PERSPECTIVES

Leadership research in Asia: A brief assessmentand suggestions for the future

Robert C. Liden

Published online: 16 December 2011# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract The main purpose of this essay is to discuss fundamental issues regardingfuture research on leadership in Asia. In order to meaningfully introduce theseissues, I begin with an overview of leadership research in Asia, briefly coveringsome of the similarities and differences between Asian and Western leadershipapproaches. Throughout the essay, I rely chiefly on China as an example. I stress thatinstead of developing theories and measures unique to specific countries, such asChina, the focus should be on the identification of moderators that explainrelationships between leadership and both its antecedents and outcomes. I furtherargue that for such an approach to be viable, future scale development efforts shouldinclude respondents from multiple cultural contexts so that relatively universalboundary conditions/domains can be identified. I further contend that assessingdifferences between countries, such as China compared to Western countries, will bemost beneficial if cross-level research designs and analyses are employed.

Keywords Asia . China . Culture . Leader–member exchange (LMX) . Servantleadership . Transformational leadership . Scale development

Asia, led first by Japan, then by South Korea, and now by China and India, hasascended to become a world economic power accompanied by a rapid change insociety (Bhagat, McDevitt, & McDevitt, 2010). A large shift from rural to urbanliving has been occurring along with an increasing standard of living. Eventsunheard of even five years ago are taking place, such as the work stoppage byToyota employees in China that succeeded in securing desired changes for workers.In all Asian countries, but perhaps most prominently in China and India, thereappears to be an emerging dichotomy in society: The portion of society clinging to

Asia Pac J Manag (2012) 29:205–212DOI 10.1007/s10490-011-9276-2

R. C. Liden (*)Department of Managerial Studies MC 243; Room 2232UH,University of Illinois at Chicago, 601 S. Morgan, Chicago, IL 60607-7123, USAe-mail: bobliden@uic.eduURL: http://www.uic.edu/cba/cba-depts/ms/FacultyProfiles/liden.html

the ways of the past and the portion that appears to be spiraling towards Westernapproaches to work and leadership. The immense popularity of Western designedMBA programs offered in Asian countries (typically by the United States, Canadian,Australian, and United Kingdom universities), as well as the frequency with whichAsian students pursue graduate degrees in these Western countries has led to thetransplant of many Western practices within the managerial ranks of Asian countries,especially in China. As a result, the leadership practices in Asian and Westerncountries should become more closely aligned over time, especially given increasedinternational travel and rapid growth in the worldwide usage of the Internet. Thesedevelopments will also serve to reduce differences in leadership and the perceptionof leadership across national boundaries.

But all of this change has taken place under the backdrop of cultural values thatcontinue to influence the role of leadership in Asia. Indeed, based on the popularcultural dimensions identified by Hofstede (2001), research has revealed that Asiancountries tend to be characterized by cultures that are high context, high incollectivism, and high in power distance. Due to the importance of context, there is atendency in Asian countries for appropriate behavior of leaders to be based on thesituation in which the behavior is unfolding. High collectivism indicates a culturalproclivity toward focusing on what is best for the larger collective or group ratherthan for individuals. Thus, it is important for leadership research in Asia toadequately incorporate the team environment surrounding interactions betweenleaders and followers. This implies the need to design research that cuts across levelsof analysis. Finally, leaders in Asian countries have a tendency to maintain socialdistance between themselves and their followers. Indeed, leaders, due to the statusand power inherent in their positions, protect their emotional distance fromsubordinates. Part of this adherence to maintaining distance from followers involvesthe use of authoritarian control to ensure the compliance of subordinates, which isconsistent with the paternalistic leader approach advanced by Fahr, Earley, and Lin(1997) specifically for China. Interestingly, at the same time that distance ismaintained and authoritarian control is invoked, Farh et al. (1997) also suggestedthat Chinese leaders are known for their paternalistic benevolence in their treatmentof subordinates. This is because leadership in China is inextricably tied to the centralrole that family plays in Chinese culture. Chinese organizations often attempt to actas the “work family,” and because China is a patriarchal society, the leaderprototypes of Chinese employees tend to be males—essentially fathers taking care oftheir family. Indeed, leaders often assume a “father” role. This has led to thepopularity of “paternalism” as a theory/approach of leadership among researchersstudying leadership in China (Pellegrini & Scandura 2008).

