Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 ... · PDF fileCultural variation of...

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2000) 73 1ndash29 Printed in Great BritainOacute 2000 The British Psychological Society

Cultural variation of leadership prototypesacross 22 European countries

Felix C Brodbeck Michael FreseStaVan Akerblom Giuseppe Audia Gyula Bakacsi

Helena Bendova Domenico Bodega MuzaVer Bodur Simon BoothKlas Brenk Phillippe Castel Deanne Den Hartog Gemma Donnelly-Cox

Mikhail V Gratchev Ingalill Holmberg Slawomir Jarmuz Jorge Correia JesuinoRavaz Jorbenadse Hayat E Kabasakal Mary Keating George Kipiani EdvardKonrad Paul Koopman Alexandre Kurc Christopher Leeds Martin Lindell Jerzey

Maczynski Gillian S Martin Jeremiah OrsquoConnell Athan Papalexandris NancyPapalexandris Jose M Prieto Boris Rakitski Gerhard Reber Argio

Sabadin Jette Schramm-Nielsen Majken Schultz Camilla SigfridsErna Szabo Henk Thierry Marie Vondrysova Jurgen Weibler

Celeste Wilderom Stanislaw Witkowski and Rolf Wunderer

This study sets out to test the assumption that concepts of leadership diVer as afunction of cultural diVerences in Europe and to identify dimensions whichdescribe diVerences in leadership concepts across European countries Middle-level managers (N = 6052) from 22 European countries rated 112 questionnaireitems containing descriptions of leadership traits and behaviours For eachattribute respondents rated how well it ts their concept of an outstandingbusiness leader The ndings support the assumption that leadership concepts areculturally endorsed Speci cally clusters of European countries which sharesimilar cultural values according to prior cross-cultural research (Ronen ampShenkar 1985) also share similar leadership concepts The leadershipprototypicality dimensions found are highly correlated with cultural dimensionsreported in a comprehensive cross-cultural study of contemporary Europe (SmithDugan amp Trompenaars 1996) The ordering of countries on the leadershipdimensions is considered a useful tool with which to model diVerences betweenleadership concepts of diVerent cultural origin in Europe Practical implicationsfor cross-cultural management both in European and non-European settings arediscussed

Cross-cultural researchers and international managers concur with the view that adiversity of management systems exist across contemporary Europe In respect topredicting future developments Calori and de Woot (1994) interviewed 51 chiefexecutives of 40 large international organizations and concluded lsquo no advocateof diversity denied the existence of some common characteristic and no advocateRequests for reprints should be addressed to Professor Felix Brodbeck Department of Psychology University ofMunich Leopoldstrasse 13 80802 Munich Germany (e-mail Brodbeckpsyunimuenchende)

1

of European identity denied some degree of diversityrsquo (p9) On the basis of suchobservations it would appear that Europeans will have to live with at least somediversity in management systems in the foreseeable future Equally important tonote is the fact that societal cultural diversity in Europe remains unquestionedIndeed it is frequently perceived to be preserved as much as possible

Consideration of the issues raised by Calori and de Woot invites exploration of animportant question speci cally the interrelationship between societal culturaldiversity and the diversity in management style The removal of trade barriers andthe growth of the single market within Europe increases the permeability of nationalboundaries Increasing numbers of companies are expanding beyond nationalborders managers are employed transnationally in cultures other than their ownand participation in cross-cultural teams is becoming more commonplace In thecross currents between the durability of national cultures (divergence) and thepractical necessities born of closer and more frequent interaction (convergence)there certainly is a lag in the chain of change from individual concepts to individualbehaviour to group behaviour to system to structural and nally to institutionalharmonization Even if convergence may some day prove to be the predominantforce in a eld like business managing the long-term transition toward a less diverseEurope will require research insights for the expatriates as well as for those (trainersand consultants) facilitating them in accommodating behaviour and adjusting theirmanagerial context in consequent ways Only then will cross-border assigneessuccessfully manage the increasingly complex matrix of impact points where culturecontinues to aVect interactions in the world of work For instance the more weknow about the leadershipculture impact point the more eVective the manage-ment of todayrsquos and tomorrowrsquos diversity will be In this regard empirical data onthe cultural variation of leadership concepts can be helpful

Leadership categorization theory (Lord amp Maher 1991) suggests that the betterthe match between a perceived individual and the leadership concept held by theperceiver the more likely it is that the perceiver actually lsquoseesrsquo the individual as aleader Followers who categorize a manager as a prototypical leader are likely toallow himher to exert leadership in uence on them If leadership concepts diVeras a function of cultural diVerences they can constrain the in uence of expatriatemanagers in other words the more leadership concepts diVer between managersand subordinates or colleagues the less in uence will be exerted

Our study investigates the relationship between culture and leadership conceptsin Europe on the basis of extensive empirical research which focuses oncross-cultural diVerences in leadership Our ndings can bene t the developmentof cross-cultural management training coaching and consulting

Leadership perception

The evolution and operation of leadership concepts follows the more fundamentalprinciples formulated in psychological theories of human perception cognition andbehaviour The human information processor uses context speci c schemata orprototypes to categorize perceptions (Cantor amp Mischel 1979 Rosch 1978) A

2 Felix C Brod beck et al

schema or prototype is de ned as a collection of attributes or traits characteristicof an object or a person On the basis of the categorizations implicit theories areused to derive expectations and predictions about other traits or behaviours of thesame object or person According to leadership categorization theory (Lord ampMaher 1991) prototypical concepts are also formed about leadership traits andbehaviours and they are used to distinguish leaders from non-leaders (oroutstanding from average moral from amoral leaders etc)

Experimental studies exploring implicit leadership theory have found that peopleuse categorization processes when forming leadership perceptions They match atarget person against a cognitive prototype that contains characteristic leaderattributes (Lord Foti amp De Vader 1984 Phillips amp Lord 1981 for a review seeLord amp Maher 1991) and someone recognized as a leader is also perceived to bemore powerful and in uential (Cronshaw amp Lord 1987) Schemata or prototypesin person perception aVect individual behaviour When a person schema issubconsciously activated people start to behave in ways consistent with theactivated schema (Bargh Chen amp Burrows 1996) Extending this to leadershipperception it is likely that individuals behave as followers when their leadershipprototypes or schemata are activated The more they perceive someone as aprototypical outstanding leader the more they should respond positively Lord andMaher (1991) assume that leaders are more likely to be accepted and thatleaderndashfollower relationships are more likely to be characterized by trust moti-vation and high performance when the congruence between the implicit leadershiptheories of the persons involved is high

Culturersquos consequences for leadership perception

Shawrsquos (1990) theoretical work suggests pre-existing leadership prototypes andexpectations to be one potential source of variance across cultures What ischaracteristic or prototypical of a leader may be diVerent in distinct culturesCulturally endorsed diVerences in leadership concepts can aVect the reactions ofothers to a foreign manager in a way that impedes cross-cultural leadership successThe leadership perceptions of the perceivers in a host country (eg higher-levelmanagers colleagues and subordinates) determine whether a foreign manager islabelled a leader which in turn can determine the acceptance of hisher leadershiptraits and behaviours and the degree to which the foreign leader is perceived to bepowerful in uential or eYcient Furthermore the foreign managersrsquo ethnocentricleadership schemata or prototypes can in uence the probability that they behaveinappropriately as perceived in the host country In short the more leadershipconcepts between foreign managers and relevant attributers in a host country diVerthe less the likelihood that cross-cultural leadership will be accepted and eVective

These predictions apply insofar as there is evidence for diVerential culturalendorsement of leadership prototypes Generally cross-cultural research suggeststhat culture can in uence leadership concepts (House Wright amp Aditya 1997)Gerstner and Day (1994) and OrsquoConnell Lord and OrsquoConnell (1990) presentevidence for relations between culture and leadership concepts However their

Cultural variation of lead ership prototypes 3

studies sample only a limited number of countries that are from very diVerentcultural or geopolitical regions (Honduras Germany Taiwan Japan USA FranceIndia and China) Thus the ndings may not be applicable to European countriesthat all belong to one geopolitical region possibly sharing leadership characteristics

Results from the GLOBE study (Hanges et al 1998 House et al 1997 1999)support the view that cultural environments can in uence leadership concepts byusing a sample of more than 60 countries However the countries sampled byGLOBE are also from diVerent geopolitical regions Therefore cultural variance inthis sample is higher than for a subsample of countries located in only onegeopolitical region such as Europe

The present study is based on the European subsample of GLOBE Its purposeis to investigate the assumption that leadership concepts vary as a function ofcultural diVerences in Europe With this objective in mind we compared thoseEuropean country clusters which emerged on the basis of similarities anddiVerences in leadership prototypes with those European country clusters whichemerged on the basis of more general cultural values as reported in previouscross-cultural studies This comparison constitutes a strong test of the hypothesisthat culture and leadership concepts co-vary There are several reasons for this Inthe rst instance the sampling of countries from only one major geopolitical regionrestricts the range of total cultural variance and thus strengthens the signi canceand practical utility of those diVerences in leadership concepts that occurFurthermore European country groupings are compared on the basis of diVerentstudies with diVerent respondents diVerent cultural variables and diVerent statisti-cal grouping methods This reduces the likelihood of spurious correlations due tocommon method variance or to the non-randomness of sampling in singlecross-cultural studies Another purpose of our study is to identify and describediVerences in leadership concepts across European countries which are interestingin their own right because these countries are going through a unique socio-politicalexperiment over the coming decades

Cultural variability in Europe

There are continuing and non-random cultural diVerences between Europeancountries and regions that have been identi ed within a multitude of cross-culturalstudies using diVerent measures for cultural values The major cultural regionsidenti ed (Anglo Nordic Germanic Latin and Near East European countryclusters) and replicated in these studies are summarized below

In a comprehensive review Ronen and Shenkar (1985) considered eightcross-cultural studies including Hofstedersquos (1980) seminal research which measurea variety of work-related attitudes and values such as work goalsrsquo importance needful lment job satisfaction managerial style organizational climate work role andinterpersonal orientation The authors identi ed ve European cultural clusters(Anglo cluster Ireland United Kingdom Nordic cluster Denmark FinlandNorway Sweden Germanic cluster Austria West Germany Switzerland Latincluster Belgium Italy Spain Portugal France Near East cluster Greece Turkey)


They posit that countries tend to group together on the basis of geographicalproximity common language or language groups and religion The culturalsimilarity of countries which are geographically close to each other can be seen tobe the result of a spread of cultural values through geopolitical developments inhistory (eg the Germanic cultures in Austria Switzerland and Germany) Forsome clusters the countries share one common language (eg the Germaniccluster) or a language group (eg the Latin European cluster) Language containsmeanings and values which in uence the development and maintenance ofschemata and prototypes related to job behaviour and leadership Some countriesalso share religions for example the Latin European cluster is predominantlyCatholic Common religious beliefs are associated with common norms and valuesin society and at work Last but not least the degree of modernity for example ineconomic development (eg percentage of agricultral industry income per capitalife expectancy) and in political educational and social development (eg edu-cational level public health care and social security) can also determine culturalvalues such as individualism uncertainty avoidance or gender equality (Hofstede1980) The cultural clustering for European countries into Nordic AngloGermanic Latin and Near East reported by Ronen and Shenkar (1985) awaitsreplication

East versus West European country clusters

In another study comprising nearly 50 nations a variety of personal values andbehavioural intentions amongst circa 10 000 managers and employees weresurveyed (Trompenaars 1993) Trompenaarsrsquo data were re-analysed by SmithDugan and Trompenaars (1996) They con rmed for Europe that the majorcultural divide lies between Eastern and Western Europe On the one hand WestEuropean countries from the Nordic Anglo Germanic and Latin Europeanclusters tend to score higher on work related values of lsquoEqualityrsquo (cf Smith 1997)or lsquoEgalitarian Commitmentrsquo (cf Smith et al 1996) meaning that achieved status isvalued more highly than ascribed status For example work is perceived to be fairlyevaluated and objective criteria for appointments are reported to be used andapplied equally On the other hand East European countries from East Central(including former East Germany) and Near East European clusters tend to scorehigher on lsquoHierarchyrsquo (cf Smith 1997) or lsquoConservatismrsquo (cf Smith et al 1996)meaning that ascribed status is more highly valued than achieved status Forexample power diVerentials paternalism and nepotism are reported to be expectedor accepted Smith (1997) concludes lsquoThe footprint of history which appears toleave the sharpest imprint at present is not the legacy of the Roman Empire butthat of the Soviet Unionrsquo (p378) The East versus West distinction also appearedin a study reported by Jago et al (1993) The researchers used training tasksconstructed according to the Vroom and Yetton (1973) model to evaluate culturaldiVerences in participative decision-making behaviour Managers from Germaniccountries (Austria West Germany Switzerland) made more participative decisionswhereas managers from Central Europe (Poland and the Czech Republic) mademore autocratic decisions


North versus South European country clusters

A North versus South European distinction emerged in a study of 16 WestEuropean countries reported by Smith (1997) which represents another re-analysisof the Smith Dugan and Trompenaars (1996) data The two cultural dimensionsfound for West Europe diVer somewhat from the original dimensions identi ed inthe total sample of 43 countries because Central and East European countries werenot included in the re-analysis The rst dimension is lsquoHierarchy and LoyalInvolvementrsquo Hierarchy means that power diVerences and paternalism areaccepted loyal involvement means that personal identity is de ned as a long-termcommitment to the organization The second dimension is lsquoEquality and UtilitarianInvolvementrsquo Equality means that criteria are applied equally to all personsUtilitarian involvement means that job involvement is dependent on a rationalcalculus of expected rewards career prospects and alternative opportunities TheNorth European countries of Ronen and Shenkarrsquos Anglo cluster (Ireland UnitedKingdom) the Nordic cluster (Sweden Denmark Finland Norway) and WestGermany tend to score high on the lsquoEquality and Utilitarian Involvementrsquodimension The South European countries of the Latin European cluster (FranceBelgium Spain Italy Portugal) the Near East cluster (Greece Turkey) and Austriatend to score high on the lsquoHierarchy and Loyal Involvementrsquo dimension The Northversus South European distinction also appeared in two further cross-culturalstudies In the rst study investigating cultural diversity of lsquoevent managementstylersquo that is decisional preferences of leaders in various prototypical managementsituations with a sample of 17 East and West European countries (cf Smith 1997)managers in North European countries were shown to favour greater involvementwith subordinates (high in equality and participation) and managers from SouthEuropean countries were shown to prefer reliance on supervisors (high inhierarchy) In the second study employeesrsquo preferences for interpersonal leadershipstyles were evaluated (Zander 1997) In North European countries (UnitedKingdom Netherlands Denmark Norway Sweden and Finland) it seems that acoaching leader is preferred as compared to a preference for a directing leader inSouth European (Spain Belgium France) and Germanic (Austria West GermanySwitzerland) countries

