Effective Leadership of a Culturally Diverse Workforce … · Arabia Basic Industries Corporation...

Effective Leadership of a Culturally Diverse Workforce in Saudi

Arabia Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC)

Moudhi Mohammad Alzoman

The thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

award of the degree of doctor of Philosophy of the University of

Portsmouth

Business School

Human Resources and Marketing Department

University of Portsmouth

Augest 2012

ii

ABSTRACT

Globalisation has significantly added to diversity in the workplace, requiring leaders to

acquire new skills to negotiate and operate in international environments; this is

especially true in the case of multinational corporations where relationships can be

complex and mono-cultural management styles can fuel conflict. The proximity of

individuals from different cultures raises consciousness of difference; therefore, leaders

must be able to deal with the reactions of those with different backgrounds to

themselves. Awareness of cultural diversity informs the way leaders define their roles

and responsibilities and requires them to carefully apply themselves to team

management.

This study proposes a theoretical model to address team-level concerns and examines

how social identity strengthens the relationship between leadership behaviour and

effective leadership. Accordingly, this study evaluates two styles of leadership:

charismatic (Conger and Kanungo, 1998) and ethical leadership (Masuda, 2005); it

relates them to two aspects of social identity (team identity and leader prototypicality).

Propositions are developed concerning how these styles of leadership would be

expected to influence leader effectiveness. It is also hypothesised that team

identification and leader prototypicality moderate these relationships. This means that

social identity and leadership behaviour can interact to create a more effective leader,

which may reduce conflict, increasing group cohesion and affective commitment to the

organisation.

This research utilises a quantitative approach to achieve its objectives. The research

participants were selected purposively from the study population, Saudi Arabia Basic

Industries Corporation (SABIC) due to its successful implementation of cultural

diversity. Paper questionnaires were distributed to 500 employees and 100 team leaders;

351 employee questionnaires were collected and these employees were taken from

different groups covering 90 separate leaders. A multilevel modelling analysis was used

to test the study‟s hypotheses regarding the relationships and interactions between

specific variables.

This study contributes to the existing literature on leadership and social identity by

providing empirical data regarding the significance of two leadership styles (charismatic

and ethical) for increasing leader effectiveness; this effectiveness is strengthened when

team identity and leader prototypicality moderate these relationships in private

iii

organisations in a culturally diverse context. The study findings have meaningful

implications for leadership training and development.

iv

DEDICATION

Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

I dedicate this thesis to my husband. My husband has been my strength, inspiration and

motivation throughout my life and during this academic journey. Thank you for all your

love and support. I could not have achieved this goal without your continuous

encouragement. I am so lucky to have such a wonderful, loving, and supportive

husband.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis would not have been accomplished without the support, guidance and the

assistance of a number of individuals and organisation, which I heartily appreciate.

First of all, this work would not have been accomplished without the endless support

and considerate guidance of my supervisors, Professor Charlotte Rayner and Dr.

Stephen Williams. I wish here to acknowledge their invaluable advice and ideal

supervision through this research and to thank them for being supportive, inspiring and

continually motivating. They withheld no effort in devoting their time and energy

throughout the preparation of my thesis. I doubt that these words can ever reflect my

appreciation and gratitude to them for the constructive comments they provided me with

on this thesis. Many thanks to be given to Professor Birgit Schyns for her continuous

support, advice and helpful comments during the first two years of this work. I would

like also to extend my thanks to all the staff in the Business School, and the University

of Portsmouth, for their valuable support through my PhD programme.

I would like to express my gratitude to the Saudi government and Institute of Public

Administration in Saudi Arabia for supporting me during my study in the United

Kingdom.

I would also like to express my gratitude to all the departments and Saudi Basic

Industries Corporation respondents, for giving me their time, effort and valuable

information, which helped me in the completion of this research. My special thanks go

to Dalli K Al-Shammari the Director of Strategic Workforce Planning-Organisational

Development Department.

I mainly want to express my acknowledgements to my entire family for their

unwavering support. But most especially to my husband, who absorbed my frustrations,

gave me encouragement when it all seemed impossible and walked the long road beside

me.

vi

AUTHORS’ DECLARATION

Effective Leadership of a Culturally Diverse Workforce in Saudi

Arabia Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC)

Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Portsmouth

Whilst registered as a candidate for the above degree, I have not been registered for any

other research award. The results and conclusions embodied in this thesis are the work

of the named candidate and have not been submitted for any other academic award.

Papers in Refereed Conference Proceedings:

Alzoman, M. Schyns, B. (2010). The Role of Leadership Behaviour in Leading

Culturally Diverse Workplaces Effectively in Private Sectors in Saudi Arabia.

Proceedings to Equality Diversity and Inclusion Conference, Vienna, Austria, 14-16

July 2010.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ii

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................. iv

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... v

AUTHORS‟ DECLARATION ........................................................................................ vi

Effective Leadership of a Culturally Diverse Workforce in Saudi Arabia Basic

Industries Corporation (SABIC) ...................................................................................... vi

List of Tables................................................................................................................... xii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................. xv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................ xvi

CHAPTER ONE: RESEARCH INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 1

1.1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Research Rationale and Motivation ......................................................................... 2

1.3. Statement of Research Aims .................................................................................... 4

1.4. Research Objectives................................................................................................. 4

1.5. Contributions of this Research................................................................................. 5

1.6. Structure of the Study................................................................................................. 7

CHAPTER TWO: SAUDI ARABIA AND SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES

CORPORATION PROFILE ........................................................................................... 10

2.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 10

2.2. The Saudi Arabian Business and Management Context .......................................... 10

2.3. Business Culture in Saudi Arabia ............................................................................ 16

2.3.1. Power Distance Index (PDI) ................................................................................. 18

2.3.2. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) ..................................................................... 19

2.3.3. Masculinity Index (MAS) ..................................................................................... 19

2.3.4. Individualism-Collectivism Index (ICI) ................................................................ 20

2.3.5. Short-Term -Long-Term Orientation .................................................................... 20

viii

2.4. Saudi Private Sector ................................................................................................. 21

2.5. Overview of Saudi Basic Industries Corporation profile ......................................... 22

2.5.1. SABIC Vision and Mission ................................................................................... 24

2.5.2. SABIC Rankings Among the World‟s Top Petrochemical Companies (SABIC

Report, 2010): ........................................................................................................ 24

2.5.3. Strategic Business Divisions and Products (SABIC Report, 2010). ..................... 24

2.5.4. SABIC Human Resources ..................................................................................... 25

2.5.5. SABIC Global Operations .................................................................................... 26

2.6. Summary .................................................................................................................. 26

Chapter three: literature review ...................................................................................... 27

3.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 27

3.2. Cultural Diversity as Research Context ................................................................... 27

3.2.1. Cultural Diversity Definition ................................................................................ 29

3.2.2 The Benefit of Culture Diversity in the Workplace ............................................... 31

3.2.3. Cultural Diversity Challenges in the Workplace .................................................. 33

3.2.3.1. Relationship Conflict ......................................................................................... 33

3.2.3.2. Group Cohesion ................................................................................................. 37

3.2.3.3. Organisational Commitment .............................................................................. 40

3.3. Leadership and Social Identity Theories .................................................................. 43

3.3.1. Charismatic Leadership ......................................................................................... 45

3.3.1.1 Charismatic and Transformational Leadership constructs .................................. 47

3.3.1.2. Comparison of Bass‟s Model and Conger and Kanungo‟s Model ..................... 53

3.3.1.3. Prior Studies Build on Conger and Kanungo‟s Work. ....................................... 56

3.3.1.4. Charismatic Leadership and Leader Effectiveness and Hypotheses Development

............................................................................................................................... 63

3.3.1.6. The „Dark Side‟ of Charismatic Leadership ...................................................... 66

3.3.2. Ethical Leadership ................................................................................................. 70

3.3.2.1. Ethical leadership and Leader Effectiveness Hypotheses Development ........... 73

3.3.3. Social Identity Theory of Leadership as Moderator for Leader Effectiveness ..... 76

ix

3.4. Overview of the Gaps in the Literature and Scope of the Current Study ................ 83

3.5. Summary and Model Proposal ................................................................................. 84

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ......................... 90

4.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 90

4.2. Research Purpose and general model ....................................................................... 91

4.3. Research Design and Methodological Fit ................................................................ 92

4.4. Research Philosophy (Paradigm) ............................................................................. 95

4.5. Research Methods .................................................................................................... 98

4.6. Research Strategy-Survey ...................................................................................... 100

4.7. Data Gathering Methods: ....................................................................................... 100

4.8. Data Gathering Instruments Adopted in this Research- Questionnaire ............... 101

4.9. The Rationale for Choice of the Methodology Used in the Study ......................... 102

4.10. Sample Design and Population ............................................................................ 103

4.11. Determining Sample Size ..................................................................................... 104

4.12. Data Analysis Methods Adopted in this Thesis ................................................... 105

4.13. Instrumentation and Measures ............................................................................. 106

4.14. Human Participants and Ethical Precautions ....................................................... 109

4.15. Pilot Study Survey Population and Sample Size ................................................. 110

4.16. Validity and Reliability Tests and Inter-correlation among Variables ................ 111

4.17. Factor Analyses .................................................................................................... 113

4.18. Reliability for Employee‟s Questionnaire (pilot study) ....................................... 119

4.19. Factor Analyses for Leader‟s Questionnaire (Pilot Study) .................................. 120

4.20. Reliability for Leader‟s Questionnaire ................................................................. 122

4.21. Participants and Procedures for the Main Study .................................................. 123

4.22. Questionnaire Response Rate:.............................................................................. 124

4.23. Employees‟ Background Information .................................................................. 125

4.24. Managers‟ Background Information .................................................................... 127

4.25. Construct Validity Using Factor Analyses Technique: ........................................ 128

x

4.26. Reliability for Employee‟s Questionnaire ............................................................ 134

4.27. Inter-correlations between the Five Employee‟s Scale Dimensions .................... 135

4.28. Reliability for Leader‟s Questionnaire ................................................................. 137

4.29. Inter-Correlations between the Two Leader‟s Scale Dimensions ........................ 138

4.30. Summary .............................................................................................................. 138

CHAPTER FIVE: DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 140

5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 140

5.2. Testing the Hypothesised Relationships between Leadership Behaviours and

Leader‟s Effectiveness ......................................................................................... 144

5.2.1. Test Statistics for Hypothesised Relationship for Charismatic Leadership and

Leader Effectiveness ............................................................................................ 146

5.2.2. The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Dimensions and Leader

Effectiveness ........................................................................................................ 148

5.2.3. Test Statistics for Hypothesised Relationship for Ethical Leadership and Leader

Effectiveness ........................................................................................................ 153

5.3. Test Statistics for Hypothesising the Moderator role for Leader Prototypicality and

Team Identity on the Relationship between Leadership Behaviours and Leader‟s

Effectiveness. ....................................................................................................... 155

5.3.1. The Moderator Role for Leader Prototypicality and Team Identity on the

Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Behaviours and Leader‟s

Effectiveness. ....................................................................................................... 155


Relationship between Ethical Leadership Behaviours and Leader‟s Effectiveness

............................................................................................................................. 165

5.4. Summary ................................................................................................................ 186

CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 192

6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 192

6.2. Charismatic Leadership and Leader Effectiveness and the Moderator Role of SIT

............................................................................................................................. 193

6.4. Ethical Leadership and Leader Effectiveness and the Moderator Role of SIT ...... 208

xi

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 217

7. l. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 217

7.2. Research Summary................................................................................................. 217

7.3. The Research Aims and Positioning ...................................................................... 217

7.4. Selecting the Research Philosophy and Data Gathering Technique ...................... 221

7.5. From Research Objectives to Research Findings .................................................. 222

7.6. Research Contributions to Knowledge ................................................................ 223

7.7. Implications for Practice ........................................................................................ 226

7.8. Limitations ............................................................................................................. 228

7.9. Future Studies ........................................................................................................ 230

