Sunday, December 13, 2009

Culture, Leadership attributes and Social Implications

Posted by Picasa
This is a paper I wrote for a class I took in Fall 2009- "Cross- Cultural Leadership". I am posting it here since it has been quite a while since I posted something on the blog. Its not exciting, interesting or even well- written, so read if you must; I take no responsibility for your choice of how to spend your time ;)


“Leadership can be thought of as a capacity to define oneself to others in a way that clarifies and expands a vision of the future.” Edwin H. Friedman.

Leadership is a key aspect of human civilization, very frequently deciding the path of progress or degradation of the society. In a shrinking world where distance is no longer a barrier for trade, education or business, it becomes essential to integrate the diverse cultural differences into a functional model of global leadership. Leadership is the process of social influence in which one person is able to enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task. (Chemers, 2000). Comparison of Anglo cluster and Southern Asian culture brings out the differences and similarities in their respective leadership styles, based on Hofstede’s dimensions of value. Anglo cluster is devoted to individualism and egalitarianism while Southern Asian cluster has its allegiance to collectivism and hierarchy. This can quite conclusively be explained in relation with individualism- collectivism values and power distance index.


Clustering done by GLOBE study is based on similarities shared by countries propelled by (a) geographic proximity ( Furnham Kirkcaldy & Lynn, 1994) (b) mass migrations and ethnic social capital ( Portes & Zhou, 1994) and (c) religious and linguistic commonality (Cattell, 1950).Anglo cluster comprises of England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States of America, Ireland and South Africa (white sample). This clustering is based on several factors including ethnic and linguistic similarities and migration patterns from areas now identified as Northern Europe ( Gupta & Hanges, 2004). Southern Asia cluster comprises of Iran, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand. Gupta & Hanges observes that a distinct cultural feature of this region was the rather peaceful and interactive coexistence of diversity over long periods ( 2004). The leadership styles and attributes evolved in these cultures reflect the differences in their cultural preferences. Regardless, there is only one leadership dimension that varied substantially across these clusters namely, participative leadership. For the convenience of discussion USA is chosen to represent Anglo cluster and India represents Southern Asian cluster.


Gender egalitarianism is an aspect that varies considerably across clusters in the GLOBE study and Anglo cluster is clearly a more gender egalitarian society than Southern Asia. It correlates with the Masculinity index of Hofstede’s values. GLOBE study evaluated both the perception of current society and the perceptions of the ideal which varied significantly. But in both cases Anglo cluster is found to be more gender egalitarian than Southern Asia (Emrich, Denmark & Hartog, 1999). In a more gender egalitarian society women have equal status as males which can be practically observed by the higher frequency of women in authority and lesser discrimination within the workplace. Emrich, Denmark & Hartog also observes that gender egalitarianism is positively correlated to participative and charismatic leadership styles and negatively correlated to self- protective leadership. This further explains the higher prevalence of participative leadership in Anglo cluster ( 1999). Yet, we find certain examples that do not fit the values derived. For instance, even though USA has high value of egalitarianism, it has never had a state of head that is female since its inception as a free country. On the other end, India which is not a gender egalitarian country has had two female state of heads since 1947,including the present president.


Assertiveness is another leadership attribute that is higher in Anglo cluster than Southern Asia. One of the interesting aspect about this attribute is that the assertiveness practiced by US is higher than its perceived ideal while India practices lower assertiveness than its perceived ideal. This leadership attribute is also correlated to Masculinity index of Hofstede’s values. US has a higher value than India in Masculinity Index. An assertive society greatly favors competition and is not fatalistic. Hartog describes an assertive society as one which has sympathy for strong as opposed to an unassertive society which sympathizes with the weak. Another distinction is the connotations associated with the word ‘aggression’- an assertive society sees it positively while the other sees aggression as a negative nature. An assertive society rewards performance, success and progress while a society with low assertiveness rewards integrity, loyalty and cooperative spirit. Also, others are viewed to be opportunistic in an assertive society while in a society with low assertiveness others are considered inherently trustworthy (1999). In Anglo culture everyone is encouraged to be assertive, while in Southern Asia leaders are accepted to be assertive while followers are not, which can be pointed back to the high power distance in the society.