Research questions

The rst research question to investigate in our study is the cultural endorsementof leadership prototypes with comprehensive samples of European countries Wehypothesize that leadership prototypes vary as a function of cultural diVerences inEurope Thus it is to be expected that the regional distinctions found in previouscross-cultural studies are con rmed for leadership prototypes Based on leadershipprototypes the major cultural divides between East and West and between Northand South should be evident and more speci cally the Anglo Nordic GermanicLatin and Near East European country clusters should be replicated The Ronenand Shenkar (1985) country clusters are used as a criterion measure because theyare based on the most comprehensive review of a variety of cross-cultural studieswithin European countries


The second research question addresses the identi cation of leadershipprototypicality dimensions which describe diVerences between European countriesand regions For both practical and theoretical reasons it is interesting to investigatethose dimensions which represent core diVerences in leadership concepts betweencountries Practically an understanding of the cultural variation in leadershipconcepts and of the particular traits and behaviours associated with such variationcan help managers (trainers and consultants) to predict more accurately potentialproblems within cross-cultural interactions at work Theoretically this is interestingbecause we then know which dimensions of leadership traits and behaviours haveto be researched in more detail when addressing cultural diVerences in Europe Theleadership dimensions identi ed will also be made subject to testing the culturalendorsement of leadership hypothesis by correlating them with the culturaldimensions reported in Smith Dugan and Trompenaars (1996) Their studycomprises the most comprehensive sample of contemporary Europe includingCentral and East European countries most of which are also sampled in thepresent study This gives us an estimate of the cultural validity of the leadershipprototypicality dimensions identi ed here

The third research question addresses the possibility of diVerent culturaldimensions to emerge as a result of using diVerent regional subsamples ofEuropean countries As can be learned from Smithrsquos (1997) study when only WestEuropean countries were investigated cultural dimensions were found thatsomewhat diVer from the cultural dimensions that emerged on the basis of East andWest European countries Thus in the present study the identi cation ofleadership prototypicality dimensions will be implemented on two levels On the rst level those dimensions which constitute the core diVerences across allEuropean countries (East West North and South) will be explored on a moregeneral level (across-region analysis) On the second level the study moves beyond themacro-level analysis to examine variables which diVerentiate countries within themajor cultural regions found in Europe (within-region analysis) This could result incore dimensions that re ect micro- as opposed to macro-level diVerentiations andcan go beyond diVerences that only appear between major cultural regions egbetween Eastern and Western European countries Hence the two-level analysiswill tell us whether a simple core set of variables exists which diVerentiates allcountries across and within European cultural regions or whether a morediVerentiated approach is necessary one which embraces countries within culturalsubunits of Europe

Method

Sample

The present study is based on the European subsample of GLOBE (Hanges et al 1998 House et al1997 1999) Twenty-two European countries were selected from the GLOBE database by using twocriteria (1) the country is either a member of the European Union (eg France United KingdomGermany Greece) or an applicant to it (eg Poland Hungary Slovenia Czech Republic) (2) thecountry is geographically located in Europe (eg Switzerland) or strongly associated with Europeanhistory and geopolitical development (eg Russia Georgia Turkey)


The countries sampled and the number of participants per country are Austria (N = 169) Ireland(N = 156) Czech Republic (N = 244) Denmark (N = 324) Finland (N = 430) France (N = 182)Georgia (N = 259) Germany West (N = 413) Germany former East (N = 53) Greece (N = 234)Hungary (N = 183) Italy (N = 257) Netherlands (N = 287) Poland (N = 278) Portugal (N = 79)Russia (N = 210) Slovenia (N = 254) Spain (N = 360) Sweden (N = 895) Switzerland (N = 321)Turkey (N = 289) United Kingdom (N = 168)

The total sample of individual respondents comprised N = 6052 middle managers from organiz-ations (mid-sized to large companies) in three diVerent industrial sectors (food nance telecom-munication) At least two of the industries were represented in each of the countries investigated (withthe exception of France in which only the nance sector was sampled) The data were gatheredbetween 1995 and 1997 by the authors of this paper who are country-co-investigators (CCIs) of theGLOBE project

Measures and proced ure

GLOBE de nes leadership as lsquothe ability of an individual to in uence motivate and enable others tocontribute toward the eVectiveness and success of organisations of which they are membersrsquo (Houseet al 1997 p548) Leadership areas other than business such as politics sports religion or militaryare not investigated by the GLOBE project Subjects responded to 112 questionnaire items by ratingthe degree to which each leadership attribute (traits or behaviours per item) facilitates or impedeslsquooutstanding leadershiprsquo Per item one attribute was given and de ned by synonym terms (see Table1) Items were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale that ranged from a low lsquoThis behavior orcharacteristic substantially impedes a person from being an outstanding leaderrsquo to a high of lsquoThisbehavior or characteristic contributes substantially to a person being an outstanding leaderrsquo Thismethod is consistent with Implicit Leadership Theory and analogous to lsquoleadership prototypicalityratingsrsquo that are commonly used for assessing leadership concepts (Gerstner amp Day 1994 Hollanderamp Julian 1969 Kenney Blasovich amp Shaver 1994 Lord amp Maher 1991)

Questionnaire and scale d evelopment As part of the overall GLOBE program 382 leadership attributesre ecting a variety of traits skills abilities and personality characteristics potentially relevant toleadership emergence and eVectiveness were generated The focus was on developing a comprehen-sive list of leader attributes and behaviours rather than on developing a priori leadership scales

Table 1 Measurement of leadership perceptions via leadership prototypicality ratings

Leadership attributes and their denition were rated as to how strongly they impede orfacilitate outstanding leadership on a 7-point scale

1=Substantially impedes2=Moderately impedes3=Slightly impedes4=Neither impedes nor facilitates5=Slightly facilitates6=Moderately facilitates7=Substantially facilitates

Sample attributesTerm De nition

Motivator Mobilizes activates followersEvasive Refrains from making negative comments to maintain good relationships

and save faceBossy Tells subordinates what to do in a commanding wayDiplomatic Skilled at interpersonal relations tactful


However the initial pool of leadership items included leader behaviours and attributes described inwell-validated leadership theories (eg task vs relationship orientation charismatic leadershiptransformational leadership directive vs participative leadership)

In order to limit cultural biases in the survey the item pool was subjected to extensive reviewingto incorporate the views from many diVerent cultural backgrounds The GLOBE countryco-investigators (CCIs) from 36 diVerent countries wrote an item evaluation report in which theynoted any items containing words or phrases that were culturally inappropriate ambiguous or couldnot be adequately translated in the target countryrsquos native tongue Items that were problematic werecorrected if possible or dropped from further consideration CCIs also identi ed several additionalthemes which were not tapped by the initial item pool (eg face saving modesty status consciouscon ict inducer) The survey was translated from English into each countryrsquos dominant languageeither by the CCI some other person uent in both languages or by a professional translator Thetranslation was then independently translated again from the country language back to English Thisback-translation was then sent to the GLOBE Coordination Team (GCT) where it was compared tothe original English version of the survey A pragmatic approach (Brislin 1986) was taken inevaluating the adequacy of the back-translations Emphasis was put on the accuracy with which theconcepts were translated rather than the exact words being used in the translations Whendiscrepancies between the original survey and the back-translations were encountered the CCI wasnoti ed and the issue was discussed If necessary revisions of the item wording were made

Two pilot studies were conducted to derive distinguishable themes of leadership prototypicality andto assess psychometric properties of the resulting leadership scales In the rst pilot study a total of877 individuals from 28 diVerent countries completed the leadership survey (along with other itemsabout cultural and organizational values) In the second pilot study a total of 346 individuals from 12additional countries completed the leadership survey From exploratory (principal components) factoranalysis conducted in pilot study 1 a total of 16 leadership scales was formed In the second pilot study12 of these scales were replicated by con rmatory factor analysis (at the individual-level of analysiscf Kreft amp de Leeuw 1997) showing acceptable levels of t (indicated by ) AutocraticProcedural Inspirational Team Collaborative Decisive Diplomatic Modesty Face SavingHumane Orientation Autonomous Integrity Performance Orientation Administrative SelfCentred Status Conscious Visionary (a more detailed description is given in Hanges et al 1998)

Aggregation veri cation per scale was established by using the James DeMaree and Wolf (1984)rwg procedure as well as one-way analysis of variance to provide estimates of the intra-class correlationcoeYcient ( q 2 or ICC (1)) The average rwg for the 16 leadership scales ranged from 78 to 97 withthe grand average rwg of 88 the ICC (1) ranged from 07 to 35 with the average ICC (1) being 18and Cronbachrsquos alphas ranged from a low of 83 to a high of 98 with an average Cronbachrsquos alphaof 89 The 16 leadership scales substantially diVered in their relationship to one another The absolutecorrelations ranged from a low of 00 to a high of 86 Overall 38 of the interrelationships were ofmoderate to high magnitude (ie above r = 40) Therefore a second-order factor analysis on thesocietal level of analysis was conducted to determine how many unique themes were contained Fivesecond-order factors were obtained in pilot study 1 However they were not replicated in pilot study2 This lack of replication may be due to the fact that at the society level of analysis the ratio of thenumber of scales (16) to the number of data points (28 in pilot study 1 and 12 in pilot study 2) wasinadequate to yield a stable second-order structure (Hanges et al 1998)

In order to provide further evidence concerning the psychometric properties of the leadershipscales derived so far data from the main study of GLOBE were used For this study members of theGCT wrote additional items based on the results of the two pilot studies as well as focus groups andinterviews also conducted by the CCIs Several leadership attribute items were constructed in order toensure that the 16 original leadership scales were not biased by including only Western leadershipbehaviours For example several items were developed which describe autocratic narcissisticmanipulative and punitive behaviours because it was suggested in the interviews and focus groupsthat some societies might view these behaviours as enhancing leader eVectiveness The main GLOBEstudyrsquos data comprising (to date) 15 322 middle managers from 61 diVerent countries were used toidentify additional leadership scales among these items with the nal result being an expansion of theoriginal 16 leadership scales to 21 scales The ve additional basic factors represent both positive andnegative elements of leadership (viewed from a conventional Western perspective) Malevolent


Participative Con ict Inducer Team Integrator and Self Sacri cial All 21 leadership prototypicalityscales are found in Table 2 (scales were formed by summation of items)

Following Glickrsquos (1985) advice a generalizability analysis was performed to estimate the reliabilityof respondentsrsquo average leadership perceptions based on each scale More speci cally by generaliz-ability analysis two sources of random error are taken into account (1) item sampling (ie internalconsistency) and (2) people within society (ie inter-rater agreement) Generalizability coeYcients foreach scale are given in Table 2 (second column) With the exception of Diplomacy all coeYcientsindicate sound measurement of leadership prototypicality on the societal level of analysis Theconstruct validity evidence for the 21 leadership scales can only be considered as preliminary Thereare no a priori cross-cultural implicit leadership scales that were available to correlate the GLOBEscales with Clearly further validation of the GLOBE scales is needed

Table 2 Leadership prototypicality scales

Scales GCa Questionnaire items (terms)

1 Visionary 85 Visionary foresight anticipatory prepared intellectuallystimulating future oriented plans ahead inspirational

2 Inspirational 84 Enthusiastic positive encouraging morale boostermotive arouser con dence builder dynamicmotivational

3 Self Sacri cial 63 Risk taker self sacri cial convincing4 Integrity 84 Honest sincere just trustworthy5 Decisive 53 Wilful decisive logical intuitive6 Performance Oriented 63 Improvement excellence and performance oriented7 Team Collaborative 76 Group oriented collaborative loyal consultative

mediator fraternal8 Team Integrator 65 Clear integrator subdued informed communicative

coordinator team builder9 Diplomatic 29 Diplomatic worldly winwin problem solver eVective

bargainer10 Malevolent 93 Irritable vindictive egoistic non-cooperative cynical

hostile dishonest non-dependable intelligent11 Administrative 84 Orderly administratively skilled organized good

administrator12 Self Centred 92 Self-interested non-participative loner asocial13 Status Consciousness 83 Status conscious class conscious14 Con ict Inducer 79 Intra-group competitor secretive normative15 Face Saver 87 Indirect avoids negatives evasive16 Procedural 88 Ritualistic formal habitual cautious procedural17 Autocratic 92 Autocratic dictatorial bossy elitist ruler domineering18 Participative 87 Non-individual egalitarian non-micro manager

delegator19 Humane Orientation 83 Generous compassionate20 Modesty 66 Modest self-eVacing patient21 Autonomous 77 Individualistic independent autonomous unique

aGeneralizability CoeYcient It gives an estimate of scale consistency and societal level consensus and was calculated foreach scale using data from the main GLOBE study that is 15 322 middle managers from 61 diVerent countriesrepresenting a total of 779 local (non-multinational) organizations


Lead ership prototypicality scales used in the present stud y For the purpose of the present study the 21 basicleadership scales were used although it was not proven that they all represent distinguishable conceptsof leadership perceptions on the country level of analysis What we have is a set of 21 unidimensionalinternal consistent and socially agreeable leadership prototypicality scales that overlap conceptuallyand empirically to some degree In the main GLOBE study (N = 61 countries) the absolute values ofintercorrelations between the 21 leadership scales ranged from a low of r = 00 (between Modesty andAutocratic) to a high of r = 89 (between Visionary and Inspirational) Overall 42 of the correlationswere of moderate to high magnitude (ie above r = 40) As long as validation of distinct cross-culturalleadership dimensions is not established it was reasoned that using these 21 basic leadership scales(instead of a small number of second-order factors) allows us to more adequately identify leadershipdimensions that re ect the particular commonalities and diVerences within the sample of Europeancountries