Despite the overall cultural characteristics summarized above, it is difficult to describeleadership in Asia given the vast diversity within this continent (Ismail & Ford, 2010).Even within single countries, there is evidence of substantial cultural diversity. Forexample, because China occupies an immense landmass with several differenteconomic/political systems residing within its borders, it is not possible to generalizeacross the entire nation. Specifically, Hong Kong and Macau are very different frommainland China. Hong Kong and Macau have been heavily influenced by Westernculture and business practices for decades. The result is that leadership is largelyWestern in orientation, with Chinese culture integrated within the framework. Taiwan

206 R.C. Liden

also operates under “a different system,” but is perhaps more similar to mainland Chinathan it is to Hong Kong or Macau. Like mainland China, Taiwan’s culture is largelybased on Confucianism. But like Hong Kong and Macau, many academics andexecutives in Taiwan received their graduate degrees in Western countries, especiallythe United States. As a result, its culture and leadership practices emphasize traditionalChinese values, but with strong influence from Western culture and business practices.Other Asian countries, such as Singapore, India, and South Korea also exhibit a mix ofAsian culture with Western influence, especially with respect to business practices.Thus, despite the existence of between-country differences in culture as identified byHofstede (2001), in all Asian countries, it is important for researchers to acknowledgewithin-country cultural diversity.

Leadership in Asia versus Western countries

Bass (1997) argued that there is much more cross-cultural similarity in terms ofleadership and follower perceptions of leadership than there are differences.Consistent with Bass’s views, the GLOBE leadership studies (House et al., 2004)found more similarities than differences in leadership and leadership preferences(prototypes) across nations/cultures. Specifically, research studies have reported alack of differences between the People’s Republic of China and Western countries,such as the United States (Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009). Forexample, employees around the world express a preference for autonomy providedby the leader and express disdain for controlling leadership. This is especiallynoteworthy given that these preferences have been expressed in countries identifiedas high in power distance (House et al., 2004). Despite the above similarities acrosscountries, cultural variables have been shown to moderate a wide range ofrelationships involving leadership and leader-related variables. For example, Hui,Au, and Fock (2004) found that although employee perceptions of job autonomywere positively correlated with job satisfaction regardless of the culture, thesepositive relationships were significantly stronger when power distance was low thanwhen it was high.

LMX research in Asia versus Western countries

Research has revealed that leader–member exchange (LMX) is relevant across awide range of countries and cultures. For example, Schaubroeck and Lam (2002)found that employees of the same multinational bank in Hong Kong and the UnitedStates did not differ in their perceptions of LMX. Similarly, in a study conducted inmainland China (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005), mean levels of LMXdimensions were similar and correlations between LMX and both performance andorganizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) were positive and significant just asfound in samples from Western countries (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies, Morgeson, &Nahrgang, 2007; Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Sin, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2009).

Despite these similarities across countries, cultural variables have been found tomoderate relationships between antecedents and LMX and between LMX andoutcomes. For example, a meta analysis by Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, and

Leadership research in Asia 207

Ferris (in press) revealed that although the correlation between leader trust and LMXwas positive in all cases, it was significantly higher when individualism was high thanwhen it was low (i.e., collectivism). Correlations between interactional and distributivejustice and LMX were also found to be positive for those low in collectivism andeither less positive or unrelated for those high in collectivism (Erdogan & Liden,2006). Similarly, despite being generally positive, the correlation between transfor-mational leadership and LMX was significantly more positive when individualism washigh than when it was low. In addition, the relationship between trust and LMX wassignificantly more positive when power distance was low than when it was high.Given that Asians tend to be higher in collectivism than individuals from Westerncountries, these results suggest that LMX antecedents, such as trust, distributivejustice, and transformational leadership, may not be correlated as strongly with LMXin Asian countries as they are in Western countries. A beneficial addition to the LMXliterature would be to explore the cultural influence of the many other LMX antecedents(Dulebohn et al., in press).