Individualism and Collectivism is yet another defining leadership attribute that clearly distinguishes Anglo and Southern Asia cluster. Anglo cluster has high value of individualism while Southern Asia has low value. USA has Hofstede’s Individualism index at 91 while India has 48. Further according to Triandis US subscribes to vertical individualism where people strive to lead, acquire status and win (1994). On the other hand India is a vertically collectivistic society where there is deep in- group loyalty but competitive with the out- group. In an individualistic culture, leader is expected to be independent, strong willed and forceful as opposed to a collectivistic leader who personifies interdependence, collaboration and self- effacement. Effective leaders in a collectivistic culture are also paternalistic and nurturing. (Gelfand et al, 2002). There are various other social implication to this leadership attribute. Collectivistic societies are generally agrarian in nature and are often developing countries. Stress and stress related diseases have a low incidence in these cultures. They also have a lower divorce rate and a slower pace of life in general. Communication is indirect, quite possibly to avoid confrontations within the group. Individualistic societies are diametrically opposite in all these aspects. ( Gelfand et al, 2002). In an organizational structure, individualism manifests in numerous ways- for example accountability and entrepreneurial activity. In an individualistic society, specific individuals are accountable for the organizational success or failure while in a collectivistic society it rests with the entire group. Entrepreneurial activity is highest in a society, which has a balance of individualism and collectivism, it decreases progressively on either side of the spectrum. A collectivistic society prefers a team- oriented, charismatic and humane leadership style and opposes autonomous leadership style.


Additionally power distance in another leadership attribute that is very different across cultures. Anglo culture has a low power distance while Southern Asia has a high power distance index. Power distance is the extent to which members accept unequal distribution of power. A high power distance society is hierarchical and stratified based on power as opposed to a low power distance society, which is more egalitarian. Southern Asia is a traditional society, which is also influenced by many philosophies including Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam among many others. Most of these religions have a great distance between one in position and the follower. Furthermore, in India caste system continues to be practiced in spite of outlawing it. Caste system essentially stratifies society into clear-cut compartments assigning certain groups almost all of the power while many others are bereft of any power. The society reflects the power distance difference in many aspects. In a high power distance society information is localized, which is illustrated by the dominance of Hindu priests and royalty over most of the educational system in medieval India. Lower castes were denied education, which prevented them from climbing the social ladder. In contrast a low power distance society shares the information. Another practical demonstration of power distance is the extend of corruption. High power distance society has high public corruption and low civil liberties which is not the case in low power distance society ( Carl, Gupta & Javidan, 2002). Power distance distinguishes Anglo and Southern Asian clusters very clearly. As modernization is spreading there seems to be an inclination towards lower power distance in general.


Humane orientation is the degree to which society rewards individuals for being altruistic, kind, generous, caring and friendly. Southern Asia is more humane oriented than Anglo cluster. According to Kabaskal & Bodur the perceived social ideal Anglo cluster projects a greater value than Southern Asia but in practice Southern Asian cluster is more humane than the Anglo cluster ( 2002). They explain that a high humane oriented society is motivated by the need for belonging and affiliation as compared to a less humane oriented society that is driven by the need for material possessions and power. The affluent members of the society are responsible for promoting the well-being of lesser privileged in a high humane oriented society, whereas state provides social and economic support in a low humane oriented society. Family structure also varies according to this aspect of leadership dimension. In a high humane oriented society, children are expected to be obedient and parents are asked to closely control the children, Children are expected to protect parents in their old age and close circle of family and friends receive material, financial and social support from each other. In a low humane oriented society, children are encouraged to be autonomous and family members to be independent. Children are not expected to take care of parents in their old age and sacrifices for close circles are not expected; self- enhancement is the driving force in a low humane oriented society. One can observe these instances in daily life of these two clusters. Anglo cluster has higher prevalence of old age homes and laws that protect children against any kind of mistreatment from parents and other caretakers. In the social structure, humane orientation manifests in various ways. In paternalistic, high humane societies leadership, takes care of the welfare of workers’ families, sometimes hiring a family member who might not be qualified for the job ( Kabaskal & Bodur, 2002). It is observed that Humane orientation affects culturally endorsed leadership in various levels. High humane oriented societies have a more considerate leadership that is more personal and maintenance oriented. On the other hand, leaders in a low humane oriented culture are impersonal and formal in their relationship with others. In an office in United States relationship are generally official and there is little or no personal involvement in each other’s life as opposed to a higher humane oriented culture like India, relationships within office also spreads to a personal level attachment.


