Leadership
Essay Preview: Leadership
Report this essay
Leadership has meaning only in an organizational context, and only in the sense of on managing within a system of inequalities. Superior-subordinate relationships help to define leadership behavior, and the culture in any particular society influences the nature of these relationships. Two leadership roles are common to all societies, however. The first is the Charismatic role, or the capability to provide vision and inspiration. This emphasized by transformational leadership concepts. The second is the instrumental role, or the capability to design effective organizational processes, control activities, and meet organizational objectives. This describes the functional expectations of someone is a leadership role. However, each society determines the relative importance of each role and therefore what makes a good leader.
Cross-cultural research has identified a pattern of characteristics common to effective leaders in these two roles, but these commonalities do not constitute shared traits. They include:
* Conscientiousness Dependability, achievement orientation, and perseverance within the scope of ones responsibilities
* Extroversion Open, accessible attitude, as opposed to remaining insulated from group activities
* Dominance Appropriate use of authority in a system of inequalities
* Self-confidence Comfort in ones own skills and abilities for managing
Recent research has also suggested that regardless of cultural contingencies, effective leaders tend to display intelligence, energy, emotional stability, and openness to experience. In the international context, this last characteristic encourages cultural sensitivity without ethnocentric imposition.
Each society assigns unique meanings for most of these characteristics, and consequently their importance varies in all societies. For example, Mainland Chinese people agree with those in the United States that perseverance is an essential attribute of a conscientious manager, but the two societies do not interpret achievement in the same way; unlike Americans the Chinese ascribe little value to individual success. Other terms, such a dominance, carry value-loaded and controversial meanings, but the root meaning of accepting the mantle of leadership is worldwide.
In confronting such shared attitudes, researchers have focused on how leadership roles vary across cultures and how these characteristics of leadership behavior are interpreted abroad. As this section reviews example, bear in mind that cross-cultural research is seldom meant to epitomize one cultural pattern of leadership as superior that can help international managers to function effectively in foreign societies.
European Leadership Behavior
Countries in Europe have made significant progress toward consolidating the European Union (EU), but many unresolved issues remain. Not least among the EU problems is the difficulty of managing multicultural organizations within the region. Although EU unification of commercial regulations and labor laws has dominated government and company agendas, the actual activities of leading companies in this complicated environment have received little attention. The obvious question is whether a common European leadership approach will emerge from the economic union or whether leadership practices will remain culturally bound to each nation. One group of observers expects that as Europes nations converge economically, a hybrid form of leadership will replace individual cultural practices. An opposed group asserts that cultural values are so ingrained that any effort to consolidate management practices will meet strong resistance. They firmly believe that leadership behavior will remain differentiated in each nation. From a U.S. perspective, it is easy to speak of “European methods” as some common stream of consciousness, but research in Europe leaves no doubt that leadership behavior varies substantially among the individual countries. A recent study as Ashridge Management College in the United Kingdom surveyed senior managers in 14 European countries to compare leadership behavior and concluded:
Such is the cultural diversity of Europe, that at this moment there is no single model or theory of leadership which is capable of taking into account the complete range of national values Leadership as a concept is either not as it is the United States, or, it occurs but within different paradigmatic boundaries. Clearly, it is not as “romanticized” in Europe as in American cultural life.
The Ashridge study found vast differences in perspectives among European countries. At one end of the spectrum, managers from France nearly unanimously defined leadership and management as the same thing. Those from Belgium concurred, but with as somewhat less unified voice.
Respondents from these countries viewed managers as leaders leaders by the rights and responsibilities inherent in their positions. Managers, they suggested, hold their positions because they are capable of leading; although some fail and some outperform other, leadership qualities generally emerge in individuals as they assume management responsibilities.
At the other end of the spectrum, managers from Denmark and Finland described leadership as a reflection of trust and confidence afforded by subordinates to those in stewardship roles. A manager earns the right to lead as subordinates recognize his or her capabilities to energize and organization. German respondents emphasized the foundations of leadership roles in technical expertise, not positional power or relations skills. To them, leadership is the intelligent use of knowledge and experience to guide organizational activities. Spanish and Portuguese managers, however, described leaders adopt protective attitudes toward their charges, yet they remain steadfast in their authority. Leaders, they say, must be moral people involved emotionally with their followers to build relationships. They must also be trustworthy so that they can direct their people toward effective completion of the right tasks.
Another important study conducted during the 1960s, now rather dated, surveyed 3,641 managers across 14 counties on a variety of leadership criteria. The researchers found that nearly all respondents endorsed concepts of participation and shared governance, but in practice their behavior spanned a wide range: highly authoritarian attitudes in France, less authoritarian but work-centered preferences in Germany, benevolent but dictatorial tendencies in Italy and Spain,