Xustificación de interese socioeconómico para a Comunidade Autónoma

For many years one area was rather neglected in leadership research: How does leadership appear in different cultures and what are the expectations of a leader?¹⁷³ Research had investigated, for example, the impact of situational factors like a crisis on the perception of charisma. But one must not neglect the world view and the culture which shape people’s personalities and with it the expectations they have of leadership. The more global this world grew the more urgent these questions became. Wallace, Sawheny and Gardjito (1995) con-ducted a study in three Asian countries and the USA, exploring characteristics valued in a leader. Their conclusion is that highly valued characteristics in one country “do not neces-sarily generalize to people in other countries” (quoted in Leslie & van Velsor 1998:4). Around the same time Yeung and Ready (1995; quoted in Leslie & van Velsor 1998:3) studied ten big corporations in eight different countries. Their findings were similar to those of Leslie and van Velsor who had studied six European countries and the USA: There are indeed leadership competencies which are rated similarly in different countries. At the same time they warn against ignoring even “small but meaningful differences in value orientation” (Leslie & van Velsor 1998:30).

The GLOBE project, initiated by Robert House, has been dealing with these questions since 1993. They organised a huge study over eight years with 170 contributing researchers in

173 A notable exception to this is Hofstede, who started to research culture’s effects on leadership in the 1970s and published his results in 1980 (Hofstede 1980). But it was only in the 1990s that culture and world view became the focus of several other key publications, most of which have since gone through several editions or reprints (e.g. Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1998 [1^st edition 1993]; Lewis 2007 [1^st edition 1996]; Hofstede & Hofstede 2005 [1^st edition 1997]; for the German-speaking context: Rothlauf 2006 [1^st edition 1999]).

60 countries to find out which attributes characterise successful leaders (House, Hanges &

Javidan et al. 2006). An attribute could be considered either universally beneficial, or univer-sally harmful for effective leadership, or else it could be evaluated differently in different cultures. Their original expectation had been that “different leadership prototypes would [...]

occur naturally in societies that have differing cultural profiles” (Den Hartog, House &

Hanges et al. 1999:225). All the more surprising are the conclusions the study comes up with:

“Based on substantial evidence, we propose that attributes associated with transformational/

charismatic leadership will be universally reported as facilitating ‘outstanding’ leadership”

(:229–230). They did find that the term “charismatic” could have negative connotations depending on the historical background of a country. Nevertheless they draw the conclusion that “most of the universally positively endorsed items/attributes are components of the charismatic/transformational and team oriented global dimensions” (:237). These include attributes which contribute to the integrity of a person, or characteristics like “encouraging”,

“positive”, “motivating”, “dynamic”, “foresight”, “team-oriented”, and others which have been described by different authors as part of the charismatic/transformational paradigm.

Not everybody agrees to this claim the charismatic/transformational line of Bass/House makes. Burns himself “has emphasized that leadership is context-based, and, hence, that no model of leadership can be equally applicable to all cultures and organisations” (Khanin 2007:22). Yukl (1999:301) is another critic of the universal claim. Proponents of the theory point to the results of thousands of questionnaires which have been evaluated. For Yukl however, the overwhelming consistency and congruence of results rather indicates a funda-mental weakness and one-sidedness of the measuring instrument. He calls for an adaptation of the questionnaire as well as for more qualitative studies to compensate for this weak-ness.¹⁷⁴

Beyer takes it even a step further: She is concerned about the presupposition by her fellow Americans that leadership would be naturally as important in other cultures as in her own (Beyer 1999a:311), and she poses the question, why it is her country in particular that is so concerned with “leadership”. Her conclusion is that in a culture in which “rationality and predictability” play such an important role, a leader often has to serve as an explanation for results which one does not want to attribute to “luck, chance, or other circumstances beyond human control or understanding” (:312). Quantitative studies about characteristics of a