Uncertainty Avoidance is high in Southern Asian cluster and low in Anglo cluster. Uncertainty Avoidance is defined by the GLOBE as “the extent to which members of collectives seek orderliness, consistency, structure, formalized procedures and laws to cover their daily lives” ( Luque & Javidan, 2002). Hofstede defined the concept slightly differently where it represented the national syndrome that relates to neuroticism, anxiety, stress etc (1980). One way to see uncertainty avoidance is the extend to which one can tolerate ambiguity- the higher one can tolerate it, lower is the uncertainty avoidance. Uncertainty avoidance affects society and organization in multiple aspects. One example is openness to innovation- in a society with high uncertainty avoidance, it is increasingly difficult to replace an existing system with a new one. A high uncertainty avoiding society relies greatly on planning and spends considerable time checking for loopholes and mistakes. Another concept related with uncertainty avoidance is the idea of tight and loose cultures originally suggested by Pelto ( Luque & Javidan, 2002). “Tight cultures are characterized by many rules supervising actions” ( Triandis, 1989). In such societies, conformity is very important- it is discouraged to be different from the group. Whereas in a loose culture there are many ways through which norms are relayed and none are considered unacceptable. According to the GLOBE study, Anglo cluster has a higher value of uncertainty avoidance as compared to Southern Asia, which is counter intuitive. Southern Asian cluster has a value of Uncertainty avoidance of 4.10 as current practice while its perceived ideal is 5.16, which is significantly higher. On the other hand, Anglo cluster has a value of 4.42 as current societal uncertainty avoidance value, which is higher than its perceived ideal that is at 4.09. ( Luque & Javidan, 2002). A society with high uncertainty index resists change and shows less tolerance to breaking rules. They take more moderately calculated risks and rely on formalized policies as well as communicate in writing. In a lower uncertainty avoidance society,, members are less resistant to change and shows less desire to establish rules to dictate behavior. Such societies are less concerned with orderliness and rarely document the conclusions from meetings etc. They are less dependent on legal contracts; rather, rely on each other’s words. This is illustrated in the work and legal culture of US and India. US relies heavily on legal contracts and written documentation while Indian work culture generally rests on verbal contracts and mutual trust.


Participative leadership is more endorsed in Anglo cluster than Southern Asian cluster. Participative leadership in GLOBE is defined in terms of subordinates actively participating with the leader in the tasks that the group is undertaking. Anglo cluster being highly individualistic places great value on individual contribution of group members towards decision making. US has Hofstede’s value of individualism at 91 as opposed to India’s 48, which is a strong indication of why participative leadership is more favored in Anglo cluster. People at every level of the organization are encouraged to contribute to the decision-making discussions (Ashkanasy, 2002). This might also be due to the egalitarian tendancies of the society. Such an approach is not preferred in Southern Asia, which is highly collectivistic and hierarchical. In Southern Asian cluster leader is supposed to make decisions that will be best for the group and the group is expected to follow it without any questions. Giving suggestions to make decisions can be interpreted as not having faith in the leader, which is frowned upon in the society. Participative leadership is the single most varying leadership dimension across the clusters ( Ashkanasy, 2002).


In conclusion, one finds significant contrast between the leadership attributes in Anglo and Southern Asian clusters. Moreover, one also observes that GLOBE clusters are a functional and practical way of grouping cultures in a meaningful manner to understand cultural and social behavior. The GLOBE clusters make it easier to implement changes and integrate a diverse society after considering the individual qualities. Anglo cluster is observed to be very individualistic, egalitarian and assertive. It is also performance oriented, with a low power distance. In contrast, Southern Asian cluster is collectivistic, humane oriented and hierarchical. Such differences reflects in the leadership style, organizational structure and business. Comprehending these differences and incorporating them in employee training can greatly enhance the probability of success in the multi-cultural world today. As science and technology strives to bridge the gap between cultures, cultures remain stable in their innate characters, presenting themselves as subtle enigmas that is not well understood yet.