Further methodological consid erations In the present study we are interested in cross-cultural variation notin individual variation within cultures Thus the lsquoecological approachrsquo on the country level of analysisis appropriate (Leung amp Bond 1989) and the country mean scores per leadership attribute scale wereused The problem of response bias (cf Leung amp Bond 1989) that is spurious correlations due toculture speci c item response bias was addressed in the GLOBE study Within-participants datastandardization as described in Chinese Culture Connection (1987) was performed The correlationsbetween raw scores and unbiased country scores in a GLOBE sample of 54 countries ranged betweenr = 90 and r = 98 (Hanges 1997 Hanges et al 1998) Thus the country-level scale means are ratherrobust against distortions from culturally endorsed response bias

Results

Cultural endorsement of lead ership prototypes

The rst research question testing the cultural endorsement hypothesis wasexamined by using hierarchical cluster analysis and discriminant analysis techniquesCluster analysis is a technique for grouping a set of cases based on their similaritiesand diVerences We used it to group the 22 European countries on the basis of theirpro les of leadership prototypicality In the rst instance a distance matrix(Euclidean D2) was calculated with the country level mean scores of the 21leadership prototypicality scales Since the variables used are measured in the sameunits standardization was not necessary (Everitt 1993) Secondly a cluster solutionwas generated by using the Ward method (Ward 1963) Wardrsquos method revealsmore accurately the true underlying cluster structure than alternative hierarchicalmethods (cf GriYn Hom DeNisi amp Kirchner 1985) Thirdly discriminantanalysis and multivariate ANOVA using the Ronen and Shenkar country clusters asa grouping variable were conducted With both statistics we tested the degree ofcompatibility of Ronen and Shenkarrsquos country clusters which are based on a varietyof cultural values and our data which by contrast are based solely on leadershipprototypicality ratings

European country clusters with similar leadership prototypes

The dendrogram of the hierarchical cluster solution based on all 22 countries usedin the present study is shown in Fig 1 The dendrogram should be read from rightto left Two major clusters emerged immediately with France constituting a thirdcluster As part of a NorthWest European region the Anglo Nordic and


Germanic countries and the Czech Republic formed visible subclusters As part ofa SouthEast European region the Latin European countries (Italy SpainPortugal) and Hungary and countries from Central Europe (Poland Slovenia)Near East (Turkey Greece) and Russia and Georgia formed visible subclustersOverall the Ronen and Shenkarrsquos cultural country clustering is visibly in accordwith the country clustering for leadership prototypes found in the present study

The Germanic cluster membership of former East Germany (not part of theRonen and Shenkar sample) is highly plausible It does not mean that there are no

Figure 1 Dendrogram of country clusters based on leadership prototypicality ratings Countriesparticipating in the present study are listed in the rst column Their cultural cluster membershipaccording to Ronen and Shenkar (1985) is listed in the second column In the third and fourthcolumns country clusters and major regions with similar leadership prototypes are described


diVerences in leadership prototypes between West German and former EastGerman managers However it does tell us that the diVerences between East andWest German leadership concepts are small in magnitude or highly speci c to asmall number of leadership attributes compared with the pro les of all otherEuropean countries sampled (Brodbeck amp Frese 1998) The Netherlandsrsquo position-ing in the AngloNordic cluster corresponds to Hofstedersquos classi cation (1980)which considers the Netherlands to be part of the Nordic cluster The CzechRepublic formed a somewhat separate subcluster which is part of the NorthWestEuropean region The other two Central European countries (Poland and Slovenia)formed a subcluster within the SouthEast European cluster Hungary howeverwas clustered together with the Latin European countries (Italy Spain Portugal)This may be explained with reference to the strong Roman Catholic tradition inHungary which is shared with the Latin European countries in comparison withthe predominantly orthodox tradition in other Eastern European countries (egGeorgia Russia) Contrary to our expectations and to Ronen and Shenkarrsquos (1985) ndings was the very distinct position of France It might have been expected thatthis country constitutes part of the Latin European cluster Instead it formed acluster which is separate from all other country groupings However this might bedue to sampling problems in France where data from only one industry ( nance)were gathered Therefore the cluster analysis reported above was repeated on thebasis of country-level data from solely the nance sector (only in Portugal was thissector not sampled) and the cluster structure reported in Fig 1 was basicallyreplicated More speci cally France again formed a third cluster that is welldistinguishable from a NorthWest European region (containing an AngloNordiccluster the Germanic cluster and the Czech Republic) and a SouthEast Europeanregion (containing the Latin Central and Near East cluster and Russia andGeorgia) This nding suggests culturally endorsed diVerences of substantialmagnitude between French leadership prototypes and all others especially the LatinEuropean countries1

Leadership prototypes and general cultural characteristics

Our hypothesis that leadership prototypes vary as a function of cultural diVerencesin Europe was tested using discriminant analysis and a multivariate ANOVA basedon the sample of 14 European countries common to Ronen and Shenkarrsquos study(1985) The discriminant analysis resulted in 100 correct prediction of clustermembership in accord with Ronen and Shenkarrsquos clustering (Anglo cluster IrelandUnited Kingdom Nordic cluster Sweden Finland Denmark Germanic cluster1The response pattern in France seems to be substantially diVerent from all other European regions and countriesOnly two leadership attribute scales are rated as highly prototypical of outstanding leadership as compared to arange of 7 to 10 scales found in the other clusters and countries (see Table 3) In Gerstner and Dayrsquos (1994) studythe leadership prototypicality ratings from French participants were generally rather low as compared to the ratingsfrom the other countries Interestingly further analysis based on the GLOBE data (from the nancial sector only)showed that French middle managers to not diVer from others when rating more general societal cultural itemshowever when rating leadership attributes they report generally lower levels of prototypicality as compared tomiddle managers from other European countries It seems that French middle managers display a content speci cresponse bias favouring lower ratings for prototypical leadership attributes as compared to middle managers fromother European countries


West Germany Austria Switzerland Latin cluster France Italy Spain PortugalNear Eastern cluster Turkey Greece see Fig 1 second column) The multivariateANOVA test for cluster membership using Pillairsquos trace F test statistic (the mostconservative multivariate test) resulted in a signi cant group membership eVect(F(49) = 207 p lt 05) of substantial eVect size estimated by using the Eta2-statistic( g 2 = 64) In summary these results strongly support the hypothesis that leader-ship prototypes vary as a function of cultural diVerences in accord with the Ronenand Shenkar (1985) clustering for European countries

Description of lead ership prototypes per cluster

To illustrate further the content of leadership concepts Table 3 presents rankingsof the 21 leadership prototypicality scales for each of the 10 country clustersidenti ed in the cluster analysis presented in Fig 1 The four-way split forleadership prototypicality in Table 3 was based on the scalesrsquo mean values percluster or country and ranges between lsquosubstantially or moderately facilitatesoutstanding leadershiprsquo (high positive) lsquoslightly facilitatesrsquo (low positive)lsquoslightly impedesrsquo (low negative) and lsquomoderately or substantially impedesrsquo (highnegative)

The rankings presented in Table 3 indicate that certain leadership attribute scaleswere reported as clearly facilitating outstanding leadership across all Europeancountries and clustersmdashexcept for France These include Inspirational VisionaryIntegrity Performance Orientation and Decisiveness lsquoTeam Integratorrsquo was alsopositively rated in all European clusters although some variation in ranking isapparent In the Latin Central and Near East European clusters lsquoTeam Integratorrsquoranked in the rst position in leadership prototypicality in the Anglo and Nordiccluster it ranked fourth and in the Germanic cluster as well as in the CzechRepublic Russia and Georgia it ranked between seventh and tenth position On thelower end of the ranking list lsquoSelf Centeredrsquo and lsquoMalevolencersquo were uniformlyreported as mainly impeding outstanding leadership in all clusters (includingFrance) Most of the remaining leadership prototypicality scales vary considerablyin ranking positions across the European clusters and countries For instancelsquoParticipationrsquo ranked among the highly prototypical attributes in the NorthWestEuropean region (the highest in France) and among the slightly facilitativeattributes in the SouthEast European region Another example of variation is thepositioning of the lsquoAdministrativersquo scale In the Anglo and Nordic countries itranked among the slightly prototypical leadership attributes By contrast in theGermanic cluster in the Czech Republic and in the SouthEast European clusterlsquoAdministrativersquo ranked among the highly prototypical leadership attributes Fur-thermore in Russia and Georgia good administrative skills ranked within the rsttwo most prototypical attributes for outstanding leadership

The results presented in Table 3 provide valuable information regarding thecontent of leadership concepts in diVerent cultural regions within EuropeHowever it is important to note that there may be considerable variation betweencountries within the same subclusters which are not shown in Table 3 Thus the


Tab

le3

Pro

toty

pica

lity

rank

ings

ofle

ader

ship

attr

ibut

esby

regi

onan

dco

untr

ycl

uste

r

Lea

ders

hip

prot

otyp

ical

ity

Nor

thW

est

Eur

opea

nre

gion

Sout

hE

ast

Eur

opea

nre

gion

Ang

loN

ordi

cG

erm

anic

(CSR

)(F

RA

)

Lat

inC

entr

alN

ear

Eas

t

(RU

S)(G

EO

)(G

BI

RL

)(S

WE

N

L

FIN

DE

N)

(CH

GE

Rw

G

ER

eA

US)

(IT

A

SPA

P

OR

HU

N)

(PO

LS

LO

)(T

UR

GR

E)

Hig

hpo

sitiv

ePe

rfor

man

ceIn

tegr

ityIn

tegr

ityIn

tegr

ityP

artic

ipat

ive

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Vis

iona

ryA

dmin

istr

ativ

e(f

acili

tate

sou

tsta

ndin

gIn

spir

atio

nal

Insp

iratio

nal

Insp

irat

iona

lP

erfo

rman

ceN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Perf

orm

ance

Vis

iona

ryD

ecis

ive

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Dec

isiv

ele

ader

ship

)V

isio

nary

Vis

iona

ryP

erfo

rman

ceA

dmin

istr

ativ

eIn

spir

atio

nal

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Vis

iona

ryP

erfo

rman

ceP

erfo

rman

ceT

eam

Inte

grat

orT

eam

Inte

grat

orN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Insp

irat

iona

lIn

tegr

ityD

iplo

mat

icIn

tegr

ityIn

spira

tiona

lV

isio

nary

Inte

grity

Per

form

ance

Vis

iona

ryN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Vis

iona

ryD

ecis

ive

Insp

irat

iona

lD

ecis

ive

Inte

grity

Dec

isiv

eD

ecis

ive

Dec

isiv

eV

isio

nary

Dec

isiv

eIn

tegr

ityA

dmin

istr

ativ

eIn

tegr

ityT

eam

Inte

grat

orPa

rtic

ipat

ive

Non

-aut

ocra

ticP

artic

ipat

ive

Par

ticip

ativ

eA

dmin

istr

ativ

eP

erfo

rman

ceD

iplo

mat

icT

eam

Inte

grat

orH

uman

eP

artic

ipat

ive

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Self

Sacr

ici

alD

iplo

mat

icIn

spira

tiona

lC

olla

bora

tive

Dip

lom

atic

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Col

labo

rativ

ePe

rfor

man

ceC

olla

bora

tive

Dip

lom

atic

Mod

esty

Low

posi

tive

Non

-aut

ocra

ticC

olla

bora

tive

Dip

lom

atic

Col

labo

rativ

eIn

spir

atio

nal

Non

-aut

ocra

ticC

olla

bora

tive

Part

icip

ativ

eP

artic

ipat

ive

Insp

irat

iona

l(s

light

lyfa

cilit

ates

)A

dmin

istr

ativ

eD

iplo

mat

icC

olla

bora

tive

Dec

isiv

eIn

tegr

ityPa

rtic

ipat

ive

Par

ticip

ativ

eN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Col

labo

rativ

eN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Dip

lom

atic

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Self

Sacr

ici

alM

odes

tyT

eam

Inte

grat

orSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Non

-aut

ocra

ticSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Dip

lom

atic

Self

Sacr

ici

alC

olla

bora

tive

Con

ic

tA

void

erM

odes

tyA

uton

omou

sP

erfo

rman

ceM

odes

tyM

odes

tyM

odes

tySt

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usM

odes

tySe

lfSa

cri

cial

Hum

ane

Hum

ane

Vis

iona

ryH

uman

eSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Hum

ane

Self

Sacr

ici

alA

uton

omou

sSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Hum

ane

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Dec

isiv

eSt

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usM

odes

tyP

artic

ipat

ive

Hum

ane

Mod

esty

Aut

onom

ous

Dip

lom

atic

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Aut

onom

ous

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Con

ic

tA

void

erP

roce

dura

lC

oni

ctA

void

erC

olla

bora

tive

Hum

ane

Aut

onom

ous

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Pro

cedu

ral

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Mod

esty

Low

nega

tive

Aut

onom

ous

Aut

onom

ous

Stat

usC

onsc

ious

Pro

cedu

ral

Self

Sacr

ici

alPr

oced

ural

Con

ic

tA

void

erA

uton

omou

sH

uman

eC

oni

ctA

void

er(s

light

lyim

pede

s)St

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usP

roce

dura

lC

oni

ctA

void

erSt

atus

Con

scio

usA

uton

omou

sF

ace

Save

rPr

oced

ural

Non

-aut

ocra

ticF

ace

Save

rPr

oced

ural

Pro

cedu

ral

Fac

eSa

ver

Aut

onom

ous

Face

Save

rP

roce

dura

lSe

lfC

ente

red

Hum

ane

Fac

eSa

ver

Pro

cedu

ral

Hig

hne

gativ

eFa

ceSa

ver

Fac

eSa

ver

Fac

eSa

ver

Stat

usC

onsc

ious

Fac

eSa

ver

Face

Save

rSe

lfC

ente

red

Self

Cen

tere

dSe

lfC

ente

red

Mal

evol

ent

(impe

des)