The moderating effects presented above illustrate the benefits of treating aspects ofthe cultural context as moderators of relationships between antecedents and leadership,which can be extended to relationships between leadership and outcomes. Rather thanemploying measures specific to a particular country, this approach captures culturaldifferences with the use of standardized measures of antecedents, leadership, outcomes,and cultural moderators. This strategy has the added benefit of facilitating the integrationof findings from data collected around the globe.

Transformational leadership research in Asia versus Western countries

The results of transformational leadership research have also demonstrated moresimilarity than difference across cultures, consistent with Bass’s (1997) contention.For example, evidence of similar findings comes from research showing transfor-mational leadership to be positively related to performance and OCBs in mainlandChina (Wang et al., 2005) just as in Western countries (Wang & Howell, 2010). Andthe differences in relationships between transformational leadership and outcomesthat have been found between China and Western countries can be explained by themoderating influence of cultural variables, such as power distance (Atwater, Wang,Smither, & Fleenor, 2009; Kirkman et al., 2009) assertive cultures (Atwater et al.,2009), and traditionality values (Spreitzer, Perttula, & Xin, 2005).

Servant leadership research in Asia versus Western countries

Similar to research on LMX and transformational leadership, initial findings suggest thatservant leadership is evident in China. Using a translated version of Liden, Wayne, Zhao,and Henderson’s (2008) servant leadership scale, Hu and Liden (2011) reported a meanof 4.93 among mainland Chinese bank employees compared to a mean of 4.67 among asample of United States employees (Liden et al., 2008). Similarly, employing the sameservant leadership scale, Schaubroeck, Lam, and Peng (2011) found no differencesbetween United States and Hong Kong employees of the same multinational bank. Alsointeresting was that servant leadership explained up to ten percent of the incrementalvariance in individual and team outcomes in both United States and Chinese samples

208 R.C. Liden

after controlling for transformational leadership (Liden et al., 2008; Schaubroeck et al.,2011). Clearly, servant leadership has demonstrated great potential for leadershipresearch in both China and the United States.

Future research on leadership in Asia

We need to continue to conduct studies comparing leadership across countries as wasdone in the GLOBE studies’ assessment of leadership in 62 countries. With theGLOBE sample of countries or more recent research, such as Atwater et al.’s (2009)investigation of 21 nations, most of the cultural diversity existing in the world wasrepresented, allowing for meaningful conclusions to be reached regarding thedifferences in leadership across countries. However, for studies involving a smallsample of countries, especially the common case in which respondents from onlytwo countries are sampled, it is not appropriate to attempt reaching conclusionsconcerning cultural differences. However, as long as general conclusions regardingthe differences between countries are not made, studies involving a limited numberof countries are still recommended for their ability to assess external validity. Whenresults are similar across a small sample of countries, external validity is enhanced.Thus, in studies involving samples from different Asian countries or studiesinvolving an Asian country(s) and a non-Asian comparison country(s), externalvalidity is augmented. But once again, conclusions regarding differences betweenone Asian country and the comparison country(s) are not warranted. Certainly, instudies with a small number of samples, other differences between samples, such asorganization size, industry, organizational level, job characteristics, and so on, maycontribute to any differences that may be found between samples.

Cautions against developing unique theories and measures for single countries

I cannot stress strongly enough that the development of theories and measuresunique to one particular country is an approach that should be unequivocallyavoided. Such a practice is counter to achieving parsimony, a critical element ofscientific inquiry (Dunnette, 1966). Seeking parsimony in our theories and empiricalresearch represents a central focus for scientific inquiry in all disciplines, in the hardsciences as well as the behavioral sciences. Theory development contributes most toscientific knowledge when the fewest number of constructs needed to explain thephenomena are invoked in the theory. If separate theories are introduced in order toexplain leadership in one country, the same could be said for all other countries inthe world. Our scientific progress would be significantly thwarted with aproliferation of theories and measures that are specific to each country. What couldwe possibly conclude if a separate leadership theory were introduced for everycountry in the world? And how would such an approach hold any promise foridentifying the constructs that underlie relationships between antecedents andleadership, and between leadership and outcomes? In addition to scientific rigorand parsimony, the fact that more similarities than differences appear to exist acrossthe world’s employees provides additional support for attempts to move sciencetowards unifying theories of leadership. For example, rather than developing theories