174 Evaluations at the end of the GLOBE project by people involved in it (Scandura & Dorfman 2004:288) interpret the results more cautiously than earlier publications and acknowledge this as a slight weakness. Whether one agrees with the claims of the GLOBE study or not, a definite result of the study is that it raised the bar for future international research (Scandura & Dorfman 2004:289), that it made scholars aware of cross-cultural leadership issues, and that it triggered intense discussions (see for example Hofstede 2006, Javidan, House & Dorfman et al. 2006 and Smith 2006)—discussions which will eventually contribute to a deeper understanding of the topic.

successful leader in her opinion should therefore be accompanied by qualitative studies exploring the concept of leadership prevalent in a certain culture.

With this she has touched a sore spot of the GLOBE study and the charismatic/transfor-mational approach: even though the study has been conducted in many countries, the overwhelming bulk of the research was questionnaire based. The participants always answered Western questions, which means that in their answers they remain locked in the Western thought patterns in which the questions were developed. Hofstede and Hofstede (2005:29) describe a similar situation while developing their cultural theory: Their original research had led to four categories by which to describe cultures: Power distance, indivi-dualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity and uncertainty avoidance. They found amazing congruence in the evaluation of different countries, but at the same time there were some puzzling results which for some unknown reason did not fit the normal patterns—until one scientist developed a set of questions from a Chinese point of view instead of a Western one. In this light a number of findings could be reinterpreted, because it was only through this set of questions that the fifth dimension of Hofstede’s model emerged (long-term/short-term orientation).¹⁷⁵ It could well be that this Western approach is the reason why the GLOBE study comes up with a small list of universally harmful characteristics of a leader, a slightly longer list of (very general) beneficial characteristics, but a list of at least double the length with characteristics that are evaluated differently depending on the culture. Nevertheless the study concludes that CHARISMATIC/TRANSFORMATIONALLEADERSHIP universally leads to success.

On a cautionary note Bass remarks: “Here, universal does not imply constancy of means, variances, and correlations across all situations but rather explanatory constructs good for all situations” (Bass 2007:141). In the results of the study he stresses attitudes, when it comes to implementing the theory though, the focus is back to using methods, inferring attitude from a certain behaviour (see Figure 11, page 110).

175 The five factors defined by Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) are as follows:

Power Distance Index indicates “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (:46).

Individualism Index describes whether individuals are basically responsible for themselves, or whether their first identity and responsibility lies in belonging to a certain in-group.

Masculinity Index talks about the “desirability of assertive behavior against the desirability of modest behavior” (:116). Or in other words: a focus on the EGO as opposed to a focus on relationships.

Uncertainty Avoidance Index affects the “tolerance of the ambiguous and the unpredictable” (:165).

Cultures with high UAI will go to great lengths to make sure that situations are predictable and interpretable and will avoid uncertainty and ambiguity at any cost.

Long-term Orientation stands for “the fostering of virtues oriented toward future rewards—in particular, perseverance and thrift. Its opposite pole, short-term orientation, stands for the fostering of virtues related to the past and present—in particular, respect for tradition, preservation of ‘face,’ and fulfilling social obligations” (:210).

Chemers (1997:114ff) gives an overview both of studies investigating the impact of culture in leadership processes and also of those investigating certain leadership theories from a cultural perspective. He considers it problematic if leadership theories or training programmes are exported into other cultures, assuming that they would function equally well on a completely different background (Chemers 2002:104; du Plessis 2009:143).

Considering leadership processes there is widespread agreement: On a very general level one can find that “the major functions of leadership and teamwork (i.e., task goal facilitation and morale maintenance) have universal importance” (Chemers 1997:134). But the deeper one goes in the analysis the more the perceptions, expectations and interpretation of actions differ (Smith & Peterson 1988:100; Chemers 1997:130; Ayman 1993:155, referring to Smith, Misumi & Tayeb et al. 1989). One and the same action, for example consulting an employee’s opinion in a matter, can either be interpreted as a sign of confident leadership or of weak leadership—depending on the expectation the culture has toward a leader’s behaviour.

