Leadership Styles and Oranizational Models Across Countries

Sal Alejandro Diaz TelloUniversity of GroningenStudent number: S2355701Turorial group number: 4Instructor: Dr. Andr van HoornSubmission Date: 1st of July 2013

Authors noteSal Alejandro Diaz Tello, Faculty of Economics and Business,University of GroningenLeadership styles and organizational models

Nowadays, with the deterritorialization of the new global world, new challenges have arisen from which solutions have to be put forward in order for countries to grow and prosper. Behind a successful country, there has always been a smart and charismatic leader to guide society. However, the question still remains, which are these characteristics that make someone a leader? What is a leader? Do leadership traits, characteristics, and effects vary across countries?Additionally, leadership is not only restricted to the control, power exertion, and prosperity of society. Leadership has been increasingly present in the business arena, mostly after the industrial revolution. Henry Ford is a clear example of a man who guided the world into a new way of production for companies to grow. One of the main objectives of the company is to maintain a competitive advantage over other organizations since they are immersed in a competitive and continuously changing environment (Karami, 2008). Also, companies are threatened by external forces, such as technology, transformations of markets, and changes in the way products and services are produced or distributed, and all these forces vary depending on the country in which they developed. In order to maintain competitive, organizations depend upon efficient leadership to guide them and help them pass through any potential change that could harm the company. Latest research reveal that some of the greatest and most admired organizations are failing to adapt to change, apply their strategies effectively or prepare for a more uncertain future. (Pasmore, 2009). By this, it is stated the importance of leadership within an organization. Leadership is a term that is commonly used as a characteristic of an individual, a leader, regarding his performance towards selfs and others interests and needs, and the easiness he possesses to lead a group of people, to achieve a specific or several goals. When it comes to an organization, different styles of leadership emerge, and at the same time, these styles depend on the role of the leader within the organizational model, also called organizational structure. However, how different are the leadership styles and organizational models in different countries? How do they differ? How do they relate? In order to answer the previous questions it is necessary to assess and dig through different frameworks and theories that have been developed to make this kind of comparisons. The purpose of this paper is to retrieve and put together such theories and methods, and make a comparison of what is the role of leadership among different cultures, and how organization are structured in diverse cultures in order to achieve their goals and produce and deliver the final product or service to the costumer, as the role of a leader in each kind of organizational model. This paper is divided in two parts, A and B, in order for the reader to have a better understanding of the two themes are being discussed. Part A consists of theories and tools that are used for the study of leadership, and all the variable that surge when it comes to compare leadership across countries. Part B consists of different organizational models that exist across countries in order to plot similarities and differences among them.

Part A: Leadership

I. Leadership a narrowed Model

In the following section, a variety of leadership theories will be discussed in order to assess and compare countries regarding different leadership styles. The discussion starts with defining leadership and describing the debate surrounding this term. Afterwards, a brief model of varieties of leadership will be described, from which a recompilation of models were taken into consideration to form the present. Then, different leadership theories will be discussed in detail in order to compare countries in such area. Leadership is a term that is very complex, involving several definitions and virtues. The definition might differ depending on the culture in which it is examined and on the field that the leader concerns, e.g. Dr. Porter OGrady, specialized in clinical leadership, defines leadership universally speaking as a multifaceted process of identifying a goal, motivating other people to act, and providing support and motivation to achieve mutually negotiated goals. However, depending on a specialty field, in this case health care, the definition adapts to the fields necessities that lead us to define leadership, within the clinical practice, as a direct involvement in clinical care while constantly influencing others to improve the care they provide (Cook 1999). The intention of the previous definitions of leadership is to emphasize the complexity that comes when trying give a concrete definition for leadership. In order to greatly understand what leadership is, the attributes and contents of leadership have to be developed. Leadership comprises two fundamental components: power and personal traits (Kirkpatric and Locke, 1991). The first, power, is described as the possible ability of a person to influence other individuals, to implement orders, or to make someone else do an specific or more things that they would not do. The second component, personal trait, is commonly defined as any enduring characteristic of dimension of personality according to which individuals can be rated or measured (Coon, 1998). For the measure of human personality, most researchers coincide with the five-factor model organizing all personality traits under five categories: openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, which are used to describe differences in personality (Costa & McCrae 1992). Also, because leadership can be learned, the leadership competence may exist and be developed. The competences include cognitive, technical, and affective competence (Chen and Chang, 2001) for which characteristics are described in the following table:Competences