Self

Cen

tere

dSe

lfC

ente

red

Self

Cen

tere

dSe

lfC

ente

red

Mal

evol

ent

Self

Cen

tere

dM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tSe

lfC

ente

red

Mal

evol

ent

Key

A

US

=A

ustr

ia

CH

=Sw

itzer

land

CSR

=C

zech

Rep

ublic

D

EN

=D

enm

ark

FIN

=F

inla

ndF

RA

=Fr

ance

GB

=U

nite

dK

ingd

omG

ER

w=

Ger

man

yG

ER

e=

form

erE

ast

Ger

man

yG

EO

=G

eorg

ia

GR

E=

Gre

ece

HU

N=

Hun

gary

IT

A=

Ital

yIR

L=

Irel

and

NL

=N

ethe

rlan

dsP

OL

=P

olan

dPO

R=

Port

ugal

R

US=

Rus

sia

SLO

=Sl

oven

iaS

PA

=Sp

ain

SWE

=Sw

eden

T

UR

=T

urke

y


particular rankings should not be interpreted as valid for a single country that ispart of that region DiVerences between single countries are examined next

DiVerences in lead ership prototypes between European countries

For the second research question of identifying dimensions of leadership proto-types which underlie country diVerences across all European countries Multi-dimensional Scaling (MDS) was used MDS is a technique for calculating sets oflinear combinations of variables (dimensions) that represent a maximum pro-portion of the total variance in the proximities matrix of all cases In addition theproportion of the total variance represented by a particular set of dimensions canbe speci ed (R2) and tested (eg Kruskall Stress formula 1) MDS is a useful toolfor reducing the complexity of a multitude of variables to a small set of two orthree dimensions representing the core diVerences among the cases studied Thismethod has been widely employed in cross-cultural research as a means ofestablishing and replicating cultural dimensions which diVerentiate countries on thebasis of questionnaire ratings of cultural values (cf Leung amp Bond 1989) Forinterpretative purposes the leadership prototypicality scales which best representparticular MDS dimensions were identi ed with the regression method described inSmith Dugan and Trompenaars (1996)

MDS across European countries For 21 European countries MDS analysis using theCity Block metric (Coxon 1982) was conducted France was excluded from thisanalysis2 A three-dimensional solution t the proximities matrix best (KruskallStress formula 1 KS = 08 R2 = 97) A four-dimensional solution did not addsuYcient additional explained variance to the three-dimensional solution( D R2 = 01) and a one-dimensional solution did not result in an acceptable stresslevel (KS = 28 R2 = 78) The dimensions of a two-dimensional solution (KS = 16R2 = 90) were strongly associated with the rst two dimensions of the three-dimensional solution (rs = 100 rs = 77) Since the third dimension of the threedimensional solution explained an additional proportion of about 7 of the totalvariance and it had an interpretable meaning diVerent from the meaning of theother two dimensions the three-dimensional MDS solution was used here

lsquoThe naming of dimensions is as much an art as it is a sciencersquo (Smith 1997p246) In order to interpret the dimensions found the extent to which the 21leadership prototypicality scales were distinctively associated with the dimensionswas analysed A set of multiple regression analyses with the three MDS dimensionsas predictors of the 21 leadership scales as criteria were performed According toSmith et al (1996) a scale facilitates interpretation of an MDS dimension when themultiple correlation exceeds the 001 signi cance level the R2 value preferablyexceeds 70 and regression weights are distinctive Distinctiveness means that onlyone of the identi ed MDS dimensions is strongly associated with a leadership

2France apparently was an extreme outlying case Ex post tests for extreme cases supported this view MDSsolutions with an extreme outlier mainly re ect distances to that data point Hence the distances between the othercases are underestimated Therefore and in order to identify dimensions that represent all the European countriesstudied more adequately France was excluded


prototypicality scale ( b gt 70 is used here as the cut-oV criterion) and the otherMDS dimensions are only weakly associated (ie b lt 40)

The regression equations are described in Table 4 The rst dimension waslabelled lsquoInterpersonal Directness and Proximityrsquo It was shown to be mostdistinctively and negatively associated with lsquoFace Saverrsquo ( b = 2 90 R2 = 89p lt 0001) comprising leadership attributes such as indirect evasive avoidsnegatives and face saving with lsquoSelf Centredrsquo ( b = 2 73 R2 = 81 p lt 0001)comprising the attributes self-interested non-participative loner and asocial andwith lsquoAdministrativersquo ( b = 2 79 R2 = 79 p lt 001) comprising orderly organizedand good administrator Furthermore the rst dimension was most distinctly andpositively related with lsquoInspirationalrsquo ( b = 82 R2 = 83 p lt 0001) comprising forexample enthusiastic encouraging con dence builder morale booster and motivearouser and with lsquoIntegrityrsquo ( b = 79 R2 = 79 plt 0001) comprising for examplehonest sincere just and trustworthy In our view the label lsquoDirectnessrsquo (the

Table 4 Multiple regressions of MDS dimensions on leadership prototypicality scalesacross N=21 European countries

Leadership scales

Standardized Betas ( b )

MultipleR2

Dimension 1Interpersonal directness

and proximityDimension 2

ModestyDimension 3Autonomy

Visionary 44 31 2 53 59Inspirational 82 31 2 22 83Self Sacri cial 2 03 49 62 62Integrity 79 40 17 79Decisive 28Performance Orientation 18Team Collaborative 2 32 66 2 31 63Team Integrator 2 04 50 2 67 70Diplomacy 2 50 56 2 14 57Malevolent 2 68 2 29 2 40 68Administrative 2 79 04 26 71Self Centred 2 73 2 31 2 40 81Status Conscious 2 70 01 2 53 73Con ict Inducer 2 71 2 14 27 61Face Saver 2 90 16 18 89Procedural 2 77 41 12 79Participative 78 08 20 64Autocratic 2 59 43 2 44 70Modesty 2 50 64 28 74Humane Orientation 2 24 69 17 57Autonomy 2 16 2 21 79 71

plt01 plt001 plt0001Note France was excluded in the regression analyses


opposite of face saving) describes the communality of the various themes in theleadership prototypicality scales in a more neutral way than the label lsquoFace SavingrsquoThe latter label overemphasizes the motive to protect others from losing facewhich is only one of many other motives for interacting in an indirect wayThe label lsquoInterpersonal Proximityrsquo captures the meaning of the variables notdirectly addressed by the label lsquoInterpersonal Directnessrsquo such as enthusiasm(lsquoInspirationalrsquo) informal (lsquoNon-administrativersquo) or trustworthiness (lsquoIntegrityrsquo)

For the second and third dimension interpretation is less diYcult since each onewas distinctively associated with only one of the leadership scales The seconddimension is most strongly associated with lsquoModestyrsquo ( b = 64 R2 = 74 p lt 0001)comprising modest self-eVacing and patient The third dimension is distinctivelyassociated with lsquoAutonomyrsquo ( b = 79 R2 = 71 p lt 0001) comprising individualisticindependent autonomous and unique

In Fig 2 the European country scores for the two MDS dimensions lsquoInter-personal Directness and Proximityrsquo and lsquoAutonomyrsquo are plotted3 The major3A three-dimensional plot is usually less informative than a two-dimensional plot Therefore one dimension wasomitted As compared to lsquoModestyrsquo lsquoAutonomyrsquo relates somewhat more distinctively to the respective MDSdimension and its meaning is more diVerent from the meaning of the rst dimension Therefore lsquoAutonomyrsquo wasused as the second dimension in Fig 2

Figure 2 Country scores for two leadership prototypicality dimensions identi ed by across-regionMultidimensional Scaling analysis in 21 European countries AUS = Austria CH = SwitzerlandCSR = Czech Republic DEN = Denmark FIN = Finland GB = United Kingdom GERw =Germany GERe = former East Germany GEO = Georgia GRE = Greece HUN = HungaryITA = Italy IRL = Ireland NL = Netherlands POL = Poland POR = Portugal RUS = RussiaSLO = Slovenia ESP = Spain SWE = Sweden TUR = Turkey


European regions NorthWest versus SouthEast and even the more detailedsubclusters (Anglo Nordic Germanic Latin Central and Near East) that werediVerentiated by cluster analysis are clearly distinguishable in Fig 2 The lsquoInter-personal Directness and Proximityrsquo dimension mainly separated the SouthEastfrom the NorthWest European countries (the only exceptions are former EastGermany and Portugal) In the Germanic Anglo and Nordic countries leadershipattributes of interpersonal directness and proximity are perceived to be moreprototypical of outstanding leadership than in SouthEast European countries Inrespect of the lsquoAutonomyrsquo dimension the Germanic cluster Georgia and mostprominently the Czech Republic showed leadership attributes of autonomy to beperceived as more prototypical of outstanding leadership than in the AngloNordic Central Latin and Near East European countries

Relations between d imensions of societal culture and of lead ership prototypicality

The three leadership dimensions identi ed in our study were correlated (Spearmanrank correlations) with the two cultural dimensions for Europe reported in SmithDugan and Trompenaars (1996) which are labelled lsquoEgalitarian Commitmentrsquo andlsquoLoyal Involvementrsquo In this way the rank ordering of the countries on ourleadership dimensions was compared with the rank ordering of the same countriesin the Smith et al (1996) study

The correlation coeYcients indicate substantial relationships between the Smithet al dimension lsquoEgalitarian Commitmentrsquo and our dimension lsquoInterpersonalDirectness and Proximityrsquo (rs = 78 p lt 001) and between the Smith et aldimension lsquoLoyal Involvementrsquo and our dimension lsquoModestyrsquo (rs = 56 p lt 02) Therespective crossover correlations were low in magnitude and non-signi cant(rs = 16 rs = 2 08) This nding provides additional empirical support for theassumption that leadership prototypes correspond signi cantly with the moregeneral cultural values held by managers and employees in contemporary EuropeHowever the dimension lsquoAutonomyrsquo was not modelled by Smith et al (1996) andit did not correlate with either of their dimensions (rs = 05 rs = 00) We think thatlsquoAutonomyrsquo comprising leadership attributes such as individualistic independentautonomous and unique is an important additional dimension for diVerentiatingleadership prototypes in contemporary Europe

Compatibility of across- and within-regional d imensions

The purpose of conducting a within-region analysis was to answer the thirdresearch question whether the three dimensions identi ed re ect macro-leveldiVerences which distinguish between major cultural regions (eg NorthWest vsSouthEast) rather than micro-level diVerences within cultural regions Throughwithin-region analyses dimensions are identi ed which diVerentiate betweencountries within the major cultural regions The degree of overlap between thewithin-region dimensions and across-region dimensions tells us whether a simple


core set of variables can distinguish all countries across and within Europeancultural regions or whether a more diVerentiated approach is necessary

Multid imensional Scaling analysis within European regions

NorthWest European countries For 10 NorthWest European countries (the CzechRepublic was excluded as it was identi ed as an outlier see footnote 2 above) MDSanalysis was performed on the basis of the 21 leadership prototypicality scales Atwo-dimensional MDS solution t the data best (KS = 08 R2 = 97) The one-dimensional solution did not result in an acceptable stress level (KS = 25 R2 = 82)whilst the three-dimensional solution did not add suYcient explained variance( D R2lt 02) Therefore the two-dimensional MDS solution was used Multipleregression analyses revealed the rst dimension to be distinctively and positivelyassociated with lsquoSelf Centredrsquo ( b = 93 R2 = 86 p lt 01) comprising the leadershipattributes self-interest non-participative loner and asocial and lsquoCon ict Inducerrsquo( b = 93 R2 = 86 p lt 01) comprising secretive normative and intra-groupcompetitor and negatively with lsquoTeam Collaborativersquo ( b = 2 80 R2 = 87 p lt 01)comprising loyal collaborative group-oriented fraternal consultative and medi-ator and with lsquoTeam Integratorrsquo ( b = 2 86 R2 = 83 p lt 01) comprising clearsubdued informed communicative coordinator and team builder Therefore thisdimension is labelled lsquoSelf vs Group Orientationrsquo The second dimension wasdistinctively and positively associated with lsquoHumane Orientationrsquo ( b = 93 R2 = 88p lt 01) and thus was labelled accordingly

The dimensional plot for the NorthWest European countries is shown inFig 3 The clustering of countries is in line with Ronen and Shenkarrsquos clusteringof these countries It is evident that managers from Nordic European countriesperceived lsquoSelf Centredrsquo and lsquoCon ict Inducerrsquo to be less prototypical of outstand-ing leadership than managers from Germanic countries whilst managers fromNordic European countries perceived lsquoTeam Collaborativersquo and lsquoTeam Integrationrsquoto be more prototypical for outstanding leadership than managers from Germaniccountries The two Anglo European countries Ireland and England held a centralposition on that dimension There was considerable variance within the Germanicand Nordic clusters Most pronounced is the expression of self-centredness andcon ict inducement as more prototypical for outstanding leadership by managersfrom former East Germany as compared to West Germany Team integration andcollaboration were most strongly valued by managers in Finland With regard to thelsquoHumane Orientationrsquo dimension there is high variance within the Germanic andNordic subclusters and considerable overlap between the regional subclusters ofNorthWest Europe Humane orientation was perceived to be less prototypical foroutstanding leadership by managers from Germanic countries (with the exceptionof Austria) from Denmark and Finland than by managers from Anglo Europeancountries Sweden and the Netherlands

In summary it seems that the within-region dimensions found to distinguishbetween countries and cultural subclusters within the NorthWest European regionare somewhat diVerent in content than the across-region dimensions found forEurope overall