It is Hofstede’s attributes of power distance and individualism/collectivism which have been found to have the strongest impact (Chemers 1997:119).¹⁷⁶ This is understandable. One’s convictions in terms of power distance will greatly affect one’s expectations of leadership, of the relationship with leaders, and one’s reaction to leaders’ decisions. And equally from the other perspective: It will impact what a leader considers appropriate behaviour of an em-ployee, for example, whether s/he expects submission or participation, whether s/he perceives critical feedback as a sign of appreciation or of disrespect, etc.

The second factor, individualism/collectivism has great impact on what motivates people, for example in their work environment. CHARISMATIC/TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

with its declared goal of Individualised Consideration is clearly developed on an individual-istic background.

The communitarian perspective considers the community first; places the needs of the group, however defined, as more important than the rights or needs of any single individual. One of the aspirations of transformational leadership, as described by Burns (1978), was to encourage followers to put higher values and the needs of the group as a whole ahead of their individu-al requirements. This would appear to indicate the desirability of some shift from the individualist to the communitarian perspective, starting with the former. It is important to recognise that nations are seldom considered to be the ‘group’. A nation often has different groupings within it where local loyalties will be stronger than towards the nation itself. This is particularly true if the nation state is made up of groups who historically have not been

allies. (Dalglish 2009:67)

From a Christian ethical perspective one can only agree with her. However, a cautionary note shall be added: Part of the world view is how system boundaries are defined (see Figure

176 To this Lord and Emrich (2000:560) added uncertainty avoidance as a third defining aspect.

5, page 49). Leaders need to be careful how they define their responsibilities. If the “wider system” is reduced to the leader’s in-group, then collectivism would turn into a kind of collective individualism—which can be just as egotistical and self-centred as full bred indi-vidualism.

5.4.2. Intention

Intention has been defined as the motivating factor in an action of a leader toward a follower.

In relation to TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP in an intercultural context two dangers are especially prevalent:

Imposing intention. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP, as has been explained, builds on Mas-low’s hierarchy of needs with self-actualisation being the highest need. A transforming leader’s actions are supposed to lift a follower up to where s/he becomes aware of this need.

Through following the leader’s vision this need is then supposed to be fulfilled. However, the need for self-actualisation is clearly based on a Western individualistic value system. Other cultures have different hierarchies of needs, and “a hierarchy that would apply across cultures and organizational settings risks either being so general as to be impractical or so specific as to be culturally imperialistic in its application” (Heifetz 2000:21).

Markus and Kitayama (1991) describe two ways of construing a self: Independent self construal as the prevalent method of self construal in Western cultures builds on the per-ception of the self being distinct and separate from the other. Interdependent self construal, in contrast, builds on a perception of the self being connected with the other. On its own the self feels fragmented. It is only in relationship with the others that the self feels complete. For an independent self personal need is a motivational factor, the interdependent self is moti-vated by maintaining relationships. If a transformational leader tries to motivate followers in terms of opportunities for personal growth and achievement, s/he might completely miss the motivational factors of interdependent selves (Chemers 1997:126).

Misinterpreting intention. In this area the different approaches of Burns and Bass in terms of the relationship between action and intention come into play again (see Figure 11, page 110) and it becomes clear why the distinction between their approaches is so important. In section 2.3.5.2 it has been explained that looking at observable results and interpreting them is not enough to make ethical statements because apparently good acts can have far from good motives driving them. In relation to the question of interculturality, if one infers intention from an action, there will be a stream of misunderstandings, for example with reference to the above mentioned distinction between independent and interdependent selves: A leader who has learnt and applies the methods to motivate followers to strive for

self-actualisation will—no matter what his/her real intention was—most likely be perceived as inconsiderate and manipulative by interdependent followers who feel pushed into a direction that does not fulfil their needs. However, a leader who starts like Burns at the side of intention will always be a learner, asking question, valuing the followers, and looking for ways how his/her intentions can be translated into a certain situation.