Leadership research in Asia 209

of Chinese leadership or Chinese values, characteristics that are unique to Chinashould instead be modeled as contextual moderators of relationships betweenuniversal leadership constructs, such as transformational leadership, LMX, orservant leadership, and their antecedents and outcomes.

In extending the generalizability of leadership findings from Western samples toAsia in order to better understand similarities and differences between Asian andnon-Asian countries, our focus should be on the identification of moderators thatexplain the differences. Fortunately, the cross-cultural literature in organizationalbehavior (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007) is becoming increasingly enriched bystudies that have investigated moderating variables that explain differences betweencountries (Atwater et al., 2009; Kirkman et al., 2009; Spreitzer et al., 2005).Regardless of cultural/country classifications based on Hofstede’s (2001) dimen-sions, such as individualism/collectivism and power distance, there is considerablewithin-country variance on these dimensions. The degree of variability is especiallyhigh in countries with extreme diversity in their populations, such as in the UnitedStates or England. A convincing argument can also be made for diversity in China,given its geographic differences and difference in economic systems employed.Because the goal of research is to understand variability on constructs of interest,these high levels of variance on cultural factors enhance the viability of conductingempirical research on culture. It is through the exploration of moderators, such ascultural variables, that we will be able to better understand cross-cultural variation.Especially useful in our quest to better understand differences between Asian andWestern countries are cross-level approaches that address the interplay betweenindividual-, group-, and organization-level variables.

Measurement

Consistent with the argument opposing the establishment of theories and measuresthat are specific to one country, I argue that future scale development efforts includesamples from multiple cultural contexts so that the resulting measures are not culturespecific. A clear problem with most organizational behavior measures, includingleadership measures, is that they were developed in the United States. Translatedversions of leadership measures, such as the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire(MLQ) to measure transformational leadership, or the Leader–Member Exchange:Multidimensional Measure (LMX-MDM), have been shown to be valid in non-Western countries, such as China. However, because the boundaries of theseconstructs were established in the United States, it is possible that some portions ofthe domain are missing. For example, Liden and Maslyn (1998), in the developmentof the LMX-MDM, conducted critical incident interviews with United Statesemployees to assess the LMX dimensions identified when describing relationshipsbetween leaders and followers. Involving respondents representing other cultureswould enable researchers to develop measures that include items capable oftranscending national cultures. Although empirical work designed to validate ascale developed in one country, such as the United States, with its use in anothercountry can be useful, such efforts are inferior to those in which initial scaledevelopment incorporates cultural differences by utilizing samples representingmultiple cultural settings.

210 R.C. Liden

Measures created using such cross-cultural scale development practices may serveto reduce the apparent incongruity between universal, variform universal, orfunctional universal views regarding the similarities and differences across cultures(Bass, 1997; Spreitzer et al., 2005). If domains of constructs can be defined in termsof those elements that cut across cultural contexts, the moderation analyses describedpreviously can be even more powerful in assessing the similarities and differencesthat exist across countries, such as between Asian and Western countries. Iencourage researchers to use multi-culture samples in developing new scales, andto avoid the creation of theories and measures geared for only one country. Instead,cross-level moderation hypotheses should be tested in an attempt to betterunderstand leadership in Asia vis à vis Western countries.