SouthEast European countries For eight SouthEast European countries (Georgiaand Russia were excluded because they were identi ed as extreme outliers seefootnote 2 above) the MDS analysis resulted in a two-dimensional MDS solution(KS = 06 R2 = 98) The one-dimensional solution did not result in an acceptablestress level (KS = 27 R2 = 74) and the three-dimensional solution did not addsuYcient explained variance ( D R2lt 01) Multiple regression results revealed the rst dimension to be distinctively and positively associated with lsquoFace Savingrsquo( b = 94 R2 = 98 p lt 0001) and with lsquoAutonomyrsquo ( b = 79 R2 = 93 p lt 001) andnegatively with lsquoPerformance Orientationrsquo ( b = 2 85 R2 = 82 p lt 05) Thisdimension was labelled lsquoIndirectness and Autonomyrsquo The second dimension wasnot suYciently strongly associated with any of the leadership prototypicality scaleslsquoSelf Sacri cialrsquo leadership attributes (eg risk taker convincing self sacri cial)came close to the distinctiveness criteria ( b = 60 R2 = 70 p lt 05) Thus thesecond dimension was designated as lsquoSelf Sacri cialrsquo

The two-dimensional MDS solution resulted in a distinct clustering of SouthEast European countries as is shown in Fig 4 The clear distinction between NearEast and Latin European countries is in line with Ronen and Shenkarrsquos clusteringand the Central European countries were also separately positioned from the othertwo clusters It is possible to surmise that in the Central and Near East Europeancountries leadership attributes of indirectness and autonomymdashat the cost of

Figure 3 Country scores for two leadership prototypicality dimensions identi ed by within-regionMultidimensional Scaling analysis of 10 NorthWest European countries AUS = AustriaCH = Switzerland DEN = Denmark FIN = Finland GB = United Kingdom GERw = GermanyGERe = former East Germany IRL = Ireland NL = Netherlands SWE = Sweden


performance orientationmdashare perceived to be more prototypical of outstandingleadership than in the Latin European countries Furthermore managers from theNear East and most of the Latin European countries perceived self sacri cialleadership attributes to be more prototypical of outstanding leadership thanmanagers in Central European countries (Poland and Slovenia)

In summary it seems that the within-region dimensions in SouthEast Europeare somewhat diVerent in content than the across-region dimensions found forEurope overall

Overlap between across-region and within-region d imensions

In order to estimate the overlap between across-region and within-region dimen-sions identi ed in the present study Spearman rank correlations between the twoclasses of dimensions were computed Table 5 shows high correlations between the rst and second dimensions of the across-regions and the within-regions analysesThe third across-region dimension correlated moderately to highly with each of the rst dimension in both subsamples On the one hand the high degree of overlapsuggests the use of a simple core set of across-region dimensions as theydiVerentiate between countries across and within the two major cultural regions inEurope On the other hand a more detailed within-region analysis revealed some

Figure 4 Country scores for two leadership prototypicality dimensions identi ed by within-regionMultidimensional Scaling analysis of eight SouthEast European countries GRE = GreeceHUN = Hungary ITA = Italy POL = Poland POR = Portugal SLO = Slovenia ESP = SpainTUR = Turkey


inconsistencies which need to be addressed It was shown that across-region andwithin-region dimensions diVer somewhat in meaning For example the meaning ofthe across-region dimension lsquoInterpersonal Directness and Proximityrsquo turns into asomewhat diVerent dimension within the NorthWest European country clusterThe respective within-region dimension was labelled lsquoSelf vs Group OrientationrsquoLeadership attributes of lsquoSelf Centrednessrsquo and lsquoCon ict Inducerrsquo take the lead inexplaining most of the country diVerences re ected by this dimension Simul-taneously the group orientation theme comes into play represented by the scaleslsquoTeam Collaborationrsquo and lsquoTeam Integrationrsquo which were negatively related to thisdimension In contrast when looking at the SouthEast European regionleadership attributes of lsquoFace Savingrsquo and lsquoAutonomyrsquo take the lead in explainingthe rst dimension (lsquoIndirectness and Autonomyrsquo) and leadership attributes ofgroup orientation do not diVerentiate between these countries In summary themore detailed approach of within-region analysis helps to identify more preciselyhow leadership prototypes diVer between countries in a particular cultural region

Discussion

Concerning our rst research question the results of this study support theassumption that in Europe leadership concepts vary by culture Speci cally the veclusters of European countries which according to previous cross-culturalresearch diVer in cultural values (Anglo Nordic Germanic Latin and Near EastEuropean countries) were upheld and shown to diVer in leadership prototypesOne additional cluster of countries emerged (Central Europe) represented by

Table 5 Spearman rank correlations between across-region and within-region MDSdimensions

Within-region dimensions

Across-region dimensions




NorthWest Europe (N=10)Dimension 1Self (vs Group) Orientation 2 84 2 27 88Dimension 2Humane Orientation 2 49 84 24

SouthEast Europe (N=8)Dimension 1Indirectness and Autonomy 2 74 31 54Dimension 2Self Sacri cial 38 71 2 12

plt05 plt01


Poland and Slovenia that share common leadership concepts that diVer from the ve other European clusters Compatibility of leadership concepts from countrieswithin the same cultural clusters and regions is more probable than from countriesthat belong to diVerent cultural clusters and regions

Regarding our second and third research questions of identifying leadershipprototypicality dimensions that diVerentiate European countries and regions wewould like to underline the following results Two of the three across-regionleadership prototypicality dimensions found were strongly associated with thecultural dimensions reported in a diVerent study of contemporary Europe Thusfurther support is given to the hypothesis that leadership prototypes are culturallyendorsed in Europe Substantial overlap was established between the across-regiondimensions and the within-region dimensions for NorthWest and SouthEastEuropean countries The high degree of overlap suggests the use of a simplecore set of across-region dimensions which are lsquoInterpersonal Directness andProximityrsquo lsquoAutonomyrsquo and lsquoModestyrsquo

On theoretrical grounds we argued that the in uential increment of cross-cultural leadership is linked to the degree of cultural diVerences in leadershipconcepts (Gerstner amp Day 1994 House et al 1997 1999 Lord amp Maher 1991Shaw 1990) To move beyond a formal role in in uencing others one must rst beperceived as a leader (an eVective or a trustworthy leader etc) It is unlikely thatsomeone not perceived as a leader can exercise the requisite in uence on otherswhich is necessary to perform eVectively In respect of culturally endorsedleadership concepts it is expected that the less they overlap in cross-culturalleaderndashfollower relationships the less likely it is that the leader will be accepted andthat the interpersonal relationships will be characterized by trust motivationand high performance

Practical implications

The ordering of countries on the identi ed leadership prototypicality dimension isa useful tool with which to model relative diVerences between leadership conceptsof diVerent cultural origin It may also be a useful mechanism to anticipate potentialproblems in cross-cultural interactions In more practical terms an understandingof culturally endorsed diVerences in leadership concepts appears to be a rst stepwhich can be taken by managers to adjust their leadership behaviour to thatrequired in a host country Knowledge about particular cultural variations inleadership prototypes can help expatriate managers to anticipate potential problemsin cross-cultural interactions within business more accurately For example in ourstudy it was shown that leadership attributes of lsquoInterpersonal Directness andProximityrsquo are more strongly associated with outstanding leadership in Nordiccountries (most prominently in Finland) than in Near East (eg Turkey) and CentralEuropean countries (eg Poland) and Russia and Georgia Furthermore leadershipattributes of lsquoAutonomyrsquo are more strongly associated with outstanding leadershipin Germanic countries (eg Austria) and the Czech Republic than in LatinEuropean countries (eg Portugal)


The particular dimensions of leadership attributes which were shown tocharacterize diVerent cultural regions and countries in Europe can be also used asa starting-point for cross-cultural training For instance leadership prototypicalityattributes (eg Autonomy) that most strongly diVerentiate two target countries (egCzech Republic vs Portugal) will be useful in developing a range of situations likelyto generate cross-cultural misunderstanding in leaderndashfollower relationships Fur-thermore the amount of prior training coaching and actual experience in thehost country necessary to ensure eVective cross-cultural leadership will obviouslydepend on the magnitude of diVerences between the cultures The culturalproximity of two countries will determine the type of materials and trainingmethods necessary for cross-cultural management preparations Finally one mayalso consider to select expatriate managers on the basis of how strongly theirleadership concepts overlap with the leadership concepts predominantly held in thetarget host country These recommendations are meant as an addition to not as asubstitute for other cross-cultural training content for example developingmutual respect for diVerences in conducting collaborative work in meetings (cfSmith 1997)

The rapid development of the European Community and the economicintegration of the member states produces a strong need for managers who canunderstand and adapt to cultural diVerences in work-related values and leadershipThe ndings of this study are of particular value to European cross-culturalmanagement for two reasons First our results are based on data gathered some5 years after major geopolitical changes within Europe most notably the fall ofthe Iron Curtain and German reuni cation in 1990 Moreover our results aresigni cantly associated with results from other comprehensive cross-cultural datasets gathered between the early 1960s and the late 1980s Therefore it seems thatthe covariation of cultural values and leadership prototypes found among Europeancountries and regions is fairly stable over time Secondly as Smith (1997) pointsout lsquoEuromanagersrsquo who want to be able to bridge cultural gaps in Europe mustconsider the full range of cultural variability within contemporary Europe Sinceour ndings are elicited from a wider range of countries from North West andSouth Europe as well as from Central East and Near East European countries thanhave hitherto been investigated this study provides unique input

Limitations and future d irections

Our research is limited to perceived aspects of leadership Behavioural diVerences inleadership across cultures as studied by Jago et al (1996) and Dorfman et al (1997)should also be incorporated into cross-cultural theories of leadership We assumethat there is a link between leadership perception and behaviour that in uencescross-cultural leadership However no direct empirical evidence has yet beenpresented to support this assertion In our study it was shown that there areculturally endorsed diVerences in the way people perceive and think about lsquooutstand-ing leadershiprsquo in Europe These diVerences should have an impact on the behaviourshown in leaderndashfollower relationships and thus in uence the eVectiveness ofcross-cultural management (Shaw 1990) Our results extend the generalizability of


the cultural endorsement hypothesis put forward by Gerstner and Day (1994) tocountries that are from one geopolitical regionmdashEurope We hope it can stimulatefuture research to address issues of leadership perception and behaviour in cross-cultural management The cultural regions found and the leadership prototypicalitydimensions identi ed for Europe provide a useful basis on which to developconcrete hypotheses for such research endeavours

Another potential limitation concerns the use of multidimensional scaling on thecountry level of analysis as a means of identifying leadership prototypicalitydimensions MDS dimensions are lsquotools for analysis that may or may not clarify asituationrsquo (Hofstede 1993 cited in Gerstner amp Day 1994) They are taxonomicconstructs As such they need to be validated by using other empirically groundedtaxonomic constructs which address the same or similar contents We nd itencouraging that the dimensions found were meaningfully associated with the moregeneral cultural dimensions reported by Smith et al (1996) Furthermore thewithin-region MDS dimensions identi ed for the NorthWest and the SouthEastof Europe were shown to be conceptually somewhat diVerent from the across-region MDS dimensions Thus when comparisons of countries which stem fromthe same or similar cultural regions need to be made more diVerentiatedapproaches are necessary (for an example see Szabo Brodbeck WeiblerWunderer amp Reber 1999) Although there were diVerences within Europeancultural regions we believe that a simple core set of dimensions can be used as abasis for establishing macro-level diVerentiation among all the European countriesstudied

Conclusion

This study extends previous cross-cultural research on culture and leadership intwo ways First it presents evidence that leadership concepts are culturallyendorsed in Europe a geographical region with diverse national cultures andincreasingly conjoint political and economic characteristics Secondly it developsand validates a set of dimensions representing core diVerences in leadershipprototypes between the European countries studied For the cross-cultural prac-titioner these results can be helpful (a) by supplying a better empirical basis for theexpatriatesrsquo accommodation of their own behaviour in the search for cross-culturaleVectiveness (b) by informing the trainerrsquos planning of curriculum and learningmethods for those engaged in preparation for cross-cultural encounters dependingon the cultural distance between home and host cultures and (c) by providinginsight for the consultant whose task it is to advise on structure systems andprocesses consonant with the cultural challenges

Bridging the gap between diVerent concepts and expectations about leadershipmanagement and work in general seems to be a task that successful lsquoEuro-managersrsquo can solve eVectively (Ratiu 1983 cited in Smith 1997) Since Europeancultures are diverse and are unlikely to merge in the near future we believe that theability to build conceptual bridges between cultures will remain a key competencefor cross-cultural leadership not only in Europe but also worldwide


Authors

Felix C Brodbeck University of Munich Michael Frese University of GiessenStaVan Akerblom Stockholm School of Economics Giuseppe Audia LondonBusiness School Gyula Bakacsi Budapest University of Economic SciencesHelena Bendova University of Jihoceske Domenico Bodega University of LuigiBocconi MuzaVer Bodur Bogazici University Simon Booth University ofReading Klas Brenk University of Ljubljana Phillippe Castel University ofBourgogne Deanne Den Hartog Free UniversitymdashAmsterdam Gemma Donnelly-Cox University of Dublin Trinity College Mikhail V Gratchev Russian Academyof Science Moscow Ingalill Holmberg Stockholm School of Economics SlawomirJarmuz University of Opole Jorge Correia Jesuino Instituto Superior des Sienciasdo Trabalho e da Empresa Revaz Jorbenadse Georgia Hayat E KabasakalBogazici University Mary Keating University of Dublin Trinity College GeorgeKipiani University of Tbilisi Edvard Konrad University of Ljubljana PaulKoopman Free UniversitymdashAmsterdam Alexandre Kurc University of Nancy 2Christopher Leeds University of Nancy 2 Martin Lindell Swedish School ofEconomics and Business Administration Jerzey Maczynski University of WroclawGillian S Martin University of Dublin Trinity College Jeremiah OrsquoConnellBentley College Athan Papalexandris Athens University of Economics andBusiness Nancy Papalexandris Athens University of Economics and BusinessJose M Prieto Complutense University Boris Rakitsky Institute of Perspectives ofthe Country Moscow Gerhard Reber Johannes Kepler University Argio SabadinUniversity of Ljubljana Jette Schramm-Nielsen Copenhagen Business SchoolMajken Schultz Copenhagen Business School Camilla Sigfrids Swedish School ofEconomics and Business Administration Erna Szabo Johannes Kepler UniversityHenk Thierry Tilburg University Marie Vondrysova University of South BohemiaJurgen Weibler University of Hagen Celeste Wilderom Tilburg UniversityStanislaw Witkowski University of Wroclaw Rolf Wunderer University of StGallen