5.4.3. Character

It has been mentioned already that in Christian ethics, character development always needs to be a very personal answer to the call of Jesus on a person’s life. The areas for growth to become a truly virtuous person are different for each person. The same is true for cultures: In terms of character development different cultures have different needs. Schubert (2007) compared, for example, Tanzanian and German leadership styles and noticed among other things the different roles which love (care for relationships) and justice play in the two cultures. This results in the necessity of a focus for moral development of German leaders in the area of love, and of Tanzanian leaders in the area of justice.

A comparison of the self-evaluation of Japanese and American students showed that the former tend to play down their abilities, whereas the latter are prone to exaggerate them (reported in Chemers 1997:127). Neither background reflects a truly virtuous life, both need to face the challenge of developing a virtuous character by practicing humility. Humility, according to Vest, means living a life based on truth.

Knowing the truth about ourselves involves awareness of both our strengths and weaknesses, and of the fact that God sees both clearly. [...] We can refuse relationship with God by thinking too little of ourselves no less than by thinking too much. [...] We must face our potential for greatness no less than our creatureliness, in the full practice of humility. We must learn to live fully in hope of the grace and mercy of God. [...] Humility involves holding in tension both consciousness of our own imperfections and joyful living with confidence in God’s mercy. (Vest 2000:89–90)

Leading in an intercultural situation will require a leader who can handle stark opposites.

Trompenaars and Voerman (2009:24) see one advantage of SERVANT LEADERSHIP exactly in this ability. Where naturally one would perceive opposites as two irreconcilable ends of a pole, a servant leader would rather approach them in a cyclical way—as if to bend the pole until the ends meet and then start looking for a solution somewhere in this circle. It has been men-tioned before that Trompenaars and Voerman equal SERVANT LEADERSHIP with TRANSFORMA

-TIONAL LEADERSHIP. One of the strengths of the model in an intercultural context they see in the stress on “two-way direction” (:53), finding solutions through dialogue. However, as has been shown in section 4.3, while Burns indeed stresses multi-directional communication, in Bass’ TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP this has given way basically to a leader influencing and

shaping the follower’s perception. In the long run, this will severely hinder the applicability of Bass’ TRANSFORMATIONAL L^EADERSHIP as a model which truly meets the needs of intercultural situations. Rather, intercultural situations will need a leader with a strong character who is aware of the cultural differences, willing to look for a true solution because s/he is motivated by a menschenbild which values the differentness in the other and considers it not a problem but a chance “to create something together that is stronger than the two parts” (:17).

5.4.4. Menschenbild

In terms of menschenbild in an intercultural situation only one aspect shall be mentioned here.

Most leadership models were developed on an individualistic background, and one often gets the impression that leadership scholars concerned with cross-cultural leadership strive to counteract individualism (which is considered maybe not completely but at least pretty bad) by a stress on the community—as if one was the salvation of the other. However, this view could not be shared from a Christian ethical point of view. It is definitely true that the strong individualistic focus in Western thinking does not do God’s view of humankind as a commu-nity justice. But neither does stressing commucommu-nity as a remedy against individualism. Human beings carry the imago Dei, and this gives them an incredible dignity as individuals. They do not need the community to define their worth and identity. However, to live in a way which does this imago Dei justice, a way which represents a trinitarian God whose very essence is love, human beings need community. If one looks to collectivism as the opposite (and a remedy) to individualism, one is still entangled in human beings’ egotistical need for self-fulfillment—either as an individual or as the group. Community, as Christian ethics would describe it, does not only consist of a person’s in-group. Christian ethics would count with individuals who are redeemed to reflect God’s character and build a community, which is open and inviting not just to the near other but also to the completely other.