7.10. Final Thoughts ..................................................................................................... 231

ReferenceS .................................................................................................................... 233

APPENDIX A: study‟s questionnair ............................................................................. 281

- Employee Questionnaire ...................................................................................... 282

- Line Manager Questionnaire ............................................................................... 291

APPENDIX B: SABIC Permission ............................................................................... 294

APPENDIX C: Critical Values of the Chi-square Distribution .................................... 295

APPENDIX D: Ethical Review Checklist .................................................................... 296

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table (3.1) Summary of prior studies based on Conger and Kanungo‟s work ............... 57

Table (4-2): Positivist versus Interpretivist Paradigms ................................................... 97

Table (4-3): Rotated Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 25-item Charismatic

Leadership Scale (pilot study) ............................................................................... 114

Table (4-4): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 6-item Leader

Prototypicality Scale (pilot study) ......................................................................... 116

Table (4-5): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 7-item Team Identity

Scale (pilot study) ................................................................................................. 117

Table (4-6): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 6-item Affective

Organisational Commitment Scale (pilot study) ................................................... 118

Table (4-7): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 9-item Ethical

Leadership Scale (pilot study) ............................................................................... 118

Table (4-8): Reliability for Employee‟s Questionnaire (pilot study) ............................ 119

Table (4-9): Summary of inter-correlations among the Dimensions of the Employee‟s

Questionnaire (pilot study). ................................................................................... 120

Table (4-10): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 5-item Group Relation

Conflict Scale (pilot study) ................................................................................... 121

Table (4-11): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 9-item Group Cohesion

Scale (pilot study) ................................................................................................. 121

Table (4-12): Reliability for Leader‟s Questionnaire (pilot study) ............................... 122

Table (4-13): Intercorrelations between the Two Managers‟ Scale Dimensions (pilot

study) ..................................................................................................................... 122

Table (4-14): Response and Return Rate ...................................................................... 125

Table (4-15): Employees‟ Demographic Data .............................................................. 125

Table (4.16): Employees‟ Nationality ........................................................................... 127

Table (4-17): Employees‟ Demographic Data .............................................................. 127


Leadership Scale ................................................................................................... 129


Prototypicality Scale. ............................................................................................ 131

Table (4-20): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 7-item Team

Identification Scale................................................................................................ 132

xiii


Organisational Commitment. ................................................................................ 133


Leadership Scale ................................................................................................... 134

Table (4-23): Reliability for Employee‟s Questionnaire .............................................. 135

Table (4-24): Summary of Inter-correlations between the Five Employees‟ Scale

Dimensions ............................................................................................................ 135


Conflict Scale ........................................................................................................ 136


Scale ...................................................................................................................... 137

Table (4-27): Reliability for Leader‟s Questionnaire ................................................... 137

Table (4-28): Correlations between the two Managers‟ Scale Dimensions .................. 138

Table (5-1): Summary of Inter-Correlations between the Study‟s Scale Dimensions -

Group Level. ......................................................................................................... 143

Table (5-2): Null Mode ................................................................................................. 146

Table (5-3): Multilevel Results of Charismatic leadership as a Predictor of Leader

Effectiveness ......................................................................................................... 147

Table (5-4): Multilevel Results of Charismatic Leadership Subscales as a Predictor of

Leader Effectiveness ............................................................................................. 149



Table (5-6): Multilevel Results for Charismatic Leadership Subscale as a Predictor of


Table (5-7): Multilevel Results of Ethical Leadership as a Predictor of Leader

Effectiveness ......................................................................................................... 154

Table (5-8): Test Statistics for the Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Affective

Organisational Commitment ................................................................................. 158

Table (5-9): Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Affective


Table (5-10): Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Group

Relation Conflict ................................................................................................... 161




xiv

Cohesion ................................................................................................................ 163

Table (5-13): Test Statistics for the Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Group

Cohesion ................................................................................................................ 164







Table (5-17): Tests Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Group


Table (5-18):.................................................................................................................. 170

Table (5-19): Multilevel Modelling Test Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated

Relationship for Group Cohesion.......................................................................... 171


Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X leader prototypicality) for Group



Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X leader prototypicality) for

Affective Organisational Commitment ................................................................. 177


Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X Team Identity) for Affective



Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X Team Identity) for Group



Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X Team Identity) for Group

Cohesion ................................................................................................................ 184

Table (5-26): Conclusions Regarding the Hypotheses.................................................. 188

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure (1.1): The Thesis Frame Work............................................................................... 9

Produced for the purpose of this research ......................................................................... 9

Foguer (3-1): Charismatic Leadership Stages of the Conger and Kanungo Model ........ 51

Figure (3.2): Integrated Leadership and Social Identity Theories .................................. 86

Figure (3-3): Proposed Model ......................................................................................... 88

Figure (4.1): Study Model ............................................................................................... 91

Figure (4.2) Research Design .......................................................................................... 95

Figure (5-1): An Example of Employees Nested Under their Leaders ......................... 141

Figure (5.2): The Number of Employees for Each Leader ........................................... 142

Figure (5-3): The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Subscales and affective

Organisational Commitment. ................................................................................ 149

Figure (5-4): The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Subscales and Group


Figure (5-5): The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Subscale and Group

Cohesion ................................................................................................................ 152

Figure (5.6): Decision Tree for the Moderator.............................................................. 157

Figure (5-7): The Interaction between Charismatic Leadership Subscales and Leader

Prototypicality ....................................................................................................... 172





Figure (5-10): The Interaction between Charismatic Leadership Subscales and Team

Identity .................................................................................................................. 179


Identity .................................................................................................................. 182


Identity .................................................................................................................. 184

xvi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

KSA Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

SABIC Saudi Basic Industries Corporation

WTO World Trade Organisations

C-K Conger and Kanungo Scale

SVA Strategic Vision and Articulation

SMN Sensitivity to Member Needs

UB Unconventional Behaviour

SE Sensitivity to the Environment

PR Personal Risk

SQ Does not mention Status Quo

PDI Power Distance Index

UAI Uncertainty Avoidance Index

IDV Individualism

MAS Masculinity

1

CHAPTER ONE: RESEARCH INTRODUCTION

1.1.Introduction

Leadership behaviours are being widely discussed at the current time in relation to the

dynamism of the business environment, which is now characterised by globalisation.

Globalisation has encouraged an increasing number of formerly domestic companies to

move abroad to maximise both their competitiveness and their market share. This has

led to a growth in numbers of multinational companies; further emphasising the need

for an understanding of cross-cultural working relationships, particularly in relation to

effective leadership techniques (Alon, et al., 2011; Gakahu, 2011). As the world

becomes interconnected via globalisation, the number of people living and working

outside of their native countries is increasing. As a consequence, those in the workplace

are increasingly expected to interact with people from diverse cultural backgrounds;

often this means people who speak different languages, lead different lifestyles, and

come from widely disparate belief systems and cultural backgrounds (Lui and Stack,

2009, Tong, 2011). In addition, this phenomenon of globalisation, not only challenges,

but also transforms through intellectual change, roles and behaviours displayed by

leaders (Vaccaro, et al., 2010).

This study seeks to develop current knowledge regarding perceived leadership

behaviour (charismatic and ethicality) in a multi cultural and organisational context and

the way this relates to leader‟s effectiveness. The current study is distinct from previous

studies, in that it combines two styles of leadership and social identity theory (team

identity and leader prototypicality) and examines their moderating impact on leader‟s

effectiveness.

In beginning this journey which examines leadership effectiveness, are must explore

what has been already read. Academics researching this area have suggested that

effective leadership is dependent on the how leaders at different levels of management

behave. When inspirational and motivational behaviour is displayed by managers this is

often mirrored by employees, who identify with their leader and so strive to work

together for common goals. Where leaders seek to intellectually stimulate their

2

employees this encourages them to question any previous assumptions they may have

had and can guide these employees to be more creative (Vaccaro, et al., 2010). In

relation to culturally diverse work environments McMahon, et al., (2010) argued that an

acknowledgment of commonalities and differences between group members is crucial in

establishing a comfortable working relationship. It has been noted that culturally diverse

work teams often have the opportunity to achieve a competitive advantage over and

above non-culturally diverse work teams, if they are well managed (Armstrong, et al.,

2010; Prieto, et al., 2009, Neal, 2010).

Mendenhall (2008) asserts that cultural diversity in the workplace is creating new

demands on today‟s corporate leaders. Since the success of a company highly relays on

its employees‟ work performance, multinational companies in particular must consider

these cultural differences. As Adler (2008) argues, "multicultural teams have the

potential to achieve higher productivity than homogenous teams, but they also risk

experiencing greater losses due to faulty process" (p.134). For instance; diversity may

bring about negative behaviour towards people of different nationalities in the form of

prejudice and discrimination, based on negative perceptions of individuals from

different cultural backgrounds (Hanassab, 2006). This in turn reduces group

identification, resulting in more conflict, decreased group cohesion and employee

loyalty to the organisation, directly effecting workgroup performance. Thus, this study

assumes that effective leadership of a multicultural organisation means more than just

making it operate profitably within its particular business segment; it also has an effect

on employees‟ attitudes and behaviour.

This chapter will present the research rationale and motivation for conducting this

research, the research aims and objectives and the organisation of the thesis.

1.2. Research Rationale and Motivation

Large Saudi manufacturing companies are expecting to benefit as a result of Saudi

Arabia joining the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Integration with the WTO allows

international companies access to the domestic market, and simultaneously affords local

companies the opportunity to enter foreign markets. According to the Saudi Ministry of

Labour‟s Statistics Report for the year 2007, the total number of workers in private

sectors in Saudi Arabia was 5,826,856, of these only 13.14% were Saudi nationals,

3

whilst the remaining 86.86% were foreign workers. These foreign nationals originated

from over 40 different countries, including those in the West, Asia and elsewhere in the

Middle East (Ministry of Labour, 2007). Therefore, in the Saudi setting it is imperative

to fully understand the barriers and opportunities that potentially arise within a

culturally diverse context (Brett, Behfar and Kern, 2006; DiStefano and Maznevski,

2000; van Knippenberg, 2011). This, of necessity, will require leaders with behaviours

that work ethically to maximise the advantage and minimise the challenges of cultural

diversity in the work place.

Based on the evidence given in section 1.1, it can be argued that those in the

multinational companies in Saudi Arabia cannot accomplish their role in the best

possible way, unless leaders acquire appropriate behaviours in relation to leading a

diverse workplace. This study examines whether a charismatic leadership style

comprises a set of behaviours that is suitable when managing multi-cultural teams.

In recent years there has been an increasing interest in a stream of leadership theory

known as “charisma” (Wilderom and Berg, 2010; Varella, et al., 2011; Sosik, et al.,

2011; Zúquete, et al., 2011). Charisma theory focuses on those leadership behaviours

that create an emotional impact for their followers; specifically, those which translate

into emotional attachment to the leaders‟ values and to the collective good (Javidan and

Waldman, 2003; Riggio, 2004; Jin, Seo, and Shapiro, 2008). Based on this theory the

concept of charisma is known generically as the “charismatic leadership” model

(Conger and Kanungo, 1998). This leader‟s style allows the determining of a connection

between team identity and leader prototypicality. This occurs through the use of shared

values and beliefs which are distinctive characteristics of the group and influence its

selection from available modes, means, and ends of action (Hofstede, 2001).

Additionally this study has used ethical leadership theory to emphasise the importance

of dealing with culturally diverse work places ethically. Thus, it is imperative that

leaders of diverse teams are aware of their own biases, prejudices and attitudes toward

those who are dissimilar. As will be shown in chapter three this connection makes

charismatic and ethical leadership styles suitable when studying the relationship

between leadership behaviours and leading culturally diverse work places effectively.

Unfortunately, very few empirical studies have been conducted to study the relationship

between them.