CognitiveTechnicalEffective

Multiple experiences Self-awareness Forward-looking Sharing information Listening to subordinates Life-long learning Intelligence Systematic thinking Envisioning Business knowledge Social awareness Creativeness Ability to execute Ability to organize team Self-management Relationship management Inspiring and motivating others Fostering communication Producing high-quality work Building group Cohesiveness and pride Coaching to improve performance, Ability to design Self-confidence Willing to serve people Commitment Activeness Honesty Integrity Insisting on excellence Courage Compassion Decisiveness Passion Willing to lead

Together, the two core ingredients of leadership, power and personal trait, and the three competences, form the leadership-competence model, which can be used to describe the behavior and characteristics of a leader. Even though there is huge variety of models of leadership the one just presented summarizes the main characteristics that most the of models posses. These characteristics are context dependent regarding each country, and can be used as the same time as an introduction to what a leader is considered when it comes to compare them in different contexts. Experimental research agrees with the statement previously made regarding that culture has a reasonable influence in characteristics of leadership (Dorfman & House, 2004) such as: 1) requirements made by the society for the holder of a leadership position, e.g. the power they posses, the influence they have over others, and privileges they have for being leaders; 2) degree of influence of the social status in the promotion to leader role; 4) favored and expected behaviors or styles of a leader; and 4) reaction of followers to various leader behaviors (Brodbeck, 2004) reach the compelling conclusion that societal values, not industry factors, are the strongest influence on an organizations culture and desired leadership. The interplay of history, culture and leadership is complex, and understanding requires guidance.

I.I Wren-Swatez Model.

It is very important for the study of leadership to take into account all factors that can affect leaders decisions and behaviors, The model presented here is a basic structure of how the relation between the leader and his follower has to be addressed in order to have, what can be called, a successful leadership. Wren and Swatez (1995) by using circles (Figure 1), they exemplify how the interactions between the leader and the follower happen within three different but at the same time overlying contexts, these are 1) immediate, 2) contemporary, and 3) historical. The first one located in the center, or the inner circle, we can find the immediate context. Here is where followers and their leaders, face the micro factors of the leadership position, such as organizational model and objectives, organizational culture, and certain responsibilities and troubles that the leader needs to cover. In the second layer, or the one located in the middle, we find the contemporary context, which involves the current factors of society, e.g. values, traditions, and norms that form the societys culture. It is in this context the one that creates a certain expectation regarding actions, styles, and behaviors that a leader should provide. And the last but not least, the outer circle, which exemplifies the macro factors at a deeper level, such as intellectual, political, social, and economic forces that have their roots in the societys past. The factors are used as a standard to measure and assess the success of a leader. Successful leadership approaches correspond to the demands of the immediate context and the expectations of the contemporary context while recognizing these demands and expectations have their roots deep in a societys past. This context has a crucial effect in the environment of the leader as well as the shape and limitations of leadership choices and solutions. At the end, once the demands of the immediate context are met, and the expectations of the contemporary context are fulfilled taking in account the societys current and past culture and history in the historical context, correspond to a successful leadership. Figure 1Immediate ContextContemporaryHistorical