Acknowledgements

This research is based on data from the Global Leadership and Organizational EVectivenessProgramme (GLOBE) a long-term research eVort of about 170 social scientists and managementscholars from more than 60 countries with the goal to develop a theory about the impact of culturalvariables on organizational and leadership values and practices and their eVectiveness The GLOBEprogramme and overall results are described in Den Hartog et al (in press) Hanges et al (1998)House et al (1997 1999)

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the comments from Paul Hanges Peter Dorfman RobertHouse and two anonymous reviewers to earlier versions of this article and to thank those whoparticipated in the study The preparation of this paper was supported by a grant (BR 14312-1) fromthe German Research Community (DFG) to the rst author

References

Bargh J A Chen M amp Burrows L (1996) Automaticity of social behavior Direct eVects of traitconstruct and stereotype activation on action Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 230ndash244


Brislin R W (1986) The wording and translation of research instruments In W J Lonner amp J WBerry (Eds) Field methods in cross-cultural research Cross-cultural research and methodology series (Vol 8pp 137ndash164) Beverly Hills CA Sage

Brodbeck F C amp Frese M (1998) Societal culture and lead ership in Germany At the interface between Eastand West Working paper University of Munich

Calori R amp de Woot P (1994) A European management mod el Beyond d iversity New York PrenticeHall

Cantor N amp Mischel W (1979) Prototypes in person perception Advances in Experimental SocialPsychology 12 4ndash52

Chinese Culture Connection (1987) Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions ofculture Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 21 5ndash47

Coxon A P M (1982) The userrsquos guid e to multid imensional scaling London HeinemannCronshaw S F amp Lord R G (1987) EVects of categorization attribution and encoding processes

on leadership perceptions Journal of Applied Psychology 72 97ndash106Den Hartog D House R J Hanges P J Ruiz-Quintanilla S A Dorfman P W amp 170

co-authors (1999) Culture speci c and cross culturally generalizable implicit leadership theoriesAre attributes of charismatictransformational leadership universally endorsed Lead ership Quarterly10 219ndash256

Dorfman P W Howell I P Hibino S Lee I K Tate U amp Bautista A (1997) Leadership inWestern and Asian countries Commonalities and diVerences in eVective leadership processesacross cultures Lead ership Quarterly 8 233ndash274

Everitt B S (1993) Cluster analysis London HeinemannGerstner C R amp Day D V (1994) Cross-cultural comparison of leadership prototypes Lead ership

Quarterly 5 121ndash134Glick W H (1985) Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate Pitfalls

in multilevel research Acad emy of Management Review 10 601ndash616Gri th R W Hom P W DeNisi A S amp Kirchner W K (1985) A comparison of diVerent

methods of clustering countries on the basis of employee attitudes Human Relations 38 813ndash840Hanges P (1997) Results from the GLOBE project Scale d evelopment and validation Paper presented at

the 2nd international GLOBE Symposium Wharton School of Management University ofPennsylvania Philadelphia PE

Hanges P House R J Dickson M W Dorfman P W amp 170 co-authors (1998) The d evelopmentand validation of scales measuring societal culture and culturally-shared implicit theories of lead ership Workingpaper University of Maryland

Hofstede G (1980) Culturersquos consequences International d iVerences in work-related values Beverly Hills CASage

Hofstede G (1993) Cultural constraints in management theories The Executive 7 81ndash94Hollander E P amp Julian J W (1969) Contemporary trends in the analysis of leadership perceptions

Psychological Bulletin 71 387ndash397House R J Hanges P J Ruiz-Quintanilla S A Dorfman P W Javidan M Dickson M amp 170

co-authors (1999) Cultural in uences on leadership and organizations Project GLOBE In W FMobley M J Gessner amp V Arnold (Eds) Advances in global lead ership (Vol 1 pp 171ndash233)Stamford CT JAI Press

House R J Wright N S amp Aditya R N (1997) Cross-cultural research on organizationalleadership A critical analysis and a proposed theory In P C Earley amp M Erez (Eds) Newperspectives in international industrial organisational psychology (pp 535ndash625) San Francisco CA NewLexington

Jago A G Reber G Bohnisch W Maczynski J Zavrel J amp Dudorik J (1993) Culturersquosconsequences A seven nation study of participation In D F Rogus amp A S Ratuni (Eds)Proceed ings of the 24th annual meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute (pp 451ndash454) Washington DCDecision Science Institute

James L R De Maree R G amp Wolf G (1984) Estimating within-group interrater reliability withand without response bias Journal of Applied Psychology 69 85ndash98

Kenney R A Blasovich J amp Shaver P R (1994) Implicit leadership theories Prototypes for newleaders Basic and Applied Social Psychology 15 409ndash437


Kreft I amp de Leeuw J (1998) Introducing multilevel mod eling Thousand Oaks CA SageLeung K amp Bond M H (1989) On the empirical identi cation of dimensions for cross-cultural

comparisons Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 20 133ndash151Lord R amp Maher K J (1991) Lead ership and information processing Linking perceptions to performance

Boston Unwin HymanLord R G Foti R amp De Vader C (1984) A test of leadership categorization theory Internal

structure information processing and leadership perceptions Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance 34 343ndash378

OrsquoConnell M S Lord R G amp OrsquoConnell M K (1990) DiVerences in Japanese and American lead ershipprototypes Implications for cross cultural training Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy ofManagement San Francisco CA

Phillips J S amp Lord R G (1981) Causal attributions and perceptions of leadership OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance 28 143ndash163

Ratiu I (1983) Thinking internationally A comparison of how international executives learnInternational Stud ies of Management and Organisation 13 139ndash150

Ronen S amp Shenkar O (1985) Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions A review andsynthesis Acad emy of Management Review 10 435ndash454

Rosch E (1978) Principles in categorization In E Rosch amp B B Lloyd (Eds) Cognition andcategorization (pp 27ndash48) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Shaw J B (1990) A cognitive categorization model for the study of intercultural managementAcad emy of Management Review 15 626ndash645

Smith P B (1997) Leadership in Europe Euro-management or the footprint of history EuropeanJournal of Work and Organizational Psychology 6 375ndash386

Smith P B Dugan S amp Trompenaars F (1996) National culture and the values of organizationalemployees Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 27 231ndash264

Szabo E Brodbeck F C Weibler J Wunderer R amp Reber G (1999) Similarities and diVerencesin leadership A comparison between the Germanic countries In M Vartiainen (Ed) Proceed ings ofthe ninth European congress on work and organizational psychology (p 255) Helsinki Finnish Institute ofOccupational Health

Trompenaars F (1993) Rid ing the waves of culture London BreatleyVroom V H amp Yetton P W (1973) Lead ership and d ecision making Pittsburg University of Pittsburg

PressWard J (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function Journal of the American

Statistical Association 58 236ndash244Zander L (1997) The licence to lead An 18 country stud y of the relationship between employeesrsquo preferences

regard ing interpersonal lead ership and national culture Published doctoral dissertation (ISBN 91 97173088) Stockholm School of Economics Sweden

Received 6 November 1998 revised version received 20 August 1999


of European identity denied some degree of diversityrsquo (p9) On the basis of suchobservations it would appear that Europeans will have to live with at least somediversity in management systems in the foreseeable future Equally important tonote is the fact that societal cultural diversity in Europe remains unquestionedIndeed it is frequently perceived to be preserved as much as possible

Consideration of the issues raised by Calori and de Woot invites exploration of animportant question speci cally the interrelationship between societal culturaldiversity and the diversity in management style The removal of trade barriers andthe growth of the single market within Europe increases the permeability of nationalboundaries Increasing numbers of companies are expanding beyond nationalborders managers are employed transnationally in cultures other than their ownand participation in cross-cultural teams is becoming more commonplace In thecross currents between the durability of national cultures (divergence) and thepractical necessities born of closer and more frequent interaction (convergence)there certainly is a lag in the chain of change from individual concepts to individualbehaviour to group behaviour to system to structural and nally to institutionalharmonization Even if convergence may some day prove to be the predominantforce in a eld like business managing the long-term transition toward a less diverseEurope will require research insights for the expatriates as well as for those (trainersand consultants) facilitating them in accommodating behaviour and adjusting theirmanagerial context in consequent ways Only then will cross-border assigneessuccessfully manage the increasingly complex matrix of impact points where culturecontinues to aVect interactions in the world of work For instance the more weknow about the leadershipculture impact point the more eVective the manage-ment of todayrsquos and tomorrowrsquos diversity will be In this regard empirical data onthe cultural variation of leadership concepts can be helpful

Leadership categorization theory (Lord amp Maher 1991) suggests that the betterthe match between a perceived individual and the leadership concept held by theperceiver the more likely it is that the perceiver actually lsquoseesrsquo the individual as aleader Followers who categorize a manager as a prototypical leader are likely toallow himher to exert leadership in uence on them If leadership concepts diVeras a function of cultural diVerences they can constrain the in uence of expatriatemanagers in other words the more leadership concepts diVer between managersand subordinates or colleagues the less in uence will be exerted

Our study investigates the relationship between culture and leadership conceptsin Europe on the basis of extensive empirical research which focuses oncross-cultural diVerences in leadership Our ndings can bene t the developmentof cross-cultural management training coaching and consulting

Leadership perception

The evolution and operation of leadership concepts follows the more fundamentalprinciples formulated in psychological theories of human perception cognition andbehaviour The human information processor uses context speci c schemata orprototypes to categorize perceptions (Cantor amp Mischel 1979 Rosch 1978) A





















Research questions





Method

Sample






































Results




















Tab

le3

Pro

toty

pica

lity

rank

ings

ofle

ader

ship

attr

ibut

esby

regi

onan

dco

untr

ycl

uste

r

Lea

ders

hip

prot

otyp

ical

ity

Nor

thW

est

Eur

opea

nre

gion

Sout

hE

ast

Eur

opea

nre

gion

Ang

loN

ordi

cG

erm

anic

(CSR

)(F

RA

)

Lat

inC

entr

alN

ear

Eas

t

(RU

S)(G

EO

)(G

BI

RL

)(S

WE

N

L

FIN

DE

N)

(CH

GE

Rw

G

ER

eA

US)

(IT

A

SPA

P

OR

HU

N)

(PO

LS

LO

)(T

UR

GR

E)

Hig

hpo

sitiv

ePe

rfor

man

ceIn

tegr

ityIn

tegr

ityIn

tegr

ityP

artic

ipat

ive

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Vis

iona

ryA

dmin

istr

ativ

e(f

acili

tate

sou

tsta

ndin

gIn

spir

atio

nal

Insp

iratio

nal

Insp

irat

iona

lP

erfo

rman

ceN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Perf

orm

ance

Vis

iona

ryD

ecis

ive

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Dec

isiv

ele

ader

ship

)V

isio

nary

Vis

iona

ryP

erfo

rman

ceA

dmin

istr

ativ

eIn

spir

atio

nal

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Vis

iona

ryP

erfo

rman

ceP

erfo

rman

ceT

eam

Inte

grat

orT

eam

Inte

grat

orN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Insp

irat

iona

lIn

tegr

ityD

iplo

mat

icIn

tegr

ityIn

spira

tiona

lV

isio

nary

Inte

grity

Per

form

ance

Vis

iona

ryN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Vis

iona

ryD

ecis

ive

Insp

irat

iona

lD

ecis

ive

Inte

grity

Dec

isiv

eD

ecis

ive

Dec

isiv

eV

isio

nary

Dec

isiv

eIn

tegr

ityA

dmin

istr

ativ

eIn

tegr

ityT

eam

Inte

grat

orPa

rtic

ipat

ive

Non

-aut

ocra

ticP

artic

ipat

ive

Par

ticip

ativ

eA

dmin

istr

ativ

eP

erfo

rman

ceD

iplo

mat

icT

eam

Inte

grat

orH

uman

eP

artic

ipat

ive

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Self

Sacr

ici

alD

iplo

mat

icIn

spira

tiona

lC

olla

bora

tive

Dip

lom

atic

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Col

labo

rativ

ePe

rfor

man

ceC

olla

bora

tive

Dip

lom

atic

Mod

esty

Low

posi

tive

Non

-aut

ocra

ticC

olla

bora

tive

Dip

lom

atic

Col

labo

rativ

eIn

spir

atio

nal

Non

-aut

ocra

ticC

olla

bora

tive

Part

icip

ativ

eP

artic

ipat

ive

Insp

irat

iona

l(s

light

lyfa

cilit

ates

)A

dmin

istr

ativ

eD

iplo

mat

icC

olla

bora

tive

Dec

isiv

eIn

tegr

ityPa

rtic

ipat

ive

Par

ticip

ativ

eN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Col

labo

rativ

eN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Dip

lom

atic

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Self

Sacr

ici

alM

odes

tyT

eam

Inte

grat

orSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Non

-aut

ocra

ticSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Dip

lom

atic

Self

Sacr

ici

alC

olla

bora

tive

Con

ic

tA

void

erM

odes

tyA

uton

omou

sP

erfo

rman

ceM

odes

tyM

odes

tyM

odes

tySt

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usM

odes

tySe

lfSa

cri

cial

Hum

ane

Hum

ane

Vis

iona

ryH

uman

eSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Hum

ane

Self

Sacr

ici

alA

uton

omou

sSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Hum

ane

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Dec

isiv

eSt

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usM

odes

tyP

artic

ipat

ive

Hum

ane

Mod

esty

Aut

onom

ous

Dip

lom

atic

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Aut

onom

ous

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Con

ic

tA

void

erP

roce

dura

lC

oni

ctA

void

erC

olla

bora

tive

Hum

ane

Aut

onom

ous

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Pro

cedu

ral

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Mod

esty

Low

nega

tive

Aut

onom

ous

Aut

onom

ous

Stat

usC

onsc

ious

Pro

cedu

ral

Self

Sacr

ici

alPr

oced

ural

Con

ic

tA

void

erA

uton

omou

sH

uman

eC

oni

ctA

void

er(s

light

lyim

pede

s)St

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usP

roce

dura

lC

oni

ctA

void

erSt

atus

Con

scio

usA

uton

omou

sF

ace

Save

rPr

oced

ural

Non

-aut

ocra

ticF

ace

Save

rPr

oced

ural

Pro

cedu

ral

Fac

eSa

ver

Aut

onom

ous

Face

Save

rP

roce

dura

lSe

lfC

ente

red

Hum

ane

Fac

eSa

ver

Pro

cedu

ral

Hig

hne

gativ

eFa

ceSa

ver

Fac

eSa

ver

Fac

eSa

ver

Stat

usC

onsc

ious

Fac

eSa

ver

Face

Save

rSe

lfC

ente

red

Self

Cen

tere

dSe

lfC

ente

red

Mal

evol

ent

(impe

des)