4

This study seeks to expand present knowledge about perceived leadership effectiveness

and perceived leader ethicality in organisational settings. It aims to explore the relevant

behaviours expected of leaders in multicultural companies and the impact of these

various behaviours on leaders‟ effectiveness. Combined with information regarding the

leadership theories themselves this research utilises social identity theory (SIT) to

enhance leader effectiveness. In this study leader effectiveness was investigated at the

team level; primarily because it is in teams that a strong sense of identity can arise

amongst followers, promoting the sense that the employees are part of something larger

than themselves (White and Lean, 2008).

Accordingly, the author also examines the relationship between the two different but

intertwined leadership behaviours and the level of relation based conflict, group

cohesion and affective commitment in the culturally diverse workplace. Additionally,

this study hypothesised that when a team identifies more strongly with the leader

prototype as salient it will also report stronger leader effectiveness within a culturally

diverse group.

1.3. Statement of Research Aims

For the purposes of this research, leadership behaviour theories (charismatic and ethical)

are discussed in relation to social identity. This study aims to investigate how leadership

behaviour influences a leader‟s effectiveness when leading in a culturally workplace. In

addition, an examination of the role of social identity is also tested as it is hypothesised

that team identity and leader prototypicality can strengthen the relationship between

leadership behaviour and leader‟s effectiveness.

1.4. Research Objectives

In order to achieve the research aims, this study has the following objectives:

To analyse the relationship between leadership behaviour (charismatic and

ethical leadership) and the level of relation conflict among culturally diverse

workplaces in Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC).

5

.


ethical leadership) and the level of team cohesion among culturally diverse



ethical leadership) and the level of employees‟ affective commitment to

organisations in culturally diverse workplaces in Saudi Arabia Basic Industries

Corporation (SABIC).

To examine the moderating impact of social identity (team‟s identity) on the

relation between leadership behaviour (charismatic and ethical leadership) and

leading a culturally diverse workplace effectively (defined as low relation

conflict, high team cohesion and high affective commitment to the organisation).

To examine the moderating impact of social identity (leader prototypicality) on

the relationship between leadership behaviour (charismatic and ethical

leadership) and leading the culturally diverse workplace effectively (i.e. low

relation conflict, high team cohesion and high affective commitment to the

organisation).

1.5. Contributions of this Research

A. Theoretical and Empirical level

The principal focus of this study seeks to develop current knowledge regarding

perceived leadership behaviour in a multicultural context. It is distinct from previous

studies in terms of its breadth; achieved by examining two styles of leadership

(charismatic and ethical leadership) and investigating the effect of social identity theory

on leadership effectiveness. Specifically, it highlights the importance of identifying with

colleagues and the leaders as an interactive variable for leadership effectiveness. One

dimension of charismatic leadership theory is challenged (unconventional behaviour) as

to its efficacy.

First of all, this study addresses an important gap in the ongoing validation of Conger

and Kanungo measure of charismatic leader behaviour (1998) it offers empirical

6

evidence for the measure‟s predictive validity of leadership behaviour culturally diverse


The major theoretical contribution of this study is the development and empirical testing

of a model that will expand present knowledge by examining the relationships between

employees‟ perceptions of their leaders (charismatic and ethical leadership) and leader

effectiveness (defined in this study as low relationship conflict, high team cohesion and

high affective commitment) in culturally diverse workplace.

Moreover, this study presents evidence of how two leadership styles (charismatic and

ethical leadership) are related to the effectiveness of leaders. Although the connection

between leadership and ethicality has been conceptualised by previous researchers (e.g.

Minkes, 1999; Schminke, et al., 2002; Simola et al., 2010), empirical studies regarding

ethical leadership as a whole set of behaviours using follower perceptions in respect of

cultural diversity are to the author‟s knowledge not covered. Thus, this study presents

empirical evidence of the importance of ethical leadership roles as a set of behaviours

contributing to reduction of the level of relation conflict and increasing the level of

group cohesion and employee affective commitment to an organisation. The originality

of this study‟s contribution is to integrate leadership theories (charismatic and ethical

leadership) with social identity (team identity and leader prototypicality) to examine

both independent and interactive effects with the aim of predicting leaders‟

effectiveness. Evidence from the current study will indicate that social identity (leader

prototypicality and team identity) has a moderating impact on these relationships. These

results expand on existing literature in this field by revealing that charismatic and

ethical leadership and social identity (leader prototypicality and team identity) are

contingently, rather than independently, related to leadership effectiveness.

Finally, one of the most important contributions of the present study was that it showed

no significant relationship between one subscale of charismatic leadership,

unconventional behaviour and leader effectiveness. Thus, the study demonstrates that

charismatic leadership (i.e. CKS excluding unconventional behaviour) is related to

leader effectiveness indicators (low relation conflict, high group cohesion and high

affective commitment). According to Conger and Kanungo, unconventional behaviour

is one aspect of the final stage of charismatic leadership. It might be hypothesised that

only leaders who have completed all three stages successfully, with the exception of one

7

aspect of stage three (unconventional behaviour) produced high leader effectiveness. In

contrast, leaders who are trapped in the first and second stage may have not yet have

demonstrated charismatic leadership behaviours that are necessary to attract their

followers to achieve a desirable behaviour and attitude. Additionally this study provides

empirical evidence that unconventional behaviour is not as important as the remaining

five charismatic leadership behaviour criteria (KCS) at the team level. Rowold and

Laukamp (2009) argued that a leader at the first-level is more concerned with daily

tasks rather than with creating a long-term vision of the future.

B. Practical Level

For many organisations, leader charisma, ethical conduct and social identity are

becoming increasingly important. Gaining a better understanding of the ways in which

leaders affect their followers will offer employers insight into policies and programs

necessary for training leaders and employees in a way that encourages charismatic and

ethical behaviours, while preventing unethical behaviours from becoming prevalent in

the culturally diverse workplace.

1.6. Structure of the Study

To achieve the research objectives this study is divided into seven chapters as shown in

Figure (1.1)

Chapter one: This chapter introduces the study, highlighting the research background

and motivation, giving a statement of the research aims and objectives, identifying the

contribution of the research at the theoretical and practical level and the organisation of

the thesis.

Chapter Two: Saudi Arabia and SABIC profile: This chapter provides an essential

profile about Saudi Arabia that enables the reader to comprehend interrelated issues that

will be discussed subsequently in the remainder of this thesis. This includes addressing

the basic information related to this research regarding the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

and SABIC in three parts. Part one includes a general overview of the country. Part two

describes Saudi business culture. Part three provides an overview of the private sector in

Saudi Arabia, including SABIC‟s mission and vision, and its global operations.

8

Chapters Three: Literature review: This chapter considers relevant literature from

several fields of study; at the beginning it reviews cultural diversity as the research

context. After that it discusses in depth the two leadership styles (charismatic and

ethical leadership). The final part of the literature review addresses social identity

theory as important for understanding employees‟ behaviour in relation to multicultural

organisations.

Chapter Four: Research methodology: This chapter introduces the research

methodology for the study, data sampling and collection technique, data reporting and

analysis procedures.

Chapter Five: Data analysis: In this chapter the results of the data analysis are

presented. The data was collected and then processed in response to the objectives

posed in chapter one.

Chapter Six: Discussion: Provides a comprehensive discussion and analysis of the

results and findings of the quantitative data in light of the literature review.

Chapters Seven: Conclusion: Addresses the main findings of the research. It draws

conclusions based on the findings presented in chapters five and six. This chapter states

the contributions and the limitations of the study, and provides some recommendations

that may contribute to the successful implementation of leadership behaviour in

companies with multicultural employees. Figure (1.1) depicts the thesis framework.

9

Figure (1.1): The Thesis Frame Work

Produced for the purpose of this research

To summarise; this chapter introduced the research introduction, rational and

motivation, aim, objectives and contributions and finally the organisation of the study.

The following chapter reviews the Saudi Arabia and SABIC profile as research context.

10

CHAPTER TWO: SAUDI ARABIA AND SAUDI BASIC

INDUSTRIES CORPORATION PROFILE

2.1. Introduction

This chapter aims to provide essential background to the research context, by describing

the current business in Saudi Arabia and profiling (SABIC). To achieve this aim, this

chapter commences with an overview of the country‟s location and provides a snapshot

of the main characteristics of Saudi culture and management and leadership. The next

section discusses the nature of the business culture in Saudi Arabia drawing on

Hofstede‟s cultural dimensions. Then the Saudi economic environment is described to

provide more understanding of the situation for SABIC, in order to give the reader a

better understanding of its vision and mission. The conclusion will position all this

information specifically within the framework of the current study.

2.2. The Saudi Arabian Business and Management Context

Saudi Arabia is located in the Middle East between the Arab Gulf and the Red Sea. It

borders Jordan, Iraq, and Kuwait to the north, Yemen to the south, and Oman, the

United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Qatar to the east. The country, which is divided into

13 provinces, is composed primarily of desert. Each region has a governor appointed by

the King. With a land area of about 1.96 million square kilometres (756,981 square

miles), Saudi Arabia is about one-quarter the size of the continental United States.

Riyadh, the capital, is located in the central eastern part of the country. Saudi Arabia‟s

population is currently estimated to exceed 25 million, with about 33% of inhabitants

younger than 15 years old. The population is characterised by a rapid growth rate of

3.4% annually. Crucially for our study, over five million foreigners also reside in Saudi

Arabia for work (Hain, 2011).

Saudi culture is predicated on two main principles: firstly religion, and secondly the

traditional nomadic tribal system. The country‟s religious identity is heightened by the

country‟s status as home to the two Mosques at the centre of the Islamic world. The

influence of Islam extends to definition of social manners, traditions, obligations and

the practices of society in Saudi Arabia. Key characteristics of this tradition, in terms of

relevance to the business community are the strong emphasis afforded to respecting the

11

elderly, protecting face, pursuing a virtuous path, and demonstrating humility,

forgiveness, compassion, courage and obedience (Mellahi, 2001). The role of kinship

and the family have a major role in the work place, and this is derived principally from

the tribal systems that still determine the Saudi individual‟s position in society. The

tribe to which one belongs can be a pivotal factor in success or failure in the work place

(al-Shehry, 2006).

The role of Islam as the first tenet of Saudi culture is largely established based on the

Qur‟an (the holy book) and the Sunna (the sayings and practices of the prophet

Mohammed, peace be upon him) (Aldraehim, et al., 2012). These two sources unify the

Islamic world and Saudis through Sharia law, which affects both the morality and

practice of employees in the work place. It is of significance to this research, and to

those working in the country from other cultures, that morality in all areas of life is

derived from religious observance (Hofstede, 1998).

The role played by tribal and religious traditions also heightens the value of family in

Saudi society, and the status and support of the family affects everyone, from the most

highly educated to the least educated people in the country. In Arabic, Muslim

societies, self-interest is always secondary to the interests of the family (Kabasakal,

2002) as is emphasised in both the Qur'an and the Sunna. At all times an individual is

required to sustain good relationships with their relatives, extending to the provision of

assistance and generosity as required. This culture of interdependence extends into the

workplace, where it relies on the sustainability of the wider network of relationships

that offer security to individuals by connecting them to the group to which they belong,

rather than through individualism and privacy.

As described above in reference to tribalism and religion it is evident that Arab culture

forms the basis of Saudi culture and as such understanding of this culture by previous

researchers suggests there is likely to be resistance to change in the workplace (Straub,

2001). Patai (1973) identified Arab characteristics as being fatalism, mind versus heart,

open versus closed, and vertical versus horizontal. In fatalistic cultures of this type

expectations and perceptions are largely contingent on external factors (Welsh and

Raven, 2004). Hill (1998) identifies Arab culture as valuing home and traditional

12

influence over the adoption of new technologies. Straub (2001) examined Arab societies

in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and the Sudan and observed that in the work

setting individuals and companies routinely negotiate issues with adapting technology

within their own cultural contexts. As a consequence the presence of cultural conflicts

between the western management style and that of Arab business leaders and workers

has resulted in the largely unsuccessful application of computers and modern

technology.