Conclusion

The global economy and corresponding increase in multinational companies andcooperative work arrangements across national boundaries greatly expands the salienceof designing leadership studies that traverse Asian countries as well as those that cutacross Asia to other continents. Although for some specific purposes it may still beappropriate to study leadership as it applies uniquely to one country (Ahlstrom, Chen &Yeh, 2010), for the most part, cross-cultural leadership offers the greatest potential forcapturing today’s dynamic and inter-connected environment. Even investigationsconducted within a single country should use measures that will enable futurecomparisons to studies conducted in other countries. It is for this reason that I contendthat the development of theories and measures unique to one particular country act tothwart scientific progress. Consistent with this argument, I strongly contend that whenpossible, future scale development efforts should include samples frommultiple countries.Such scales would not only be reliable and valid across national cultures, but would bettercapture the full domain of the constructs under study. Furthermore, in place of simplecomparisons between countries, I advocate the creation of research designs that capturecontextual and cultural factors as moderators or mediators of the relationships of interest.

References

Ahlstrom, D., Chen, S.-j., & Yeh, K. S. 2010. Managing in ethnic Chinese communities: Culture,institutions, and context. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(3): 341–354.

Atwater, L., Wang, M., Smither, J. W., & Fleenor, J. W. 2009. Are cultural characteristics associated with therelationship between self and others’ ratings of leadership?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 876–886.

Bass, B. M. 1997. Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizationaland national boundaries?. American Psychologist, 52: 130–139.

Bhagat, R. S., McDevitt, A. S., &McDevitt, I. 2010. On improving the robustness of Asianmanagement theories:Theoretical anchors in the era of globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(2): 179–192.

Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R., & Ferris, G. R. (in press). A meta-analysis ofthe antecedents and consequences of leader–member exchange: Integrating the past with an eyetoward the future. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206311415280.

Dunnette, M. D. 1966. Fads, fashions, and folderol in psychology. American Psychologist, 21: 343–352.Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. 2006. Collectivism as a moderator of responses to organizational justice:

Implications for leader–member exchange and ingratiation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 1–17.

Leadership research in Asia 211

Fahr, J.-L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S.-C. 1997. Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizationalcitizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 421–444.

Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. 2007. Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review ofPsychology, 58: 479–514.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. 1997. Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlatesand construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 827–844.

Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizationsacross nations, 2nd ed. rev. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Gupta, V., & GLOBE Associates. 2004.Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. 2011. Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goaland process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 851–862.

Hui, M. K., Au, K., & Fock, H. 2004. Empowerment effects across cultures. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 35: 46–60.

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. 2007. Leader–member exchange and citizenship behaviors: Ameta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 269–277.

Ismail, K. N., & Ford, D. L., Jr. 2010. Organizational leadership in Central Asia and the Caucasus:Research considerations and directions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(2): 321–340.

Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J.-L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. 2009. Individual power distanceorientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-culturalexamination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4): 744–764.

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. 1998. Multidimensionality of leader–member exchange: An empiricalassessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24: 43–72.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. 2008. Servant leadership: Development of amultidimensional measure and multilevel assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19: 161–177.

Pellegrini, E., & Scandura, T. A. 2008. Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research.Journal of Management, 34: 566–593.

Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. K. 2002. How similarity to peers and supervisor influences organizationaladvancement in different cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1120–1136.

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. 2011. Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediatorsof leader behavior influences on team behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 863–871.

Sin, H.-P., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. 2009. Understanding why they don’t see eye to eye:An examination of leader–member exchange (LMX) agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology,94: 1048–1057.

Spreitzer, G. M., Perttula, K. H., & Xin, K. 2005. Traditionality matters: An examination of theeffectiveness of transformational leadership in the United States and Taiwan. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 26(3): 205–227.

Wang, X.-H., & Howell, J. M. 2010. Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership onfollowers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 1134–1144.

Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. 2005. Leader–member exchange as amediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance andorganizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 420–432.

Robert C. Liden (PhD, University of Cincinnati) is professor of management at the University of Illinoisat Chicago, where he is the College of Business Director of Doctoral Programs. He has served as a visitingprofessor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, the Université Toulouse, France, and the UniversitéParis-Dauphine, France. His research focuses on interpersonal processes as they relate to such topics asleadership, groups, and career progression.

212 R.C. Liden