I.II The Western Leadership Theories To date more than 90% of the organizational behavior literature reflects U.S.-based research and theory (House, 2004). This percentage reflects that most of the theories regarding leadership comes from Western countries, especially from the U.S. However, how applicable are these theories in non-Western cultures? In order to have a better understanding of the issue, we are going to be based in the assumption of mental programing made by Hofstede, which states that the way of acting, feeling and behaving, or mental software, differs depending on the culture and the nation. If this is true, the probabilities of having incongruences within the workplace in a non-Western nation are great. Leadership theory is usually defined as having advanced throughout four different periods, each of these with a main theoretical approach. The approaches are trait, behavior, contingency and implicit theories, and in each of these mentioned approaches, culture plays an important role. At the same time, approaches were developed one after another, since the creation of complementing theories were made in order to add what the previous lacked. The most important theories are being exposed in this paper in order to create awareness for the reader of the beginning of what, at the end, was a most accurate and universal one.

The Trait TheoriesWhen initial research in the field of leadership made in the early 1900s, were mainly based in the discovery of the personality characteristics that great leaders have, these were also called the great man theories (Thomas, 2008). At the same time there was an emphasis on the idea that leaders are born and not merely made. The main effort of this theory was to detect and measure traits that apparently differentiated leaders from non-leaders or effective from ineffective leaders (Hollander & Offermann, 1990). From the mentioned differentiation of leaders and non-leaders, it is possible to derive an ideal leader that could help for choosing future leaders. Within the search of the ideal leader, three principal categories of personal characteristics were created. Starting with physical qualities, such as tallness, figure, look, and age. The second category was regarding ability characteristics, such as knowledge, intelligence, and easiness of speech. And last but not least, personality traits, such as power, emotional intelligence, self-expression, and extroversion (Bryman, 1992). However, this theory failed because of the incapability to constantly distinguish traits that are needed and appropriate for leadership success. Nevertheless, this theory guided researchers to find something more adequate, which is the reason of the study of behavioral theories.

Behavioral TheoriesBecause of the previously mentioned deficits in trait theories, researchers decided to shift the focus from looking for specific traits that make a leader to what leaders actually do in the job. At the same time, there was a change in the assumption that leaders are born into the belief that leaders could be in fact developed. Several studies recognized two dimensions, or leadership styles, of leader behavior (Bowers & Seashore 1966). The dimensions were named initiating structure and consideration. The first dimension comprised leader behaviors such as assigning task to subordinates, directing activities, giving deadlines, and assessing work performance. This dimension is also recognized as production oriented. On the other side, the second dimension, consideration, were behaviors that exhibited concern for subordinates, such as being aware of their feelings, respecting their ideas and desires, and being approachable and kind. This dimension is also known as employee relationship oriented. Cross-cultural studies have found that the two previously mentioned dimensions of leader behavior are very important while comparing different countries (Ah Chong & Thomas 1997). Several studies in numerous countries were made using these two dimensions with the common result of that leaders with consideration increase subordinates happiness (Dorfman, 1996), and shown a better performance of the organization as a whole. On the other hand, the other dimension, initiating structure, was more difficult to assess across cultures, since this showed variable results depending on the studied country. The results, along with the fact that behavioral theories do not take into account the effect of subordinates and the situation have on leaders effectiveness, concluded that leaders must modify their behavior to the followers and their situation in order to be effective in cross-cultural circumstances (Yuki & Van Fleet, 1992). This lead to what is known as Contingency theories.

Contingency Theories The contingency theories were created in order to fulfill differences with the finding of the behavioral theories of leadership. The principal and most used contingency model of leadership is the one created by Fiedlers in 1967, which states that the situation controls the relationship between the leaders style and his effectiveness. A leaders style, such as relationship oriented or production oriented from the behavioral theories, is in fact a measurement of personality features that are determined by reactions on the least preferred coworker (LPC) scale, an instrument for measuring an individuals leadership orientation. There is an idea that by correctly incorporating cultural as part of the theory, it could become universally applicable (Triandis, 1993). Another important improvement in reaction of the behavioral theories was the path-goal theory (House & Mitchell, 1974), which recognize four leader behaviors and identifies some follower and situational characteristics mediators of the relationship that exist between the style of leadership and the follower pleasure and performance.

