In reference to the diverse South African organisational milieus, cross-cultural leadership studies indicated that cultural difference has an influence on the behaviour of leaders. Management philosophies tend to correspond with the cultures in which these management philosophies are deployed. Corporate South Africa exhibits a blend of cultures, with White South African managers showing a management style that could be regarded as largely Western/Eurocentric, whereas Black South African managers show cultural influences that could be regarded as more Afrocentric (Booysen, 2001). South Africa’s historical and
political past is complex (Terreblanche, 2002), and organisational members do not only differ in terms of gender, age and experience, but come from vastly different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. However, these diverse organisational social attributes are not unique to South Africa, but are increasingly becoming a world-wide phenomenon. Organisational members may tend to have different values and implicit beliefs about leadership; and I was interested in exploring perceptions of incongruency between participants and their identified managers. The participants expressed beliefs and perceptions about relational authenticity with their direct managers in terms of positional competence, values, social attributes, and personality/trait; and responded that these relational authenticity components influenced the quality of the participants’ relationships with their managers.
Differences in qualification and experience levels created perceptions of dissonance for some of the participants. When participants had higher qualifications or qualifications more appropriate to the manager’s position, they tended to question the authenticity of the manager for the position and participants experienced relational inauthenticity in the manager’s unwillingness to utilise and acknowledge the participant’s knowledge and abilities.
Diversity indices such as age, race, values and personality were weaved into the incongruent relational dynamic. Anna was younger than her manager, had much higher qualifications than her manager, regarded herself as more emotionally mature than her manager, could not relate to the manager’s personality, and questioned what she perceived as
the manager’s entitlement to the position because of race. Gender played a role in Susan’s perceptions of inauthenticity with the manager in that she believed her manager did not view women as being capable and suitable for managerial positions on the production side of the organisation, a position she regarded herself as eligible for.
Nina found that relational authenticity with her direct manager, in terms of social attributes and interests, helped to facilitate her relationship with the manager: “Ahm. So, I mean we were similar in, I mean, I don’t wanna say, I mean there was a ten year age difference. But, ja, the White female thing, I could relate to more and I don’t know if that really had, of anything it might have had a more of a positive influence. We had some, I know this sounds bad, but, ja, the same interests were kinda there um in terms of we were both kinda social people, so talking about where we might go for dinner, things like that. So, in terms of those dynamics that helped.”
Having greater impact than social attributes, however, were participants’ perceptions of managers as behaving in ways that contrasted with participants’ personal values and self- beliefs, and participants found it difficult to reconcile themselves with the behaviour and leadership styles of their direct managers. Nadia said: “I don’t think it was a racial issue at all. Um, at all. Class issue, I would also say not at all? Um, ja, eh, certain class, high class, but I had that values again that made me again also, I’m not there, but I have values.” These value discrepancies centred on incongruity in terms of expressed values, such as helpfulness and caring behaviours, values about power, status and position that violated participants’ more democratic and humanitarian personal values. June said: “How you are going against your culture by saying you are not going to do charity work for somebody? I couldn’t reconcile the two. And I think, that gave me insight as to who, this is who you are as a person, and I just realised she is never going to understand me … hm.” For Mary, this relational inauthenticity was experienced at an organisational level: “I was not made for Organisation E and I should, eh, ja. [Inaudible] working for this other Joe three mornings a week, I love it. I love these people. And um, I just had to go and get new clothes. Um. I never had to dress so smart. It’s not me. Um. I like to talk _, I love talking politics and something very important, something I’m passionate about. You don’t talk politics [inaudible] expose them. Um. The people, they were very hierarchical and very um, those who had gained in authority, asserted their authority and they expected you to in turn to assert your authority to your underlings.”
The findings with regard to relational authenticity, as discussed above, suggest that relational authenticity issues do play a role in participants’ casting of leader behaviour as
destructive. Suggestions from the findings are that the realisation of these incongruities could have influenced participants’ coping responses; and may have engendered the “tipping point” to give up on and exit the relationship to re-affirm their authentic selves and self-verify their self-concepts. The following examples from Nadia, June and Mary suggest that this is an area that may need to be further explored: “And I know it was my first professional job at the time, but, um, that changed me. Um. Imagine that is your first manager and you look up to the manager because you need to be there some time and that is the role model you see. Is that what I to be like in five to ten years’ time? You ask yourself that question, I do not want to be like that! [raises her voice]. There is no way you can be like that and, ja, it was …” (Nadia). “And I think, that gave me insight as to who, this is who you are as a person, and I just realised she is never going to understand me … hm” (June).
Mary described how she reached a point where she realised that she was not going to be accepted and “fit in”: “I’ve said to my children, once you know you’ve tried your best, you must just say fuck it. [Laughs] Just fuck it, you’ve done what you can.”
Participants in this study held implicit beliefs about what, to them, makes an ideal leader. When the leadership style of their direct managers contrasted with or failed to meet closely held personal values, participants perceived their managers’ leadership styles as destructive. The managers’ perceived destructive leadership styles had consequences for the participants, the managers’ themselves and the work unit, affecting the execution of tasks and the attainment of goals, as well as the well-being of other team members in the work unit. In order to cope with the negative relationship, participants tried to find control in the situation; they attempted to distance themselves from the situation, their own thoughts and emotions; they sought ways to affirm their closely held self-beliefs; indulged in positive and negative self-nurturing; tried to find solace in religion/spirituality; sought social and family support; and attempted to re-direct cognitions. As these coping attempts were accomplished with varying degrees of effectiveness, I prefer to describe the participants’ coping attempts as differential coping rather than in terms of coping or not coping. Participants’ perceptions of relational authenticity with the leader played a role in perceiving the managers’ behaviour as destructive; and in coping with the destructive leader behaviour. This sample of participants presented with what could be regarded as quite high psychological capital. All the
participants have found ways to survive and re-build their lives; and all the participants are currently employed in their professional fields of work; which seems to support the high psychological capital total scores for the sample as a whole. However, both Mary and Susan’s self-reported, observed, and PsyCap measured coping can be regarded as more moderate and
variable in comparison with the rest of the sample. Therefore, the findings suggest that participants’ psychological capital may have played a role in their coping with the managers’ destructive leadership style. The role of psychological capital in participants’ coping with destructive leadership, however, is vague because of the homogeneity of this sample and the research design, and will need to be further explored with more diversity in the psychological capital of participants, and using quantitative methodology.
The next sub-section describes the limitations of this inquiry and explores suggestions for theory, application and future research.
6.5 Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for Theory, Application