Self

Cen

tere

dSe

lfC

ente

red

Self

Cen

tere

dSe

lfC

ente

red

Mal

evol

ent

Self

Cen

tere

dM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tSe

lfC

ente

red

Mal

evol

ent

Key

A

US

=A

ustr

ia

CH

=Sw

itzer

land

CSR

=C

zech

Rep

ublic

D

EN

=D

enm

ark

FIN

=F

inla

ndF

RA

=Fr

ance

GB

=U

nite

dK

ingd

omG

ER

w=

Ger

man

yG

ER

e=

form

erE

ast

Ger

man

yG

EO

=G

eorg

ia

GR

E=

Gre

ece

HU

N=

Hun

gary

IT

A=

Ital

yIR

L=

Irel

and

NL

=N

ethe

rlan

dsP

OL

=P

olan

dPO

R=

Port

ugal

R

US=

Rus

sia

SLO

=Sl

oven

iaS

PA

=Sp

ain

SWE

=Sw

eden

T

UR

=T

urke

y












Leadership scales


MultipleR2




































Discussion










plt05 plt01















Conclusion




Authors


Acknowledgements



References

































































Research questions





Method

Sample






































Results




















Tab

le3

Pro

toty

pica

lity

rank

ings

ofle

ader

ship

attr

ibut

esby

regi

onan

dco

untr

ycl

uste

r

Lea

ders

hip

prot

otyp

ical

ity

Nor

thW

est

Eur

opea

nre

gion

Sout

hE

ast

Eur

opea

nre

gion

Ang

loN

ordi

cG

erm

anic

(CSR

)(F

RA

)

Lat

inC

entr

alN

ear

Eas

t

(RU

S)(G

EO

)(G

BI

RL

)(S

WE

N

L

FIN

DE

N)

(CH

GE

Rw

G

ER

eA

US)

(IT

A

SPA

P

OR

HU

N)

(PO

LS

LO

)(T

UR

GR

E)

Hig

hpo

sitiv

ePe

rfor

man

ceIn

tegr

ityIn

tegr

ityIn

tegr

ityP

artic

ipat

ive

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Vis

iona

ryA

dmin

istr

ativ

e(f

acili

tate

sou

tsta

ndin

gIn

spir

atio

nal

Insp

iratio

nal

Insp

irat

iona

lP

erfo

rman

ceN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Perf

orm

ance

Vis

iona

ryD

ecis

ive

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Dec

isiv

ele

ader

ship

)V

isio

nary

Vis

iona

ryP

erfo

rman

ceA

dmin

istr

ativ

eIn

spir

atio

nal

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Vis

iona

ryP

erfo

rman

ceP

erfo

rman

ceT

eam

Inte

grat

orT

eam

Inte

grat

orN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Insp

irat

iona

lIn

tegr

ityD

iplo

mat

icIn

tegr

ityIn

spira

tiona

lV

isio

nary

Inte

grity

Per

form

ance

Vis

iona

ryN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Vis

iona

ryD

ecis

ive

Insp

irat

iona

lD

ecis

ive

Inte

grity

Dec

isiv

eD

ecis

ive

Dec

isiv

eV

isio

nary

Dec

isiv

eIn

tegr

ityA

dmin

istr

ativ

eIn

tegr

ityT

eam

Inte

grat

orPa

rtic

ipat

ive

Non

-aut

ocra

ticP

artic

ipat

ive

Par

ticip

ativ

eA

dmin

istr

ativ

eP

erfo

rman

ceD

iplo

mat

icT

eam

Inte

grat

orH

uman

eP

artic

ipat

ive

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Self

Sacr

ici

alD

iplo

mat

icIn

spira

tiona

lC

olla

bora

tive

Dip

lom

atic

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Col

labo

rativ

ePe

rfor

man

ceC

olla

bora

tive

Dip

lom

atic

Mod

esty

Low

posi

tive

Non

-aut

ocra

ticC

olla

bora

tive

Dip

lom

atic

Col

labo

rativ

eIn

spir

atio

nal

Non

-aut

ocra

ticC

olla

bora

tive

Part

icip

ativ

eP

artic

ipat

ive

Insp

irat

iona

l(s

light

lyfa

cilit

ates

)A

dmin

istr

ativ

eD

iplo

mat

icC

olla

bora

tive

Dec

isiv

eIn

tegr

ityPa

rtic

ipat

ive

Par

ticip

ativ

eN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Col

labo

rativ

eN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Dip

lom

atic

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Self

Sacr

ici

alM

odes

tyT

eam

Inte

grat

orSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Non

-aut

ocra

ticSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Dip

lom

atic

Self

Sacr

ici

alC

olla

bora

tive

Con

ic

tA

void

erM

odes

tyA

uton

omou

sP

erfo

rman

ceM

odes

tyM

odes

tyM

odes

tySt

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usM

odes

tySe

lfSa

cri

cial

Hum

ane

Hum

ane

Vis

iona

ryH

uman

eSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Hum

ane

Self

Sacr

ici

alA

uton

omou

sSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Hum

ane

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Dec

isiv

eSt

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usM

odes

tyP

artic

ipat

ive

Hum

ane

Mod

esty

Aut

onom

ous

Dip

lom

atic

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Aut

onom

ous

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Con

ic

tA

void

erP

roce

dura

lC

oni

ctA

void

erC

olla

bora

tive

Hum

ane

Aut

onom

ous

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Pro

cedu

ral

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Mod

esty

Low

nega

tive

Aut

onom

ous

Aut

onom

ous

Stat

usC

onsc

ious

Pro

cedu

ral

Self

Sacr

ici

alPr

oced

ural

Con

ic

tA

void

erA

uton

omou

sH

uman

eC

oni

ctA

void

er(s

light

lyim

pede

s)St

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usP

roce

dura

lC

oni

ctA

void

erSt

atus

Con

scio

usA

uton

omou

sF

ace

Save

rPr

oced

ural

Non

-aut

ocra

ticF

ace

Save

rPr

oced

ural

Pro

cedu

ral

Fac

eSa

ver

Aut

onom

ous

Face

Save

rP

roce

dura

lSe

lfC

ente

red

Hum

ane

Fac

eSa

ver

Pro

cedu

ral

Hig

hne

gativ

eFa

ceSa

ver

Fac

eSa

ver

Fac

eSa

ver

Stat

usC

onsc

ious

Fac

eSa

ver

Face

Save

rSe

lfC

ente

red

Self

Cen

tere

dSe

lfC

ente

red

Mal

evol

ent

(impe

des)

Self

Cen

tere

dSe

lfC

ente

red

Self

Cen

tere

dSe

lfC

ente

red

Mal

evol

ent

Self

Cen

tere

dM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tSe

lfC

ente

red

Mal

evol

ent

Key

A

US

=A

ustr

ia

CH

=Sw

itzer

land

CSR

=C

zech

Rep

ublic

D

EN

=D

enm

ark

FIN

=F

inla

ndF

RA

=Fr

ance

GB

=U

nite

dK

ingd

omG

ER

w=

Ger

man

yG

ER

e=

form

erE

ast

Ger

man

yG

EO

=G

eorg

ia

GR

E=

Gre

ece

HU

N=

Hun

gary

IT

A=

Ital

yIR

L=

Irel

and

NL

=N

ethe

rlan

dsP

OL

=P

olan

dPO

R=

Port

ugal

R

US=

Rus

sia

SLO

=Sl

oven

iaS

PA

=Sp

ain

SWE

=Sw

eden

T

UR

=T

urke

y












Leadership scales


MultipleR2




































Discussion










plt05 plt01















Conclusion




Authors


Acknowledgements



References
















































Method

Sample






































Results




















Tab

le3

Pro

toty

pica

lity

rank

ings

ofle

ader

ship

attr

ibut

esby

regi

onan

dco

untr

ycl

uste

r

Lea

ders

hip

prot

otyp

ical

ity

Nor

thW

est

Eur

opea

nre

gion

Sout

hE

ast

Eur

opea

nre

gion

Ang

loN

ordi

cG

erm

anic

(CSR

)(F

RA

)

Lat

inC

entr

alN

ear

Eas

t

(RU

S)(G

EO

)(G

BI

RL

)(S

WE

N

L

FIN

DE

N)

(CH

GE

Rw

G

ER

eA

US)

(IT

A

SPA

P

OR

HU

N)

(PO

LS

LO

)(T

UR

GR

E)

Hig

hpo

sitiv

ePe

rfor

man

ceIn

tegr

ityIn

tegr

ityIn

tegr

ityP

artic

ipat

ive

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Vis

iona

ryA

dmin

istr

ativ

e(f

acili

tate

sou

tsta

ndin

gIn

spir

atio

nal

Insp

iratio

nal

Insp

irat

iona

lP

erfo

rman

ceN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Perf

orm

ance

Vis

iona

ryD

ecis

ive

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Dec

isiv

ele

ader

ship

)V

isio

nary

Vis

iona

ryP

erfo

rman

ceA

dmin

istr

ativ

eIn

spir

atio

nal

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Vis

iona

ryP

erfo

rman

ceP

erfo

rman

ceT

eam

Inte

grat

orT

eam

Inte

grat

orN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Insp

irat

iona

lIn

tegr

ityD

iplo

mat

icIn

tegr

ityIn

spira

tiona

lV

isio

nary

Inte

grity

Per

form

ance

Vis

iona

ryN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Vis

iona

ryD

ecis

ive

Insp

irat

iona

lD

ecis

ive

Inte

grity

Dec

isiv

eD

ecis

ive

Dec

isiv

eV

isio

nary

Dec

isiv

eIn

tegr

ityA

dmin

istr

ativ

eIn

tegr

ityT

eam

Inte

grat

orPa

rtic

ipat

ive

Non

-aut

ocra

ticP

artic

ipat

ive

Par

ticip

ativ

eA

dmin

istr

ativ

eP

erfo

rman

ceD

iplo

mat

icT

eam

Inte

grat

orH

uman

eP

artic

ipat

ive

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Self

Sacr

ici

alD

iplo

mat

icIn

spira

tiona

lC

olla

bora

tive

Dip

lom

atic

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Col

labo

rativ

ePe

rfor

man

ceC

olla

bora

tive

Dip

lom

atic

Mod

esty

Low

posi

tive

Non

-aut

ocra

ticC

olla

bora

tive

Dip

lom

atic

Col

labo

rativ

eIn

spir

atio

nal

Non

-aut

ocra

ticC

olla

bora

tive

Part

icip

ativ

eP

artic

ipat

ive

Insp

irat

iona

l(s

light

lyfa

cilit

ates

)A

dmin

istr

ativ

eD

iplo

mat

icC

olla

bora

tive

Dec

isiv

eIn

tegr

ityPa

rtic

ipat

ive

Par

ticip

ativ

eN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Col

labo

rativ

eN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Dip

lom

atic

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Self

Sacr

ici

alM

odes

tyT

eam

Inte

grat

orSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Non

-aut

ocra

ticSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Dip

lom

atic

Self

Sacr

ici

alC

olla

bora

tive

Con

ic

tA

void

erM

odes

tyA

uton

omou

sP

erfo

rman

ceM

odes

tyM

odes

tyM

odes

tySt

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usM

odes

tySe

lfSa

cri

cial

Hum

ane

Hum

ane

Vis

iona

ryH

uman

eSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Hum

ane

Self

Sacr

ici

alA

uton

omou

sSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Hum

ane

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Dec

isiv

eSt

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usM

odes

tyP

artic

ipat

ive

Hum

ane

Mod

esty

Aut

onom

ous

Dip

lom

atic

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Aut

onom

ous

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Con

ic

tA

void

erP

roce

dura

lC

oni

ctA

void

erC

olla

bora

tive

Hum

ane

Aut

onom

ous

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Pro

cedu

ral

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Mod

esty

Low

nega

tive

Aut

onom

ous

Aut

onom

ous

Stat

usC

onsc

ious

Pro

cedu

ral

Self

Sacr

ici

alPr

oced

ural

Con

ic

tA

void

erA

uton

omou

sH

uman

eC

oni

ctA

void

er(s

light

lyim

pede

s)St

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usP

roce

dura

lC

oni

ctA

void

erSt

atus

Con

scio

usA

uton

omou

sF

ace

Save

rPr

oced

ural

Non

-aut

ocra

ticF

ace

Save

rPr

oced

ural

Pro

cedu

ral

Fac

eSa

ver

Aut

onom

ous

Face

Save

rP

roce

dura

lSe

lfC

ente

red

Hum

ane

Fac

eSa

ver

Pro

cedu

ral

Hig

hne

gativ

eFa

ceSa

ver

Fac

eSa

ver

Fac

eSa

ver

Stat

usC

onsc

ious

Fac

eSa

ver

Face

Save

rSe

lfC

ente

red

Self

Cen

tere

dSe

lfC

ente

red

Mal

evol

ent

(impe

des)