Implicit TheoriesIn contrast with the previous approaches, where the objective was to define characteristics and influences in leaders behaviors, Implicit Theories of leadership define the term leadership as the manner of being perceived as a leader (Lord & Maher, 1991). The theory states that followers create prototype or mental images of what they consider a leader retrieved from the interaction with others, and other social situations. Once the follower creates the image of the leader, another person is perceived as a leader if his behavior matches with those of the prototypical leader. In other words, by having certain behaviors of a leader do not make someone a leader automatically unless he is perceived as such by someone else. The theory has been expanded across cultures with the objective of getting a universal prototype of a leader. Although the expectations of the research were specific, it was possible to identify universal behaviors and qualities that embrace implicit leadership theories such as charismatic or transformational theories of leadership (Bass, 1985). Charismatic and transformational leaders are characterized by their easiness to inspire followers to surpass their own self-interest for the improvement of the organization. There is proof that leaders like this can be found in different cultures, and that they have great effect on their followers. The effect on the followers includes trust, respect, dedication, commitment, and loyalty among others. In order to get these effects, leaders display certain behaviors that can be compared to the competences of the leader in the narrowed model explained before, such as self-confidence, idealized goals, and commitment.

II. Country Analysis of Leadership: The GLOBE Study

Now that the theories and definitions of leadership have been explained, he following section will discuss one of the most important tools to compare leadership styles between countries; the GOBLE study. As an extension of what implicit theory was, The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) involved 17,000 respondents in 951 different organizations in 62 different countries (House, 2004). The researchers made questions regarding what made them accept and follow other people as a leader, and after analyzing the 112 different attributes measured in the questionnaire, only 22 leadership attributes were universally desirable by the follower, and 8 that were undesirable. Finally, from the 22 preferred attributes, 6 styles of leadership were created, and apparently shared across countries. These styles are described below:

Leadership StyleAttributes

Charismatic/ Value BasedEasiness to inspire others, high performance expectations from others, and ability to motivate. (Very high in Anglo countries and very low in the middle east)

Team OrientedGive more importance to team building and make sure there is a common goal among team members. (Very high in Germanic Europe and very low in the middle east)

ParticipativeLevels the involvement of others in making and applying decisions. (Very high in Germanic Europe, and very low in the middle east)

Human OrientedThe leader demonstrates consideration, compassion, generosity, and is supportive. (Very high in South Asia, and very low in Nordic Europe)

AutonomousThis kind of leader is independent and individualistic. It goes from helping leadership to impeding it. (Very high in Eastern Europe and very low in Latin America)

Self-ProtectiveThis leader ensures security and safety on the individual. He is also self-centered, reported as an obstructer of leadership. (Very high in in South Asia and very low in Nordic Europe)

As stated at the beginning of this part, it is very difficult to get to a universal definition of leadership. Throughout years, the term leadership has been expanded and modified by different countries. These theories have been used as a tool for researchers to improve and sharpen leadership, in order to create what could be called the multinational perfect leaders. However, there are several external factors and variables that are changing along as time passes and with the cultures of different countries, and the quest of finding the perfect leaders is becoming more challenging throughout the years. The diverse theoretical tools show the diversity and context dependency of countries in evaluating leadership. These theories help explain some of the different views and perceptions. However, with time these perceptions are subject to gradual evolution. The advised approach is a holistic and integrative one, in which each theory sheds light into a final assessment. It is also important to mention, the present theories mainly arise from western tradition; excluding developing and emerging countries. It is out of the scope of this paper to fuel the debate. However, it is important to mention this distinction and the further involvement of different ideologies and variables provided by developing countries.