Saudi society is unique in the manner of the segregation of the sexes, in line with a

combination of Nomadic traditions and Islam. In Saudi Arabia there are limitations

placed on interaction between the sexes which has resulted in male domination of the

public sphere and female domination of the domestic sphere. In the work place women

are largely found in the fields of education and healthcare as separate facilities are

available for males and females (Ahmad, 2011). SABIC, the subject of this study, is an

all male company; as such the context if presents is markedly different from the

contexts of comparative companies in the west. Despite the apparent uniqueness of such

a context it is the norm for Saudi Arabia and to some extent is a situation mirrored in

other Arabic countries. As a consequence of this fact there will be no possibility to

include female research participants in this work as they are not present at SABIC.

The extent to which the characteristics of the Saudi Arabian workforce are derived from

tradition and which are derived from the country‟s nomadic past are not especially

relevant to this research. It is a complex task to determine which attitudes and

behaviours have a religious doctrine supporting them, and which a cultural one,

although it is true that the majority of the tribal and family values that prevail in Saudi

Arabia descend directly from its Islamic heritage (Mellahi, 2001).

Management and Leadership in Saudi Arabia

As discussed above Islamic laws (Sharia) and associated morals and values influence

the behaviour and practices of managers in Saudi Arabia. The three key areas in which

this is evident are policies relating to the employment of women, the management style

of leaders and the practices pursued within HRM departments (Hammoudeh, 2012).

Despite the unique and interesting context, according to Dorfman and House (2004)

13

„Studies in leadership in middle east are almost nonexistent due to the inherent

difficulty of conducting organisational research there‟(p. 64). This dearth of research

highlights the importance of this work.

As with the other cultures in which similar research has been more often conducted, in

the Arab world there is a clear demarcation between the roles and treatment of managers

and their subordinates. This clear division is what is commonly referred to as

representing a high level of power distance. The culture of respect affords particular

privilege to individuals according to age, status and family background. As the culture

has a strong family structure, Arab managers are commonly perceived to have the

position of fathers relative to their subordinates. Managers believe there is a subjective

element to organisational problems and as a consequence feel confident about taking

further and decisive action in response to them (Al-Omari, 2003). In support of the roles

assigned to managers and their subordinates it is also the case that Middle Eastern

employees prefer a greater amount of supervision than those from other cultures. This

reflects a collective attitude as well as a concern for avoiding losing face, and an

acceptance of a non egalitarian, confrontational and more direct management style

(Cerimagic, 2010).

In Saudi Arabia the role of the manager is extensive as clients expect that a senior

individual will be involved in communications with them. Indeed, it is often common

practice for companies to employ two managers for posts involving external

communication: an internal manager to oversee the project and an external manager

responsible for establishing a connection with the client (Abbas, 2008). Saudi Arabia is

a hierarchical society, as describe; this means that everyone is assigned a specific and

clearly delineated role so as to maintain the status quo (kwintessential.co.uk). As a

consequence of their position, according to Cavanagh (2011).Saudi Arabian managers

often work in an authoritarian manner, being rule-bound, resistant to innovation, and

also frequently discriminating between those member of the organisation that they

consider to be in-group and out-group. Such behaviour reflects a desire to make the

„right‟ connections and to secure one‟s own preferential position within the

organisation.

As mentioned above there is something of a family structure in place in the work place

14

setting in Saudi Arabia with researchers acknowledging that in Saudi culture leaders are

expected to act in a “paternalistic” way towards those employees they identify as from

in-groups, or those who are their own relatives (Kabasakal, 2002, Malshe, et al., 2012).

Malshe, el al. (2012) undertook a study that indicated that a combination of a

paternalistic approach and high power distance top managers are widely involved in the

day-to-day running of Saudi organisations. These top leaders play a pivotal role in the

decision-making practices at the firms in which they work.

The paternalism of Arab leaders is not a new phenomenon; historically in western

cultures a structure in which managers took on the role of “pater,” or “father” Was

common until the latter part of the twentieth century. More recently however such a

structure has been increasingly less common, as it is largely seen in the west to

leadership a style “restricting the freedoms and responsibilities of subordinates or

dependants in what is considered or claimed to be their best interests” (OED, 2009). A

leader who takes on the role of father is assuming that they know what is best for their

employees, much as a father may decide he knows what it best for his children. This

form of power responds to a deeply rooted experience in the psychology of most adults

and acceptance of a leader as a parent is a prevalent phenomenon (Pellegrini and

Scandura, 2008, p. 568). In Saudi Arabia where corporate life is an extension of family

life the emphasis of such a relationship on obedience and respect is deemed to be

appropriate. However, as was noted formerly in Western organisations, a paternalistic

structure is not without disadvantages; in particular it can be responsible for crippling

employees‟ initiative. Creativity in a paternalistic framework requires direction and as

such is limited by the vision of the manager overseeing the task

(worldbusinessculture.com).

A further characteristic that has been identified as a cultural factor affecting Saudi-

Arabian managers is an aversion to innovation and risk; this is linked to a fear of failure

and thus, loss of face (Alnimir, 1981). This attitude is also characterised by the limited

delegation of responsibility, which places greater reliance upon those in authority,

further affecting their willingness to make potentially risky decisions (Ali and Swiercs,

1986). The possibility that this is to some extent a stereotype, not borne out in reality is

suggested by some researchers who point to a preference for consultation and employee

participation amongst Saudi-Arabian managers.

15

A feature of the Saudi Arabian way of conducting business that has serious implications

for expats working in Saudi companies is the emphasis on personal referrals as a means

of deciding who to employ and/or promote. Success in business is partly dependent on

nepotism and family background and this can limit the equality given to western

employees, who have to learn to be patient. Expats in managerial positions need to be

aware of the relationships at play when communicating with local employees. Ideally

communication between managers and employees takes place in private, with all third

parties excluded. The relationships between individuals are privileged over what is

happening in the work place and the significance of this in the Saudi work force has not

so far been thoroughly investigated (Abbas, 2008).

The issue of the extent to which the employees available are suited to the skills required

for certain jobs is of great significance to this study, as it affects the employment of

individuals who are nationals of countries other than Saudi (Mellahi, 2001). There is a

desire to resolve this, identified by Albawardy‟s study (2010), in which he emphasises

the importance most Saudi organisations place on pursuing an approach based on

training and development. He argued that, the majority of Saudi organisations combine

the HRD role with one emphasising individual performance (trainee satisfaction,

employee capability, operational issues and formal training programmes) and not with

one emphasising organisational strategy. Albawardy (2010) concludes that training is

intended to ensure functional efficiency rather than to address strategic contributions at

the organisational level.

As identified by Chaar (2010), there is a shortage of leaders within the private sector in

Saudi Arabia. This situation has arisen because of the country‟s large young

population, which has create an imbalance between potential for growth and available

talent at the upper levels; the effect of this situation is rising unemployment figures

affecting the less experienced portion of the population, and a lack of people to take on

leadership roles affecting industry. Chaar (2010) expects that the situation will become

more extreme over the next five years as an additional 2.5 million young and

inexperienced individuals are set to enter the workforce.

From the perspective of this research we can see gaps in the existing studies that touch

16

on this field. Two key limitations are readily identified: first, studies to date have drawn

on the perceptions of leaders rather than their subordinates, so there is no triangulation

of the data collected to assure researchers that managers own observations of their role

are supported in the eyes of their subordinates; second, existing studies do not account

for the variation in leadership styles that doubtless exist across the diverse organisations

within the country. Where some Saudi-Arabian managers may be characterised as

generally risk averse and likely to avoid change, this does not mean that all Saudi-

Arabian managers can be categorised as cautious and reactive (Drummond and Al-

Anazi, 1997).

2.3. Business Culture in Saudi Arabia

Cultural differences create challenges for multinational companies doing business in

Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia formally joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in

December 2005. The WTO system requires governments to adopt policies that provide

foreign products with due process, political participation and rights to information based

on trade and policymaking (Aaronson and Abouharb, 2011). The most important reform

efforts include privatising parts of the dominant state sector and improving the foreign

direct investment climate, which in turn may increases cultural diversity in the work

environment.

Leading cultural diversity in the workplace plays a very significant role in

accomplishing successes in a business relationship (Hofstede, 2009). Cultural diversity

considerations may impact positively by facilitating communication between employees

and business partners but they may also be a source of conflict rather than of synergy

(Rivera-Vazques, Ortiz-Fournier and Flores, 2009).

According to French (2010), the majority of researchers examine culture through a

variety of dimensions that reflect the values of individuals, as well as institutional

effects. Several cultural dimensions were emphasised by French (2010), however, the

most often employed cultural dimensions are those developed by Hofstede.

Hofstede‟s study focused on the necessity to see, evaluate and understand cultures using

17

a multi-dimensional approach (Matsumoto, 2000). The most common framework

discussed business culture in Saudi Arabia adopted cross-cultural dimensions derived

from Hofstede‟s (1984; 2001; 2009) work. Hofstede‟s framework focuses on four

dimensions, which represent elements of a common structure applied within the cultural

system of specific countries and based on the differences between so-called small and

large power distance cultures, small and large uncertainty avoidance cultures,

individualist and collectivist cultures, and masculinised and feminised cultures. Later, a

fifth dimension, Confucian dynamism was added (Hofstede, 2001). Each dimension was

measured by calculating a score indicating its strength level; scores ranged from zero, as

the lowest, to 120 as the highest. The higher the score, the more that dimension is

exhibited in society. These dimensions differentiated one culture from another and form

the basis of attitudes and behaviours, organisational practices, and social practices

including marriage practices and religious ceremonies (Hofstede, 2010).

Even though Hofstede presents a useful model for understanding variations in national

cultures (Remmé, 2008), there have been criticisms made concerning this model.

Primarily, that Hofstede‟s study was founded on data collected mainly from male

employees at one organisation (IBM). Thus, it may not be generalisable to other

organisations or countries (McSweeney, 2002).

Moreover, Myers and Tan, emphasised that Hofstede‟s study should not be interpreted

as an accurate description of national culture as a whole; rather, it should be seen as

indicating similarities and differences that one might expect to find amongst employees

in organisations in different countries (Myers and Tan, 2002). Researchers have

expressed concern regarding the survey instrument used in Hofstede‟s research and the

validity of the measure has been questioned (e.g. Triandis, 1993; Hunt, 1981;

Goodstein, 1981; Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001). Researchers have questioned whether

the country scores provided are representative of the normal population and whether

important cultural variables are in fact being measured.

In defending his sampling methods, Hofstede emphasises that IBM was used to satisfy

the principle requirement in cross-cultural surveys for functional equivalence, pointing

18

out that the measures focus upon the differences between the samples rather than on

absolute numbers.

In spite of these concerns, from a practical point of view, the cultural variables

described by Hofstede's model are appealing because of their apparent relationship to

the management process (Erumban and De Jong, 2006; Kankanhalli, Tan, Wei and

Homes, 2004). Hofstede‟s cultural dimensions and model have been applied in 72

countries worldwide (Hofstede 2009)

Hofstede (2009) argues that there are differences between Middle East countries (such

as Saudi Arabia) and Western countries (such as the USA and UK). The following

sections describe the Hofstede dimensions reported for Saudi Arabia.

2.3.1. Power Distance Index (PDI)

According to the analyses conducted, Saudi Arabian culture is characterised by large

power distance. The power distance dimension shows the degree to which unequal

distribution of wealth and power is accepted (Jone, 2007). Power distance is one of the

most important characteristics of Arab countries. Such societies are more likely to

follow a caste system, a system that does not allow for the large upward mobility of its

citizens. Thus, Saudi Arabia has long been a highly rule-oriented country. While in

Saudi Arabia an expatriate should be aware of the fact that he/she has to express

disagreements and doubts to executives carefully.

According to Hofstede (2009), cultural differences in reference to PDI are related to

individual differences in employee behaviour that have consequences for their work.