Self

Cen

tere

dSe

lfC

ente

red

Self

Cen

tere

dSe

lfC

ente

red

Mal

evol

ent

Self

Cen

tere

dM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tSe

lfC

ente

red

Mal

evol

ent

Key

A

US

=A

ustr

ia

CH

=Sw

itzer

land

CSR

=C

zech

Rep

ublic

D

EN

=D

enm

ark

FIN

=F

inla

ndF

RA

=Fr

ance

GB

=U

nite

dK

ingd

omG

ER

w=

Ger

man

yG

ER

e=

form

erE

ast

Ger

man

yG

EO

=G

eorg

ia

GR

E=

Gre

ece

HU

N=

Hun

gary

IT

A=

Ital

yIR

L=

Irel

and

NL

=N

ethe

rlan

dsP

OL

=P

olan

dPO

R=

Port

ugal

R

US=

Rus

sia

SLO

=Sl

oven

iaS

PA

=Sp

ain

SWE

=Sw

eden

T

UR

=T

urke

y












Leadership scales


MultipleR2




































Discussion










plt05 plt01















Conclusion




Authors


Acknowledgements



References

















































































Results




















Tab

le3

Pro

toty

pica

lity

rank

ings

ofle

ader

ship

attr

ibut

esby

regi

onan

dco

untr

ycl

uste

r

Lea

ders

hip

prot

otyp

ical

ity

Nor

thW

est

Eur

opea

nre

gion

Sout

hE

ast

Eur

opea

nre

gion

Ang

loN

ordi

cG

erm

anic

(CSR

)(F

RA

)

Lat

inC

entr

alN

ear

Eas

t

(RU

S)(G

EO

)(G

BI

RL

)(S

WE

N

L

FIN

DE

N)

(CH

GE

Rw

G

ER

eA

US)

(IT

A

SPA

P

OR

HU

N)

(PO

LS

LO

)(T

UR

GR

E)

Hig

hpo

sitiv

ePe

rfor

man

ceIn

tegr

ityIn

tegr

ityIn

tegr

ityP

artic

ipat

ive

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Vis

iona

ryA

dmin

istr

ativ

e(f

acili

tate

sou

tsta

ndin

gIn

spir

atio

nal

Insp

iratio

nal

Insp

irat

iona

lP

erfo

rman

ceN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Perf

orm

ance

Vis

iona

ryD

ecis

ive

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Dec

isiv

ele

ader

ship

)V

isio

nary

Vis

iona

ryP

erfo

rman

ceA

dmin

istr

ativ

eIn

spir

atio

nal

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Vis

iona

ryP

erfo

rman

ceP

erfo

rman

ceT

eam

Inte

grat

orT

eam

Inte

grat

orN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Insp

irat

iona

lIn

tegr

ityD

iplo

mat

icIn

tegr

ityIn

spira

tiona

lV

isio

nary

Inte

grity

Per

form

ance

Vis

iona

ryN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Vis

iona

ryD

ecis

ive

Insp

irat

iona

lD

ecis

ive

Inte

grity

Dec

isiv

eD

ecis

ive

Dec

isiv

eV

isio

nary

Dec

isiv

eIn

tegr

ityA

dmin

istr

ativ

eIn

tegr

ityT

eam

Inte

grat

orPa

rtic

ipat

ive

Non

-aut

ocra

ticP

artic

ipat

ive

Par

ticip

ativ

eA

dmin

istr

ativ

eP

erfo

rman

ceD

iplo

mat

icT

eam

Inte

grat

orH

uman

eP

artic

ipat

ive

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Self

Sacr

ici

alD

iplo

mat

icIn

spira

tiona

lC

olla

bora

tive

Dip

lom

atic

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Col

labo

rativ

ePe

rfor

man

ceC

olla

bora

tive

Dip

lom

atic

Mod

esty

Low

posi

tive

Non

-aut

ocra

ticC

olla

bora

tive

Dip

lom

atic

Col

labo

rativ

eIn

spir

atio

nal

Non

-aut

ocra

ticC

olla

bora

tive

Part

icip

ativ

eP

artic

ipat

ive

Insp

irat

iona

l(s

light

lyfa

cilit

ates

)A

dmin

istr

ativ

eD

iplo

mat

icC

olla

bora

tive

Dec

isiv

eIn

tegr

ityPa

rtic

ipat

ive

Par

ticip

ativ

eN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Col

labo

rativ

eN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Dip

lom

atic

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Self

Sacr

ici

alM

odes

tyT

eam

Inte

grat

orSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Non

-aut

ocra

ticSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Dip

lom

atic

Self

Sacr

ici

alC

olla

bora

tive

Con

ic

tA

void

erM

odes

tyA

uton

omou

sP

erfo

rman

ceM

odes

tyM

odes

tyM

odes

tySt

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usM

odes

tySe

lfSa

cri

cial

Hum

ane

Hum

ane

Vis

iona

ryH

uman

eSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Hum

ane

Self

Sacr

ici

alA

uton

omou

sSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Hum

ane

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Dec

isiv

eSt

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usM

odes

tyP

artic

ipat

ive

Hum

ane

Mod

esty

Aut

onom

ous

Dip

lom

atic

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Aut

onom

ous

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Con

ic

tA

void

erP

roce

dura

lC

oni

ctA

void

erC

olla

bora

tive

Hum

ane

Aut

onom

ous

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Pro

cedu

ral

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Mod

esty

Low

nega

tive

Aut

onom

ous

Aut

onom

ous

Stat

usC

onsc

ious

Pro

cedu

ral

Self

Sacr

ici

alPr

oced

ural

Con

ic

tA

void

erA

uton

omou

sH

uman

eC

oni

ctA

void

er(s

light

lyim

pede

s)St

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usP

roce

dura

lC

oni

ctA

void

erSt

atus

Con

scio

usA

uton

omou

sF

ace

Save

rPr

oced

ural

Non

-aut

ocra

ticF

ace

Save

rPr

oced

ural

Pro

cedu

ral

Fac

eSa

ver

Aut

onom

ous

Face

Save

rP

roce

dura

lSe

lfC

ente

red

Hum

ane

Fac

eSa

ver

Pro

cedu

ral

Hig

hne

gativ

eFa

ceSa

ver

Fac

eSa

ver

Fac

eSa

ver

Stat

usC

onsc

ious

Fac

eSa

ver

Face

Save

rSe

lfC

ente

red

Self

Cen

tere

dSe

lfC

ente

red

Mal

evol

ent

(impe

des)

Self

Cen

tere

dSe

lfC

ente

red

Self

Cen

tere

dSe

lfC

ente

red

Mal

evol

ent

Self

Cen

tere

dM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tSe

lfC

ente

red

Mal

evol

ent

Key

A

US

=A

ustr

ia

CH

=Sw

itzer

land

CSR

=C

zech

Rep

ublic

D

EN

=D

enm

ark

FIN

=F

inla

ndF

RA

=Fr

ance

GB

=U

nite

dK

ingd

omG

ER

w=

Ger

man

yG

ER

e=

form

erE

ast

Ger

man

yG

EO

=G

eorg

ia

GR

E=

Gre

ece

HU

N=

Hun

gary

IT

A=

Ital

yIR

L=

Irel

and

NL

=N

ethe

rlan

dsP

OL

=P

olan

dPO

R=

Port

ugal

R

US=

Rus

sia

SLO

=Sl

oven

iaS

PA

=Sp

ain

SWE

=Sw

eden

T

UR

=T

urke

y












Leadership scales


MultipleR2




































Discussion










plt05 plt01















Conclusion




Authors


Acknowledgements



References




























































Tab

le3

Pro

toty

pica

lity

rank

ings

ofle

ader

ship

attr

ibut

esby

regi

onan

dco

untr

ycl

uste

r

Lea

ders

hip

prot

otyp

ical

ity

Nor

thW

est

Eur

opea

nre

gion

Sout

hE

ast

Eur

opea

nre

gion

Ang

loN

ordi

cG

erm

anic

(CSR

)(F

RA

)

Lat

inC

entr

alN

ear

Eas

t

(RU

S)(G

EO

)(G

BI

RL

)(S

WE

N

L

FIN

DE

N)

(CH

GE

Rw

G

ER

eA

US)

(IT

A

SPA

P

OR

HU

N)

(PO

LS

LO

)(T

UR

GR

E)

Hig

hpo

sitiv

ePe

rfor

man

ceIn

tegr

ityIn

tegr

ityIn

tegr

ityP

artic

ipat

ive

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Vis

iona

ryA

dmin

istr

ativ

e(f

acili

tate

sou

tsta

ndin

gIn

spir

atio

nal

Insp

iratio

nal

Insp

irat

iona

lP

erfo

rman

ceN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Perf

orm

ance

Vis

iona

ryD

ecis

ive

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Dec

isiv

ele

ader

ship

)V

isio

nary

Vis

iona

ryP

erfo

rman

ceA

dmin

istr

ativ

eIn

spir

atio

nal

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Vis

iona

ryP

erfo

rman

ceP

erfo

rman

ceT

eam

Inte

grat

orT

eam

Inte

grat

orN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Insp

irat

iona

lIn

tegr

ityD

iplo

mat

icIn

tegr

ityIn

spira

tiona

lV

isio

nary

Inte

grity

Per

form

ance

Vis

iona

ryN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Vis

iona

ryD

ecis

ive

Insp

irat

iona

lD

ecis

ive

Inte

grity

Dec

isiv

eD

ecis

ive

Dec

isiv

eV

isio

nary

Dec

isiv

eIn

tegr

ityA

dmin

istr

ativ

eIn

tegr

ityT

eam

Inte

grat

orPa

rtic

ipat

ive

Non

-aut

ocra

ticP

artic

ipat

ive

Par

ticip

ativ

eA

dmin

istr

ativ

eP

erfo

rman

ceD

iplo

mat

icT

eam

Inte

grat

orH

uman

eP

artic

ipat

ive

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Self

Sacr

ici

alD

iplo

mat

icIn

spira

tiona

lC

olla

bora

tive

Dip

lom

atic

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Tea

mIn

tegr

ator

Col

labo

rativ

ePe

rfor

man

ceC

olla

bora

tive

Dip

lom

atic

Mod

esty

Low

posi

tive

Non

-aut

ocra

ticC

olla

bora

tive

Dip

lom

atic

Col

labo

rativ

eIn

spir

atio

nal

Non

-aut

ocra

ticC

olla

bora

tive

Part

icip

ativ

eP

artic

ipat

ive

Insp

irat

iona

l(s

light

lyfa

cilit

ates

)A

dmin

istr

ativ

eD

iplo

mat

icC

olla

bora

tive

Dec

isiv

eIn

tegr

ityPa

rtic

ipat

ive

Par

ticip

ativ

eN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Col

labo

rativ

eN

on-a

utoc

ratic

Dip

lom

atic

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Self

Sacr

ici

alM

odes

tyT

eam

Inte

grat

orSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Non

-aut

ocra

ticSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Dip

lom

atic

Self

Sacr

ici

alC

olla

bora

tive

Con

ic

tA

void

erM

odes

tyA

uton

omou

sP

erfo

rman

ceM

odes

tyM

odes

tyM

odes

tySt

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usM

odes

tySe

lfSa

cri

cial

Hum

ane

Hum

ane

Vis

iona

ryH

uman

eSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Hum

ane

Self

Sacr

ici

alA

uton

omou

sSe

lfSa

cri

cial

Hum

ane

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Dec

isiv

eSt

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usM

odes

tyP

artic

ipat

ive

Hum

ane

Mod

esty

Aut

onom

ous

Dip

lom

atic

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Aut

onom

ous

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Con

ic

tA

void

erP

roce

dura

lC

oni

ctA

void

erC

olla

bora

tive

Hum

ane

Aut

onom

ous

Con

ict

Avo

ider

Pro

cedu

ral

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Mod

esty

Low

nega

tive

Aut

onom

ous

Aut

onom

ous

Stat

usC

onsc

ious

Pro

cedu

ral

Self

Sacr

ici

alPr

oced

ural

Con

ic

tA

void

erA

uton

omou

sH

uman

eC

oni

ctA

void

er(s

light

lyim

pede

s)St

atus

Con

scio

usSt

atus

Con

scio

usP

roce

dura

lC

oni

ctA

void

erSt

atus

Con

scio

usA

uton

omou

sF

ace

Save

rPr

oced

ural

Non

-aut

ocra

ticF

ace

Save

rPr

oced

ural

Pro

cedu

ral

Fac

eSa

ver

Aut

onom

ous

Face

Save

rP

roce

dura

lSe

lfC

ente

red

Hum

ane

Fac

eSa

ver

Pro

cedu

ral

Hig

hne

gativ

eFa

ceSa

ver

Fac

eSa

ver

Fac

eSa

ver

Stat

usC

onsc

ious

Fac

eSa

ver

Face

Save

rSe

lfC

ente

red

Self

Cen

tere

dSe

lfC

ente

red

Mal

evol

ent

(impe

des)

Self

Cen

tere

dSe

lfC

ente

red

Self

Cen

tere

dSe

lfC

ente

red

Mal

evol

ent

Self

Cen

tere

dM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tM

alev

olen

tSe

lfC

ente

red

Mal

evol

ent

Key

A

US

=A

ustr

ia

CH

=Sw

itzer

land

CSR

=C

zech

Rep

ublic

D

EN

=D

enm

ark

FIN

=F

inla

ndF

RA

=Fr

ance

GB

=U

nite

dK

ingd

omG

ER

w=

Ger

man

yG

ER

e=

form

erE

ast

Ger

man

yG

EO

=G

eorg

ia

GR

E=

Gre

ece

HU

N=

Hun

gary

IT

A=

Ital

yIR

L=

Irel

and

NL

=N

ethe

rlan

dsP

OL

=P

olan

dPO

R=

Port

ugal

R

US=

Rus

sia

SLO

=Sl

oven

iaS

PA

=Sp

ain

SWE

=Sw

eden

T

UR

=T

urke

y












Leadership scales


MultipleR2




































Discussion










plt05 plt01















Conclusion




Authors


Acknowledgements



References
























































Leadership scales


MultipleR2




































Discussion










plt05 plt01















Conclusion




Authors


Acknowledgements



References











































































Discussion










plt05 plt01















Conclusion




Authors


Acknowledgements



References



























































Conclusion




Authors


Acknowledgements



References














































Authors


Acknowledgements



References














































Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 ... · PDF fileCultural variation of...

Documents

Transcript of Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 ... · PDF fileCultural variation of...