Part B: Organizational models

I. Background: What is an organization?

Organizations are defined as social systems deliberately structured to accomplish goals. In general they are not independent of their environment but are open systems that constantly use inputs from their surroundings, such as ideas, human resources, and raw materials. After collecting them, organizations give them back to the environment in form of services, products and information (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Since organizations are social systems, they have the need of being coordinated across different hierarchies and roles in order to be able to accomplish objectives. The arrangement of these roles and hierarchies is called structure or model, which can be described in terms of its formalization, complexity and centralization. (Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, MacDonald, & Turner, 1963). First, the formalization of an organization refers to the level in which procedures and rules are written out and enforced for the realization of activities within the organization. Second, the complexity of an organization refers to level in which the organization is differentiated among the three dimensions or differentiations: vertical, horizontal, and spatial. The vertical differentiation is defined how the number of levels deep an organization have. A very complex organization has several levels of sequential power and proficiency; whereas simple organization will have only few levels. The horizontal differentiation refers to the extent which responsibilities are divided. Greatly trained employees can be assigned for big range of tasks to achieve, or the tasks can be divided down to numerous short-duration assignments that can be executed by not very well trained workers. Spatial differentiation is the way in which employees and physical facilitates are geographically distributed. Geographic dispersions across countries, such as an international organization, increase complexity for the organization. And finally, the centralization of a company is shown by how much power is allocated through the organization, e.g in centralized organizations, all decisions are made mostly at a single level of the structure, usually in top management. On the other side, decentralized organizations are characterized by pushing decisions down through the organization. One important factor to take into account is the size of the organization. The linkage concerning centralization and size is a little complex. Researchers indicate that the bigger the organization is, the more stress exists over higher management, and therefore this conduces to the transferal of power to subordinates. Nevertheless, this transferal is based on structured procedures and rules, so bigger organizations are associated with higher levels of centralization of power; however, the levels of authority within the managers of higher levels remain steady. II. Organizational Models Across Countries

A commonly asked question regarding international organizations is why some organizations in different countries are similar and in others are very different. There exist two different perspectives regarding differences in organizational models. The first perspective is known as culture-free perspective, which states that organizations operate in similar way across countries. This is, for an organization to be effective; the model of the organization must fit its size, technology, and strategy, disregarding of the country or culture. (Child, 1974). However, this approach does not refuse the idea of cultural differences among countries, but it only takes culture as something that does not have an effect on the structure of the organization, and that the size is the thing that matter the most. According to a study made in 1,000 different organizations within 14 different countries, size has a strong effect on the organization structure among all the studied countries, and concluding that regardless of the country, bigger organizations tended to have more formalization, to be more specialized, and to be less centralized than small organizations. (Hickson & Pugh, 1995).The second approached is named structural variation across countries, which was created as an alternative to the already mentioned cultural-free perspective. This approach is based on the effect that different of national aspects, such as political legal, and social factors, have in organizational structures (Peng, 2002), by this cultures is being include as a potential influence. Several approaches have been created in order to create a better understanding the influence of culture in organizational models (Hofstede 1991). First, organizational structure is seen as a demonstration of the managers own cultural values, e.g. in a high-power distance culture, organizations tend to be more centralized and hierarchical. Second, the national culture of a country highly influences the way of organization that is accepted by members of the society, e.g. normative pressures of the Chinese companies tend to remain small and owned by family members. (Chen, 1995).

From the previous discursion regarding the influence in culture in organizational structures, it is possible to drawn the possible a diagram that summarizes the powerful perspectives. Adapted from Cullen (1999)

The previous diagram recognizes the influences of factors such as size, technology, and strategy on organizational models, which accounts for the many similarities regarding contextual variable of different countries. At the same time, it also makes clear the two scenes of national culture. First, as managers make decisions in the structure of the organization, they are very influenced by own values and beliefs that modify what it is considered normal in terms of organization. Also, organizations are open systems that are influenced by pressures from the environment. The cultural context of the firm regulates, what types of organizational structures are perceived as proper by society.