Regarding social interaction, this then is minimal between managers and subordinates in

high PDI cultures, and negotiation over work assignments is atypical in such settings

(Tosi and Greckhamer, 2004). In contrast, managers in low power distance cultures tend

to empower their employees, which leads to positive effects on employee performance

(Baruch and Hall, 2004). Accordingly, in a diverse workplace these cultural differences

may create significant challenges for managers in the private sector in Saudi Arabia.

19

2.3.2. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)

Saudi Arabia is a country with relatively high uncertainty avoidance. Often this is a

cause for frustration amongst western managers as Arabs tend to avoid risk. They seem

to believe that when an opportunity is lost they can remain safe without “losing face”.

As a consequence they prefer to avoid problems and often simply choose not to face

them at all. They tend to ignore problems until it is too late, hoping that they might

successfully avoid facing them (Cerimagic, 2010). Such a high level of uncertainty

avoidance also implies a negative attitude towards change and innovation. They prefer

to retain the status quo and every precursor to change has to be carefully analysed and

all the risks have to be identified and assessed before it is considered for

implementation (kwintessential.co.uk).

Hofstede‟s analysis shows that Saudi Arabia has a low level of tolerance to uncertainty.

This implies that people are risk averse and that they do not like to make decisions if

something unknown is presented to them (International Business Wiki, 2012). People

also choose to obey strict rules and regulations. Society is unwilling to accept quick

changes (International Business Cultures website, 2012). Whilst working in Saudi

Arabia expatriates should therefore strive to back up issues they raise with statistics and

facts. The ultimate goal of managers in Saudi Arabia is to control everything in order to

eliminate or avoid unexpected developments. As a result of this characteristic of high

uncertainty avoidance, managers do not readily accept change and are typically

therefore very risk averse (Dima, et al., 2010).

2.3.3. Masculinity Index (MAS)

According to Hofstede: “Masculinity pertains to societies in which social gender roles

are clearly distinct” (Hofstede, 1994, p. 82-3). Saudi Arabia is a masculine country.

This does not mean that the dominant gender in the Saudi Arabia is male, rather that

masculine character traits are preferred over female characteristics. In Saudi Arabia

such traits as authority, success and performance dominate. Masculine countries are

ambitious and employees tend to also emphasise their work to great level (Jone, 2007).

Hofstede (2009) argues that these countries are likely to experience a high degree of

gender differentiation of roles, with masculinity playing a significant role in society

20

within the existing power structure. The female population in the society is becoming

more assertive and competitive, moving towards a male role model and away from the

female one. Such analysis suggests that women in the Arab World are somewhat limited

in their social rights; this may be due more to the prevalent religious beliefs rather than

to the culture (Hofstede, 2009).

2.3.4. Individualism-Collectivism Index (ICI)

In reference to the Individualism dimension, that introduces the preference to work in a

group or alone, Saudi Arabia is clearly shown to be a collectivist society. The work

group is considered to be akin to a family. Harmony and loyalty within the company are

highly desirable. Expats in Saudi Arabia have to try to work more in the group setting,

asking for advice and helping others. They have to respect all traditions and if they want

to implement any changes, they have to introduce these slowly (Mindtools website,

2012). Expats should also aim to exhibit trust and to show respect for age.

The differences within ICI between countries and cultures were found to be associated

with concrete differences in worker attitudes, beliefs, values and behaviour in relation to

their work and the organisations for which they work. For example, people in

individualistic cultures place more importance on freedom and challenges in their jobs,

with initiative usually encouraged; this is in contrast to those from a collectivistic

culture. People in collective cultures such as Saudi Arabia expect members of their

particular in-group to take care of one another; offering protection and security in

exchange for loyalty.

2.3.5. Short-Term -Long-Term Orientation

According to Hofstede‟s analysis, Saudi Arabia is a long-term oriented country. Recent

articles have provided some evidence of Saudi Arabia‟s ranking in regards to LTO. The

article “Long-Versus Short-Term Orientation: New Perspectives” scores Saudi Arabia

at 36, as based on a World Values Survey (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, 2010).

Gorrill (2007) mentions that cultural concerns affecting the Saudi Arabian business

context include the need to schedule meetings outwith “the five daily prayer times and

religious holidays of Ramadan and Hajj”.

21

In summary, based on Hofstede‟s analysis Saudi Arabia is broadly similar to other Arab

countries; with the Muslim faith playing a large role in people‟s lives. The large power

distance and uncertainty avoidance that are predominant characteristics in this region,

lead to the expectation that leaders will separate themselves from the group, establishing

authority by issuing complete and specific directives, exercising ultimate power and

reinforcing control as required without recourse to democracy. The third highest

Hofstede dimension was (MAS) and the lowest was individualism (IDV), in line with

the remainder of the Arab world, offering a contrast to other developed countries such

as the USA and UK. Bjerke and Al-Meer, 1993; Budhwar and Debrah, 2001) claim that

in Saudi culture, Islam becomes combined with Arab traditions to produce a distinctive

mixture as revealed in this evaluation of Saudi mentality and behaviour.

2.4. Saudi Private Sector

The private sector includes those economic activities that are not performed by

government owned organisations. The importance of the private sector can be ascribed

to its increased contribution to gross domestic product (GDP). GDP refers to the market

value of the goods and services produced within a country in a given period. It is often

considered an indicator of a country's standard of living (Rispoli and Leung, 2011).

Saudi Arabia‟s economy is petroleum-based, with the country owning about one quarter

of the world‟s oil reserves. The KSA is in the process of utilising the oil incomes from

its national-owned projects to fund the creation of a modern economy that engages in

international trade, finance and manufacturing. There are more Saudis employed by the

government than by the private sector. However, the country imports a great number of

employees from other nations; its private foreign workforce comprises approximately

60% of all workers (Hain, 2011).

In 2002, the Council of Ministers approved the type of activities and services targeted

for privatisation. Large state–owned corporations, generally monopolise and dominate

the Saudi economy. These firms include oil firms, for example, Saudi ARAMCO and

the Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) (Ministry of Commerce, 2004). The

following section presents brief information about (SABIC) as a significant player in

the world‟s petrochemical market, with expanded operations both at home and abroad

22

(Ramady, 2010).

2.5. Overview of Saudi Basic Industries Corporation profile

SABIC is a global company that is a fast-growing petrochemicals and steel producer.

SABIC, headquartered in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), is one of the world's top 6

petrochemical companies and it is the largest non-oil company in the Middle East.

SABIC was established by royal Decree No. M/66 dated 7th

September 1976, as a joint

stock corporation under the authority of the Ministry of Industry and Electricity, with

SR 10.00 million ($2.937) million as capital, divided into ten (10) million shares

(SABIC Report, 2010).

The Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) is one of the world‟s leading

manufacturers of fertilizers, plastics, chemicals and metals, and SABIC is

manufacturing tens of related products and supplies these products to other companies,

who use them to make key global products. SABIC is the largest and most reliably

profitable public company in the Middle East with sound investor relations. This

success is the result of its focus on three things: investment in local partnerships,

emphasising the best research and technology programs, and its ambitious global

growth strategy (SABIC Report, 2010).

SABIC has produced several products that are consumed locally and exported

throughout the entire world; therefore it is committed to good practices throughout its

offices in the, Middle East, Asia, Africa, America and Europe (Balkhi and Foul, 2009).

SABIC's growth was initially based on manufacturing joint ventures in Saudi Arabia

with Western and Japanese partners including ExxonMobil, Shell, and the Mitsubishi

Corp. Joint ventures are not acquisitions or mergers, rather they are mutually agreed

arrangements designed to achieve something specific by combining technological

capabilities, human resources and other individual strengths. In the competitive global

marketplace, even very large companies sometimes need to collaborate with other

businesses (Al-Morished, 2004) to maximise their potential for success. These plants

continue to benefit from attractively priced feedstock, mainly ethane, and as a result

SABIC‟s partners have over the years generated high levels of profitability via their

23

participation in the joint ventures. SABIC has been increasingly striking out on its own

in the basic chemical markets but, as part of a previously announced diversification

strategy, which continues to seek partnerships allied with technology providers that

have market expertise in downstream sectors (www.chemweek.com and Al-Morished,

2004).

The company's recent agreement to build a methyl methacrylate and polymethyl

methacrylate complex in Saudi Arabia with Mitsubishi Rayon is an example of this

policy. SABIC's long-term vision focuses on further profitable and sustainable growth,

based on a doubling of sales to $60 billion/ year by 2020 (www.chemweek.com). The

company, as a part of this strategy, has made major investments at home, acquired

businesses in Europe and the U.S., and invested in China; it is now in the process of

diversifying its portfolio. SABIC's diversification plans include its intended entry into

the polyurethanes (PU), nylon, and rubber and elastomer businesses

(www.chemweek.com and SABIC Report, 2011).

The company is examining additional investment opportunities, including cooperation

in selected projects with the state-owned energy firm Saudi Aramco. Major overseas

investments have included the 2002 acquisition of DSM's petrochemicals business and

the purchase of Huntsman's U.K. petrochemical assets in 2006 (www.chemweek.com).

These two acquisitions extended SABIC's reach into Europe through ownership of

manufacturing assets at Geleen in the Netherlands; Gelsenkirchen in Germany; and

Wilton, in the U.K. SABIC's third, and by far largest overseas acquisition, was the

$11.6-billion takeover of GE Plastics, since renamed SABIC Innovative Plastics, in

2007. This deal transformed SABIC into a leading producer of engineering plastics.

SABIC also ranks among the world's leading producers of polyethylene (PE),

polypropylene (FP), glycols, methanol, and fertilizers. Its major domestic

manufacturing sites are at Jubail and Yanbu, Saudi Arabia. SABIC currently comprises

six strategic business units (SBU): chemicals, engineering plastics, fertilizers, metals,

performance chemicals, and polymers. Performance chemicals, the youngest SBU, are

the main driver of SABIC's diversification strategy. It plans to introduce more than 40

new performance products over the coming years, and by 2020 these are expected to

account for almost 10% of SABIC's revenues. The search for performance chemicals

SBU is headed by Jacobus Van Haasteren, who says that the task is a unique

http://www.chemweek.com/

24

opportunity: "Creating growth from where we are today to that goal in 2020 is a

challenging and interesting task" (www.chemweek.com and SABIC Report, 2011).

2.5.1. SABIC Vision and Mission

According to SABIC report 2010 the vision and mission of SABIC as following:

SABIC Vision: To be the preferred world leader in chemicals.

SABIC Mission: To responsibly provide quality products and services through

innovation, learning and operational excellence while sustaining maximum value for

stakeholders

2.5.2. SABIC Rankings Among the World’s Top Petrochemical Companies

(SABIC Report, 2010):

No. 1 in the world in the production of: Mono-ethylene Glycol, MTBE,

Granular Urea, Polyphenylene and Polyether imide

• No. 2 in Methanol and Polycarbonate

• No. 3 in Polyethylene, Polybutylene Teraphtalate, Engineering plastics

and their compounds

No. 4 in Polypropylene and Polyolefins

2.5.3. Strategic Business Divisions and Products (SABIC Report, 2010).

Chemicals: The chemicals SABIC makes come in four basic groups: Olefins and

gases, such as ethylene, propylene, butadiene, butane-1 and industrial gases like

nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. SABIC‟s vision is to become the world‟s preferred

leader in chemicals by 2020.

Polymers and caustic soda in a wide range of industrial applications including

paper and textile production. Glycols are used in polyester fabrics and packaging

materials, and oxygenates are used as solvents and to improve fuel efficiency.

Over the next few years, SABIC plans to introduce over 30 new value added

polymers. By 2020, it is anticipated that products like these will account for

around 10 percent of all SABIC revenues.


25

Innovative Plastics: including grades incorporating open and closed loop

recycled materials.

Performance chemicals: business production line intended to manufacture a

range of specialty chemicals such as ethoxylates, ethanolamines. Over the next

few years, SABIC plans to introduce over 30 new value added performance

chemicals. By 2020, products like these are expected to account for around 10

percent of all SABIC revenues.

