countries and their respective cultures and

linked the nine cultural dimensions of Robert House to specific leadership statements. House et

al. showed in their research that cultural values indeed do influence leader behavior and

leadership. Besides influencing leadership, national culture also influences organizational culture

(House et al. 2002). Dorfman et al. showed that a leadership style is closely related to the nine

cultural dimensions of House et al (2002), a leadership style can be either positively or

negatively related to a cultural dimension (Dorfman et al, 2004). Den Hartog et al. showed that

several aspects are globally perceived as important in transformational leadership. They also

showed that aspects of transformational leadership can be linked to cultural dimensions, in this

way they show that transformational leadership is more likely to occur in one culture than in

another, transformational leadership will for example be better in collectivist and low uncertainty

avoidant cultures (Hartog, Den et al. 1999).

Leadership and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions

Gernster and Day conducted a research named Cross-cultural comparison of leadership

perceptions. This research is of much smaller scale than the GLOBE project of House et al. but

nevertheless interesting to include because it looks at leadership from a different angle. The main

concern of this research was finding out whether cultural aspects influence leadership

perceptions. The research compared leadership prototypes of 142 management students from

eight different countries. To identify the cultural aspects within the attributes of the different

subjects, Gernster and Day used the five work related forces by Geert Hofstede;

Power distance, Individualism/Collectivism, Uncertainty Avoidance, Masculinity/Femininity,

and Long-term Orientation. Gernster and Day say that leadership is a cultural phenomenon that

is inextricably linked to the values of a group of people (1994). The 142 subjects in the research

were all students at a university in the United States of America, but had different ethnic

12

backgrounds. The average time of the international students to have lived in the US was 2.5

years, so these students were not American. The subjects were given a questionnaire with 59

questions with attributes relevant to leadership, some examples of these attributes are; Intelligent,

decisive, educated, authoritarian, open minded, strict etc. The outcome of the questionnaires was

analyzed and matched to the national culture of the respondents, which in its turn was matched to

the five dimensions of culture by Hofstede. The results of the study show that there are reliable

differences in leadership perception and leadership among the subjects. The subjects came up

with different traits that are important in leadership. These results have implications on

international management since one must first be perceived a manager before taking on the role

and influencing others. It is therefore highly unlikely that followers will allow someone they do

not perceive as a manager, to have power over them (Gernster & Day, 1994; Hartog, Den et al,

1999).

Another study linking the cultural dimensions of Hofstede to leadership is one conducted by

Jung & Avolio, in this research the focus is on linking the dimension of collectivism vs.

individualism to transformational leadership, besides this dimension they also take in

consideration other dimensions. Transformational leadership was linked to collective cultures

because of the same findings of Den Hartog et al (1999) that is, collectivists care more about a

shared vision and group goals than individuals (Jung & Avolio, 1999). Since people in

individualist cultures are expected more to satisfy personal needs and individual goals they are

more linked to transactional leadership (Jung & Avolio, 1999). Jung and Avolio tested these

findings about individualism vs. collectivism by taking two extremes. Americans (individualistic

culture) and Chinese (Collectivist culture) were tested in transactional and transformational

leadership settings. The results were that the Americans indeed performed better and came up

with more ideas in the transactional leadership setting. It must however be noted that the ideas

generated by the Americans in the transactional setting were short-term oriented. They also

found that Americans with a transformational leader were more focused on the long-term goals.

For the Chinese, Jung and Avolio found that they performed superior in the transformational

leadership setting (1999).

13

References

Avolio, B.J., G.J., Bass, B.M., Jung, D.I., (1999). Re-examining the components of

transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441462

Bass, B.M., (1997) Does the Transactional- Transformational Leadership Paradigm Transcend

Organizational and National Boundaries. American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139.

Byrne, G.J., & Bradley, F., (2007). Culture’s influence on leadership efficiency: How personal

and national cultures affect leadership style. Journal of Business Research, 60, 168-175

Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R., (1991). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and

Individual Differences, 13(6), 653-665

Dorfman, P.W., Hanges, P.J., & Brodbeck, F.C. (2004). Leadership and Cultural Variation: The

Identification of Culturally Endorsed Leadership Profiles. In: R.J. House (Ed.), Culture,

Leadership, and Organizations; the GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications

Gerstner, C.R., & Day, D.V., (1994). Cross-cultural comparison of leadership prototypes.

Leadership Quarterly,5(2), 121-134.

Hofstede, G., & McCrea R., (2004, February). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits

and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 36, 52-88.

House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dorfman, P., (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit

leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of world

Business, 37, 3-10.

Judge, T.A., & Bono, J.E., (2000). Five-Factor Model of Personality and Transformational

Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751-765.

Jung, D.I., & Avolio, B.J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orientation

on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of management Journal 42(2),

208-218

14