C. Conclusion

Terms such as leadership and organization have been defined and exemplified in this paper. However, it was possible to identify that simple terms can become very complex when it comes to utilizing them and comparing them among different countries and different contexts. For both, leadership and organization, several studies and theories have been developed and improved throughout the years in order to get what can be called a general and global definition. The problem of trying the generalized these terms universally is that plenty of variables exist that can modify the definition across countries. Regarding cultural differences, two approaches have been researched, convergence and divergence. The first one states that different cultures that are exposed to related environmental pressures, including social, political, economical, natural, and political factors, will usually develop similar characteristics, in other terms, countries are getting closer to each other becoming culturally alike. On the other side, the divergence approach states that when people of one culture separate from each other, they experience totally different environmental pressures; they transform and in most of the cases become a totally different culture. This is, cultures are separating from each other to create a new one, and this implies different variables to be analyzed in order to drawn new definitions for the researched terms in this paper.

V. References:

Ah Chong, L. M., & Thomas. D. C. (1997). Leadership perceptions in cross-cultural context: Pacific Islanders and Pakeha in New Zealand. Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 275-293. Ancona D (2005), "Leadership in an Age of Uncertainty. MIT Leadership Center. Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective", Leadership Quarterly,Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 219-247. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York. Free Press. Bowers, D.C., & Seashore, S.E. (1966). Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quaterly, 11, 238-263. Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage. Chen, M. (1995). Asian Management system: Chinese, Japanese, and Korean styles of business. New York: Routhledge. Chen, S.S. and Chang, L.K.C. (2001). Exploring technical and vocational education (TVE) leaders character and their beliefs and attitudes towards TVE, Journal of Technology, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 605-11. Child, J. (1974, Summer). What determines organizational performance? The universals vs. the all depends. Organizational Dynamics pp. 2-18 Cook MJ (1999) improving care requires leadership in nursing. Nurse Education Today. 19, 4, 306-312 Costa, P.T.,Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1992).Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual.Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Dorfman, P.W. (1996). International and cross-cultural leadership. In J. Punnit & O. Shenkar (Eds.), Handbook for international Management Research (pp. 276-349). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Fiedlers in 1967: Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hickson, D. J. & Pugh, D. S., (1995). Management worldwide: The impact of societal culture on organizations around the globe. London. Penguin. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd edition) Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Hollander, E.P., & Offermann, L.R. (1990). Relational features of organizational leadership and followership.In K.E. Clark, & M.B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 8398). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America. House, R. (2004). Preface. In House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.), Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 societies (P. XXV). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. K. Karami, An Inspection on environmental scanning and Growth Strategy in High Tech Small Firms, Conf. on Small Firms, University of Twente, the Netherlands, 2008. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991) Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston: Unwin-Everyman. Pasmore, William . "A Critical Ingredient for Organizational Success."Developing a Leadership Strategy. Center for Creative Leadership. CCL (2009). Peng, M. W. (2002). Cultures, Institutions, and strategic choices: Toward an international perspective on business strategy. Pp. 52-66. Oxford, UK. Porter-OGrady T (2003) A different age for leadership, part 1: new context, new content. Journal of Nursing Administration. 33, 2, 105-110. Pugh, D. S., Hickson, Hinings, MacDonald, & Turner, (1963) Dimensions of organizational structures. Administrative science quarterly. 13, 65-105 Thomas, David C.Cross-cultural management: essential concepts. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2008. Triandis, H. C. (1993). The contingency model in cross-cultural perspective. In M. M. Chemers & R. Aymen (Eds.) Leadership theory and research: perspectives and directions. (pp. 167-188). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Wren, J. T., & Swatez, M. (1995). The historical and contemporary contexts of leadership: A conceptual model. In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The leaders companion: Insights on leadership through the ages (pp. 245-252). New York: The Free Press. Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. (1992) Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 147-197). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.