Fertilizers: SABIC is one of the leading global fertilizer producers with over

6.7 million tons per annum of gross production capacity. Fertilizers such as

urea, ammonia, and phosphate, from SABIC three affiliates: Saudi Arabian

fertilizers Company (SAfCO), the Al-Jubail fertilizer Company (Al-BAyROnI)

and national Chemical fertilizer Company (IBn Al-BAyTAR).

Metals: include flat steel and long steel. Saudi Iron and Steel Company

(HADEED), and participation with the Board of Directors of the Gulf

Aluminium Rolling Mill Company (GARMCO) and in Aluminium Bahrain

(ALBA), to manage SABIC‟s interests in both the companies, which are based

in Bahrain..

2.5.4. SABIC Human Resources

One of the major goals in creating SABIC was the further development of Saudi

manpower. The first generation of SABIC's Saudi personnel received on-the-job

training from joint ventures in industrial management, technical operation and

administrative skills. SABIC considered human resources as the biggest single

challenge and the most difficult faced in the early stages of its operations due to the

shortage of a skilled Saudi national work force. In order meet the challenge of

developing a national work force capable of taking over management and technical

positions in the future, SABIC initiated programmes for the development of human

resources aimed at fulfilling this aspiration. In addition to its concern for customers,

SABIC demonstrated a solid commitment to the development of its growing numbers of

employees (Bourland, 2002).

SABIC currently employs more than 33,000 people working in more than 100 countries

26

on six continents. At the Saudi Arabian sites (where the research was conducted), the

proportion of Saudis is 85% of the total workforce (14 450 out of 17 000 employees)

most of these are engineers and skilled technicians. Saudi nationals hold 99% of the

leadership positions (e.g. board level) in SABIC and its subsidiaries, comprise 79% of

the staff working in administrative jobs, 77% of those working in technical fields, 63%

of engineers, 72% of workers in information technology, 78% of workers in the finance

and 100% of field safety workers, whereas the percentage of Saudi nationals in

management posts is unknown.

<http://www.sabic.com/corporate/ar/ourcommitments/people/default.aspx 23 September

2011>. Those foreign workers employed by SABIC, come from different countries,

including the USA, the UK, Asia and elsewhere in the Middle East {see chapter four

part (4.23.) employees background information}. It is likely that with full Saudi Arabian

membership of the WTO private sectors in Saudi Arabia there will be a need to apply

leadership skills to manage the increasingly diverse environment.

2.5.5. SABIC Global Operations

SABIC has subsidiaries in four regions: the Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle

East and Africa. SABIC is now composed of six strategic business units (SBUs),

organised by product (SABIC Report, 2010).

2.6. Summary

This chapter has reviewed the current working environment in Saudi Arabia according

to Hofstede‟s criteria and has profiled SABIC profile, because it is the research context.

Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded that Saudi management and

leadership are influenced by many traditional social-cultural factors that push them

towards establishing the significance of the centralisation of authority. The next chapter

reviews the literature affecting some of the research into relevant areas such as culture

diversity and its challenges in the workplace, leadership behaviour theories, and social

identity theory. This review focuses on the main leadership styles recommended

throughout the literature for handling the cultural diversity in the workplace.

http://www.sabic.com/corporate/ar/ourcommitments/people/default.aspx%2023%20September%202011

http://www.sabic.com/corporate/ar/ourcommitments/people/default.aspx%2023%20September%202011

27

CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1. Introduction

The previous chapter presented a review of Saudi Arabia and provided a profile of

SABIC, to detail the research context. The key points noted were that people in the

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia place a high value on power distance, uncertainty avoidance,

masculinity, low individualism and short- term-orientation. However this research aims

to examine the role of leadership behaviours when leading a culturally diverse

workplace as the Saudi people are not the only employees of SABIC and team leaders

are also required to manage people from different backgrounds. Thus, this chapter

reviews the literature from a different perspective, considering leadership behaviour

theories (charismatic and ethical) as an important asset for all multicultural

organisations. It focuses on how such theories can be applied to create a sustainable

shared understanding that has a positive effect on the performance of the organisation

and raises team efficiency and effective communication amongst co-workers. The aim

of this being to facilitate the progress of a potentially strong team culture, which in turn

will provide the organisation with the opportunity to promote a competitive advantage.

This chapter provides a review of the relevant literature from numerous fields of study

associated with essential issues resulting from cultural diverse environments, leadership

theories and social identity theory. It will address the following topics: defining culture

and cultural diversity, the benefits of cultural diversity in the workplace, challenges to

cultural diversity in the workplace, leadership theory (charismatic and ethical

leadership) and hypotheses development based on these theories. The chapter ends by

discussing social identity theory and the development of hypotheses based on this

theory.

3.2. Cultural Diversity as Research Context

One of the key issues facing corporations in this century is the importance of raising the

topic of cultural diversity. According to Lavaty and Kleiner (2001), cultural diversity is

an essential topic for discussion in the 21st century. They stated that during the 21

st

century, cultural diversity is one of the critical trends which have a significant impact on

28

the workgroup. Gröschl and Doherty (2006) stated that the increase in cultural diversity

in the workforce is due to demographic changes in the population. This increasingly

diverse workgroup affects human resource strategies. Therefore, understanding and

managing cultural diversity is important for the successful evolution of a modern

organisation. There is evidence that many countries‟ workforces are gradually becoming

more diverse. For instance, the percentage of multicultural groups in the USA had

reached 28% of the population by 2005 and the ratio will have increased to 50 per cent

by 2050 (Wright and Note, 1996; Fleury, 1999). Canada is another multi-cultural

country, where the percentage of diverse workgroups in 1995 was 10% of the working

population, a number likely to double by 2015 (Demers, 2002). This rapid increase in

culturally diverse workforces has spread to affect Western Europe, Russia, Latin

America, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Iran and the Arab Gulf countries

(Lenartowicz and Johnson, 2002; Atiyyah, 1996). For example, the Saudi Arabian

workforce is culturally diverse; according to the Saudi Ministry of Labour there were

approximately seven million foreigners in the kingdom in 2003, making up a little less

than one-third of the kingdom's total population of 23 million.

Increasing globalisation requires that there is more interaction between co-workers from

diverse cultures, beliefs, and backgrounds than ever before. People no longer live and

work in a limited marketplace; they are currently regarded as part of the international

economy with competition emerging from almost every continent. Therefore,

organisations are required to take diversity seriously so as to become more innovative

and open to change (Lee and Nathan, 2010); for this reason, the question of how best to

take advantage of workplace diversity has become a significant concern for leaders.

Leading a culturally diverse workforce is an imperative and an organisational challenge.

Thus, leaders need to acquire the managerial skills and behaviours necessary to manage

a multicultural work environment effectively (van Woerkom and de Reuver, 2009;

Muethel and Hoegl, 2010). Leaders are required to be prepared to educate themselves,

and their followers within their organisations, to value multicultural differences in both

their co-workers and customers, so that each individual is treated with dignity

(Mendenhall, 2008 and Mazur, 2010).

29

The following section provides relevant definitions of what constitutes culture and

cultural diversity.

3.2.1. Cultural Diversity Definition

Before examining the theme of cultural diversity in an organisation, it is beneficial to

identify what culture means. For example, the following definitions represent a broad

cross-section of the diverse factors that have been proposed to encapsulate this concept:

“Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit of and for behaviour acquired and

transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinct achievement of human groups.

Including their embodiment in artefacts; the essential core of culture consists of

traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached

values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on

the other as conditioning elements of future action” (Kroeber and Kluckhohn,

1952:181).

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner define culture as “Social interaction, or meaningful

communication, pre-supposes common ways of processing information among the

people interacting.” Another definition of culture by Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) is

“the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or

category of people from another.” (P: 282).

Culture, “has something to do with sharing or consensus among the member of a group.

The most obvious aspect of such sharing is the common language and conceptual

categories that are discovered wherever are studies a social group that has had any kind

of history and shared experience” (Schein, 2011: 312).

For the purpose of this study, and based on the three definitions discussed above,

culture refers to the values and beliefs held during group interaction that influence

behaviours and attitudes affecting the establishment of a shared culture.

30

Whereas the concept of cultural diversity is used in a variety of ways and can refer

fundamentally to many different issues. According to Gröschl and Doherty (1999), a

diverse workforce consists principally of people who look different and have different

life experiences. Although diversity has often been understood as the gender and racial

makeup of a company‟s workforce, it goes beyond this narrow range to include

additional factors such as age, cultural background, education, national origin, religion

physical appearance and economic status. These are just some of the many

characteristics that define us as individuals and employees. However, there is no basic

definition of „culture diversity‟ due to the complexity of the concept (Golde, 2005).

However, cultural diversity from the perspective of Harrison, Price and Bell (1998)

suggests two dimensions of heterogeneity; surface level and deep level. Surface level or

“demographic characteristics” include race, sex, age and marital status. They view these

features as permanent, almost visible and easy to measure and validate. Conversely, the

deep level “psychological characteristics” include: personality, values, attitudes and

beliefs. As maintained by Harrison et al. (2002) it can be difficult to observe these

features, unless groups do not interact well with one another. Harrison et al. (1998)

argue that through mutual interaction, demographic diversity studies become less

significant than psychological diversity.

Harrison et al. (1998, 2002) have explored the degree of the different consequences of

heterogeneity in surface and deep-level forms among the work groups of hospital and

grocery store staff. The researchers have examined team consistency as a key outcome.

They found that superficial differences were less important and deeply rooted

differences were more important for groups that had interacted more frequently. In other

words, as work groups spend more time together, as the length of time spent together

grows the effects of surface-level diversity are weakened and the effects of deep-level

diversity as group members are strengthened as the opportunity is available for them to

emerge during meaningful interactions. This result is consistent with Tyran and

Gibson‟s study (2008); they investigated two different populations and found that

surface level differences were less important than deep-rooted differences when groups

interacted frequently.

31

In the light of the discussions above, and on the basis of the importance of deep-level

“psychological characteristics”, this study will focus on these as important dimensions

of heterogeneity in the case of cultural diversity. The fact that this study is conducted in

Saudi Arabia where the vast majority of the people share similar beliefs, values and

norms, does not detract from its relevance. Globalisation is transforming the labour

market in Saudi Arabia from that of single-nation diversity to multi-national diversity,

altering the character of the cultural workplace.

The next sections discuss the potential benefits and challenges that arise as a result of

this cultural diversity.

3.2.2 The Benefit of Culture Diversity in the Workplace

Many business leaders are now starting to consider that diversity has important bottom-

line benefits. Diversity in the workforce can lead to competitive advantage because

different viewpoints can facilitate unique and creative approaches to problem-solving;

thereby increasing creativity and innovation, which in turn leads to better organisational

performance (Allen, Dawson, Wheatley and White, 2004).

Roberson and Park (2007) maintain that a multicultural workforce results in excellence,

achieved by attracting and retaining the best talent. This helps reduce costs associated

with turnover, absenteeism and low productivity. A multicultural company can

penetrate and widen its markets with knowledge of political, social, legal, economic and

cultural environment.

Both researchers and practitioners have argued that changes to the demographics of the

workforce can influence team performance, so enhancing organisational efficiency and

effectiveness (Jackson, May and Whitney, 1995; Lawrence, 1997; Snow, Snell and

Hambrich, 1996). Companies use multicultural teams to expand globally and to

accomplish the potential for cross-cultural markets in order to achieve the necessary

32

flexibility, responsiveness and improved resource utilisation to meet the continuous

demands of a global business context (Mowshowitz, 1997; Snow et al., 1996). Scholars

investigating cultural diversity highlight that firms with highly diverse teams often

produce ideas of higher quality when exploration skills are required (Wolfe, 2010; Scull

et al., 2010). Additionally, Amaram (2007) stated that the capabilities of identifying

problems and generating solutions in culturally diverse teams are greater than those for

homogeneous teams. For example a study of the U.S. Forestry Service suggests the

advantages of running a culturally diverse organisation when involved in the

development and management of natural resource policies. It concluded that the

creation of a diverse mix of employees was not only more reflective of the diverse

public which the Forest Service, but also resulted in better land management decisions,

as they were more responsive to the desires and needs of the populations being served

(Brown and Harris, 1993).

Canen and Canen (2002) stress that it is evident that a multicultural team that shares

expectations will facilitate communication and team productivity. Stahl et al. (2010)

concluded in their meta analysis of research on multicultural work groups, cultural

diversity leads to process losses through task conflict and decreased social integration,

but to process gains through increased creativity and satisfaction. Scholars have argued

that creativity comes from new ideas, multiple perspectives, and the different problem-

solving styles that members bring to the team (Adler, 2002 and Stahl, et al., 2010).

Considering that workforce diversity has dramatically increased, Ragins and Gonzalez

(2003) acknowledge that having cultural diversity may be a key requirement for

sustained competitive advantage, due to increased creativity and innovation (Bassett-

Jones, 2005; Richard, 2000). This is regarded as one of the main missions of SABIC.

However, the benefits of cultural diversity are in essence derived from the same source

as the attendant challenges; different perspectives on how a task can be successfully

executed can embody either creativity or conflict, depending on the work environment.

Scholars in the field of cultural diversity have asserted that managing it is a key issue

for effective people management, because it has the potential to result in extremely high

productivity and competitive benefit (e.g. Roberge and van Dick, 2010, Alon, et al.,

2011 and Gakahu, 2011). In contrast, cultural diversity in the workplace that is managed

33

ineffectively might obstruct the accomplishment of organisational goals. Therefore

diversity can be perceived as a “double-edged sword” (Mazur, 2010).

3.2.3. Cultural Diversity Challenges in the Workplace

Cultural diversity in all arenas can result in relationship conflicts, problems with group

cohesion and lack of affective commitment. In the case of organisations this can have a

negative impact on their success in terms of effectiveness and productivity. Many

studies suggest that cultural diversity is potentially likely to affect team outcomes

negatively, influencing team relationships and overall member satisfaction (De Dreu

and Weingart, 2003; Tekleab, et al., 2009; Clark, 2011). This is because value conflicts

in general suggest that there is no common ground through which to communicate. In

this study leader effectiveness concerns dealing with cultural diversity challenges

effectively by reducing group conflict and promote group cohesion and affective

organisational commitment. The following section discusses the challenges posed by

cultural diversity in more detail.

3.2.3.1. Relationship Conflict

Conflict arises when two or more individuals or groups have differing opinions on or

disagree in a particular situation. Conflict is generally viewed as an intervening variable

between situational and individual antecedents and group outcomes, such as

productivity (Gladstein, 1984; Peng and Tjosvold, 2011). Korsgaard and Mahony

(2008) define conflict generally as something that occurs between parties when they are

incapable of communicating well, or when there is dissimilarity in their goals or

inspirations.

Conflict is often increased when cultural differences are present, however it is not

always accurate to assume that conflict is a negative (Jehn, 1995; Jehn and Manniz,

2001). It can be beneficial where it leads to a resolution or where the conflict results in

promoting new ideas. Tóth and Zieger (2009) observed that in multi-cultural

organisations where people of different nationalities are expected to work cooperatively,

disputes are generally based on differences unrelated to the language barrier. People

from different countries have varying attitudes in regards to everything from normal

daily work practices to high-level decision-making practices, and therefore potential for

34

conflict is present in such environments.

Given its importance, scholars have focused extensive efforts on understanding and

resolving conflict (Brehmer, 1976; Mohammed and Angell, 2004; Tekleab, et al., 2009;

Peng and Tjosvold, 2011). One outcome of this work is that researchers now view

conflict as having two related, yet distinct dimensions; one being task-related

disagreement (task conflict), and the other interpersonal disagreement among members

(relationship conflict) (Pinkley, 1990; Priem and Price,1991; Jehn, 1995; De Dreu and

Weingart, 2003; Simons and Peterson, 2000).

According to Jehn (1995, p. 258); “disagreements among group members about the

content of the tasks being performed, including differences in viewpoints, ideas, and

opinions” are representative of task based conflict. Whereas, relationship conflict refers

to “interpersonal incompatibilities among group members, which typically include

tension, animosity, and annoyance among members within a group” (Jehn, 1995, p.

258). In the work setting in which teams are expected to work together these two

varieties of conflict operate distinctively to affect team growth, processes and outcomes

(Simons and Peterson, 2000; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; Ayoko, et. al., 2008).

Team outcomes have been shown by scholars to exhibit positive characteristics in

response to conflict. For example, task conflict has been found to encourage greater

understanding of issues that may lead to more innovation, re-evaluation of requirements

and improved engagement in tasks (Simons and Peterson, 2000; Alper, Tjosvold and

Law, 1998; Jehn, 1997). Other studies have shown that groups become more cohesive

and committed in terms of performance when the levels of conflict associated with a

particular task are heightened (Jehn and Chatman, 2000). These results are rationalised

by the fact that controversy prompts debate among group members and so enriches the

quality of decision making in the group (Jehn, 1995; Jehn and Mannix, 2001). Previous

research has explored some of these affirmations with regards to task conflict. Putnam

(1994) illustrated that task conflicts facilitate people‟s identity and improve

understanding of the problems involved, and Baron (1991) presented confirmation of

the hypothesis that task conflicts within parties embolden people to generate new ideas

35

and methods. Additional research has investigated the impact of task conflict on entire

group‟s performance. In a longitudinal study, Fiol (1994) confirmed that when group

members receive a different explanation of task subject matter, the group‟s knowledge

and the accuracy of any evaluation of the situation was enhanced. Schwenk and

Valacich (1994) explained that evaluating and articulating the situation provided higher

quality decisions in work groups because members faced problems instead of avoiding

them, making them appear less serious. Recent research has revealed small correlations

between task conflict and job satisfaction (e.g., De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; Curşeu

and Schruijer 2010).

Conversely, relationship conflict describes incompatibilities within a team that are

unrelated to the work itself (Jehn and Chatman, 2000). These can result from personal

friction that may have various causes, such as frustration, and personality clashes (Ross,

1989) based on individual differences of opinion, preferences, style, and personality (De

Dreu and Van Vianen, 2001). Unlike task related conflict relationship conflict has a

uniformly negative impact on productivity, coherence and satisfaction within teams

(Jehn and Chatman, 2000; Jehn, 1995; Pelled, 1996; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003;

Curşeu and Schruijer, 2010).

Thus, relationship, or interpersonal, conflict is generally judged to hinder effective

group functioning while task, or substantive, conflict is thought to promote effective

group work (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1994, 1995, 1999; Jehn and Mannix, 2001 De Dreu

and Weingart, 2003; Curşeu and Schruijer 2010). According to Jehn, (1995)

relationship conflict is more harmful to the psychological well-being of group members

than task conflict because it entails a strong affective backlash, such as that derived

from emotional tension and hostility. Therefore, this study focuses on relationship

conflict as an in depth challenge resulting from cultural differences; examining the role

played by leadership styles in reducing this kind of conflict.

Most empirical research in this field has focused on collective differences in surface

level “demographic”, function and values. Generally, the findings have established a

number of effects in relation to intergroup conflict that are similar to the presumed

36

negative results from more culturally diverse groups. These arguments are based largely

on examination of the impact of diversity on conflict when focusing on demographic

values and diversity; as stated above the results from the majority of research generally

indicate that diversity is associated with greater conflict (van Knippenberg and

Schippers, 2007). For instance, gender, age and race diversity are typically related to

higher levels of relation conflict (Mohammed and Angell, 2004; Pelled et al., 1999;

Vodosek, 2007). Additionally, diversity in functional background, knowledge bases and

educational background is positively related to task conflict (Jehn, 1997, 1999; Mooney

et al., 2007; Olson, Parayitam and Bao, 2007; Pelled et al., 1999). Diversity in terms of

value systems is also problematic, leading to both task and relationship conflict (Jehn et

al. 1997; Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Mohammed and Angell, 2004; Vodosek, 2007).

Overall, scholars investigating the field of cultural diversity have emphasised that it is

positively related to relation conflict (Nibler and Harris, 2003, Vodosek, 2007). Relation

conflict that result in disputes in multicultural teams are often rooted in deep-level

differences, which makes them difficult for leaders to identify, address and resolve

(Boone and Hendriks, 2009).

Accordingly, and in support of what has been discussed above, researchers have stated

that diversity in values, attitudes and beliefs is a potential source of negativity and

relationship conflict, leading to lower performance (Jehn, 1997; Weisner, 2009; Curşeu

and Schruijer, 2010). Their studies show that cultural diversity can be confidently be

related to relationship and task conflict. Deep-level differences, in opposition to surface-

level differences were stated by Harrison, Price, Gavin and Florey (2002) to become

greater over time as a result of team interactions. Thus the effect of diversity on task and

relationship conflict may be mitigated or exacerbated by other factors. For example,

Jehn and Mannix (2001) found no relationship between values diversity and task and

relationship conflict during the initial weeks of a group‟s life; however, during the

middle stages deep-level diversity was associated with greater relationship conflict.

Pelled et al., (1999) found that the effects of surface-level diversity diminished over the

life of the group. For this reason this study examines relation conflict in the context of

deep-level diversity rather than in a surface-level context.

Therefore, the reason for highlighting relationship conflict in this study is because, on

37

the one hand, it is an important predictor of frustration and negative emotion and on the

other hand, it is a predictor of numerous organisational outcomes such as performance

turnover, absenteeism and team cohesion (Jehn, 1995; Pelled, 1996; De Dreu and

Weingart, 2003; Curşeu and Schruijer, 2010). This may be because of different

interpersonal incompatibilities or simply annoyance between group members (Weisner,

2009; Curşeu and Schruijer, 2010). This is especially relevant to the study of multi-

national groups where cultural differences often result in a lack of cohesion among

group members (Sánchez and Yurrebaso, 2009).

Although scholars regard conflict and cohesion as drawn from same nomological

network (cf. Cronbach and Meehl, 1955), it is essential to refer to the major differences

between these terms in relation to conflict regarded as a team process; whereas cohesion

is regarded as a team enhancing state (Marks et al., 2001). With regards to the

relationship between conflict and team cohesion, existing theory draws the leader‟s

attention to the importance of managing the conflict stages in developing team cohesion

over time (Change, Bordia and Duck, 2003). Most scholars agree that relationship

conflict negatively influences team cohesion. They argue that it is likely that

relationship conflict takes place early in a team‟s life and may lead subsequently to a

negative impact on team cohesion (Carnevale and Probst, 1998; De Dreu and Weingart,

2003; Tekleab, et al., 2009). Therefore, the next section will discuss team cohesion as

another cultural diversity challenge in the workplace.

3.2.3.2. Group Cohesion

Cohesion has been regarded as the most important determiner of success in small

groups (Carron and Brawley, 2000). Throughout the literature, many authors have

attempted to define this concept and a variety of opinions on the subject have emerged.

For instance, the earliest definitions were those given by Festinger (1950) who defined

cohesion as “all the forces acting on the members to remain in the group” (p. 274).

Whereas Shaw (1981) described cohesiveness as the degree to which members like each

other and desire to remain a part of the group. Langfred (1998) suggested a definition of

cohesion as “the extent to which group members feel a part of the group and their desire

to remain in the group” (p.127). Other definitions have included attraction to a group

and its member‟s mutually positive attitudes (Lott and Lott, 1965), attraction to the

group (Cartwright, 1968; Evans and Jarvis, 1986). “Group connectedness” (Budman et

38

al., 1993, p.202) and “a basic bond or uniting force” (Piper, Marrache, Lacroix,

Richardsen and Jones, 1983, p.93). Whereas Carron (1982) defined cohesion as “a

dynamic process which is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and

remain united in the pursuit of its goals and objectives” (p.124). Keyton (1999)

observes, “Cohesiveness has been described as an attitude or feeling members have

about their groups, its task, or other members” (p.207).

Leana (1985) discussed „attraction to the group‟ as a positive force affecting cohesion in

contrast with the results derived when groups are composed of randomly appointed

individuals. Johnson (1997) conceptualised attraction as a type of cohesion, saying

group cohesion, “may be defined as the mutual attraction among members of a group

and the resulting desire to remain in the group” (p. 113). Trice and Beyer (1993) see

cohesion in a similar way to Leana (1985), suggesting that, “when groups are cohesive,

members are attracted to and come to like one another...” (p.177). For the purpose of

this study the author defines group cohesion as the attraction of team members to the

group and the desire to remain a part of the group.

Researchers in this field emphasise the importance of team cohesion at the individual

and team level. For example, a number of studies revealed that the cohesive nature of a

group generally has a positive effect on that group in general in terms of job satisfaction

and productivity, as well as on the individuals contributing to the group (McGrath,

1984; Carron, Colman, Wheeler and Stevens, 2002; Tekleab, et al., 2009). In their group

study O‟Reilly and Caldwell (1985) emphasised that establishing task norms for

cohesive groups is easier than for non cohesive groups. To achieve these affirmative

results, it is crucial to recognise the aspects that help organisations to increase group

cohesion. Researchers have identified a number of these aspects such as, level of

interaction, team size, nature of the task, level of conflict (Lott and Lott, 1965; Wright

and Drewery, 2006) and member‟s intentions to remain within the group (Tekleab, et

al., 2009). Identification with the group also plays an important role in the

consequences of cohesiveness (Hogg, 1992). Sánchez and Yurrebaso (2009) argued that

it is not the interaction itself that is crucial; rather it is „group culture‟, which includes

factors such as the content, meanings and topics of interaction that are based in shared

beliefs.

39

Scholars of diversity offer evidence that supports the view that greater group diversity

leads to lower levels of cohesion (Thomas et al., 1994; Harrison Price and Bell, 1998;

Alesina and Ferrara, 2000; Costa and Kahn, 2003; Putnam, 2003; van Knippenberg and

Schippers, 2007). Additionally, researchers have found that the more the work group

sees similarities at the deeper level (shared values, beliefs, and cultural customs) or on

the surface-level (such as, race, education, social class, gender and age), the more they

will be attracted to each other. Therefore, some groups of employees exhibit a higher

degree of group cohesion than others (Whyte, 1998; Boxx, Odom and Dunn, 1991;

Dunlop and Beauchamp, 2011).

In contrast to this view, Smith et al. (1994) found no relationship between diversity and

cohesion. Similar results were found by Webber and Donohue (2001) in their meta-

analysis, which demonstrated no consistent relationship between group diversity and

cohesion. In agreement with this argument were Wright and Drewery (2002), who

studied Asian, Pacific islands and Anglo students. They concluded that levels of socio-

emotional cohesion in diverse groups differs across cultures and may be connected to

differences in conflict perception and management in addition to other factors.

Researchers in this field have analysed these findings, and highlighted that the impacts

of diversity on cohesion may well vary according to the level of diversity (Milliken and

Martins, 1996; Dunlop and Beauchamp, 2011).

Collectively, these findings bring up an essential question concerning group attractions

to each other in the context of cultural diversity; to the author‟s knowledge, the

relationship between some leadership styles (charismatic and ethical leadership

behaviours) and group cohesion in work groups has not been addressed by previous

research.

40

The above review of group cohesion in a diversity environment literature provides

strong advances regarding the negative influence that the lack of group cohesion brings

to diverse workplaces. Therefore, group cohesion, will be one of the present study‟s

concerns. Additionally, Andrews and his co-authors (2008) confirmed empirically that

highly cohesive groups have often been related to affective commitment. On the other

hand, a number of studies confirmed that the absence of group cohesion may lead to

several non-beneficial organisational outcomes such as low employee performance

increase in turnover intention, absenteeism and team conflict (Colquitt, Noe, and

Jackson, 2002; Carron, Colman, Wheeler, and Stevens, 2002; Kozlowski and Bell,

2003; Tekleab, et al., 2009, Miles and Schaufeli, 2011). These negative outcomes may

be as a consequence of different interpersonal ineptness, or aggravation between team

members (Weisner, 2009; Curşeu and Schruijer, 2010). This is particularly relevant to a

study of multi-national groups where cultural differences often result in a lack of

cohesion among group members (Webber and Donahue, 2001; Stahl, et al., 2010).

Scholars involved in team cohesion studies argued that the level of work involved in

achieving team cohesion may enhance affective commitment to the organisation.

Several studies revealed those followers who have experience of high levels of team

cohesion also have a greater feeling of affective commitment to the organisation (Wech,

et al., 1998; Kidwell, Mossholder and Bennett, 1997; Yoon, Baker and Ko, 1994,

Andrews, et al., 2008). Research suggests that the advantages of team cohesion expand

further than satisfaction with one‟s direct work group to attitudes towards the

organisation as a whole (Colquitt and Jackson, 2006). The following section will

discuss organisational commitment as a third challenge of cultural diversity.

3.2.3.3. Organisational Commitment

Leaders often alter their behaviours to influence and accomplish organisational goals

and employee commitment in an organisation is regarded as a key objective for

supervisors. Organisational commitment determines the level of acceptance and beliefs

in the organisation‟s goals and values, and examines the degree to which members have

a strong desire to retain loyalty to the organisation. Organisational members who are the

most committed to their organisation are the least likely to leave; which results in fewer

costs for the organisation in terms of recruiting and training. The literature reveals

organisational commitment as being a positive energy that binds an employee to his/her

41

organisation (Kuokkanen et al., 2003; Laschinger and Finegan, 2005; Lok, Westwood

and Crawford, 2005; Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001; Tang, 2003; Tansky and Cohen,

2001). Employees are considered to be committed to their organisation if they show a

willingness to continue to be associated with that organisation and make great efforts

towards achieving organisational objectives (Laschinger and Finegan, 2005; Lok,

Westwood and Crawford, 2005; Mowday, 1998; Tansky and Cohen, 2001). Meyer and

Herscovitch (2001) found that employee commitment may be focused on numerous

targets at various levels of an organisation.

Buchanan (1974) defined organisational commitment as “a partisan, affective

attachment to the goals and values of the organisation, to one‟s role in relation to the

goals and values and to the organisation for its own sake, apart from its purely

instrumental worth” (p.533). Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian (1974) took

Buchanan‟s definition of organisational commitment one step further, seeing it as “the

strength of an individual‟s identification with and involved in a particular organisation

(p. 533) and Allen and Meyer describe three levels of organisational commitment thus:

1. Affective commitment- describes an employee who is emotionally committed to

the organisation and who stays with the organisation because they want to be

there.

2. Continuance Commitment – describes an employee whose commitment is

determined by weighing the costs of leaving the organisation. The employee

remains with the organisation due to an assessment of costs that are determined

to represent too great a risk.

3. Normative Commitment- describes an employee whose commitment is due

solely to feelings of obligation to remain with the organisation. (Allen and

Meyer, 1990, p.4)

Organisational members who have a high level of affective commitment are empirically

likely to experience higher job satisfaction (Chen, 2005). Employees who are

affectively committed to an organisation remain because they enjoy the membership

within the organisation, embrace leadership, are involved in the decision-making

process and have a strong belief and attachment to the goals of the organisation. The

higher the degree of affective commitment, the more the employee identifies themselves

42

as a member of that particular organisation (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Organisational

members who have a high level of continuance and normative commitment often obtain

a low level of job satisfaction (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Employees who are

continuously committed to the organisation weigh the costs associated with leaving the

organisation and remain within the current organisation because the costs of leaving are

thought to be too high. Employees who are normatively committed to the organisation

remain with the organisation because they feel obligated through feelings of guilt to

remain with the organisation. Normative committed employees feel an internal pressure

to act in correct ways to meet organisational goals. Organisational members with

normative commitment believe that they are acting morally and ethically by staying

committed to the organisation (Allen and Meyer, 1990).

Affective commitment has been shown in previous research to be an important

denotation of job satisfaction, turnover, transformational and charismatic leadership and

transactional leadership. For example, Bogler and Somech (2004) examined the

relationship between empowerment and affective commitment in middle and high

schools located in Northern and Central Israel. Professional growth, status, impact, self-

efficacy and decision making were all found to be positively related to affective

commitment. The greater the teachers‟ perceptions of themselves as participating and

practicing empowerment measurements, the higher they reported being affectively

committed to the organisation. In addition, professional growth, status and self-efficacy

were all found to be predictors of affective commitment. Teachers who felt that they

worked within a supportive environment, and who were recognised for their

contributions, and whose confidence was encouraged by management expressed a

higher degree of affective commitment.

Huselid and Day (1991) examined organisational commitment and its effect on turnover

among supervisors from a nationwide home products retailing firm, headquartered in

the Midwestern United States. They found that employees who scored higher on

continuous commitment were more likely to leave than those who scored lower. In

addition, those employees who scored higher on affective commitment were less likely

to leave the organisation. In this study affective commitment was recognised as the

strongest predictor of job satisfaction and low turnover. Leaders should continuously

43

assess and develop affective commitment among employees if they want to reduce

turnover and sustain high levels of job satisfaction.

From the discussion above it can be concluded that affective commitment has greater

leverage on employees‟ attitudes when it comes to impacting on employee leaving.

Affective commitment was expected to have the strongest positive effect on desirable

work behaviours (e.g. attendance, performance, organisational citizenship behaviour

and job satisfaction) (e.g. Lim, 2010; Carmeli, 2005; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch and

Topolnytsky, 2002).

Despite the recognition of the multidimensional nature of the commitment construct, the

majority of empirical studies have continued to focus on affective commitment (Eby et

al., 1999). Leveson et al. (2009) argued that affective organisational commitment is the

form of commitment that is most likely to reflect employees‟ attitudes to the way their

organisation manages cultural diversity.

The discussion above confirmed empirically the important role of affective commitment

in influencing employee attitude and behaviour. Thus, this study will focus on affective

commitment as one of the study hypothesis outcomes.

This section has discussed the cultural diversity challenges in the work place such as

high level of relation conflict and low level of group cohesion and affective

commitment. The following section discusses a theoretical framework for the study.

3.3. Leadership and Social Identity Theories

The growth in cultural diversity in workplaces in Saudi Arabia, as discussed in the

previous section, results in challenges in terms of internal conflict, low cohesion and

low levels of affective organisational commitment. This in turn, creates a high demand

for new forms of leadership in multicultural organisations. The current study examines

the relationship between charismatic and ethical leadership leader‟s effectiveness in

leading culturally diverse work places, and the moderating role of social identity in

these relationships. Thus, this study examines two leadership styles for leading

44

culturally diverse environments; these are charismatic and ethical leadership. It has been

argued that charismatic leadership has a powerful effect on followers and on

organisational culture (Conger and Kanungo, 1998; House et al., 2004). Consequently,

it is claimed that through adopting charismatic leadership, leaders can facilitate the

effectiveness of diverse teams by encouraging them to become more innovative,

reducing group conflict and assisting their members in accomplishing their

organisational goals effectively (Javidan, Dorfman, de Luque and House, 2006; Elenkov

and Manev, 2009) but evidence is lacking.

In the context of diversity, a model of ethical leadership is proposed to deal with diverse

workplaces in terms of honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, justice treatment and care.

Such leaders are not limited or influenced by negative attitudes, thoughts or feelings

towards foreign employees; such as discrimination, bias and stereotyping (e.g., Shore, et

al., 2009; van Dick, 2010; Podsiadlowski and Ward, 2010). Additionally, social

identity theory is suggested as a means of understanding how diversity affects team‟s

attitude and behaviours. As stated by Kriesberg (2003), dealing with conflicts requires

consideration from the social identity issues perspective.

The primary aim of this study is to specify the relationship between the main behaviours

that leaders in private sectors in Saudi Arabia need to become effective leaders in a

culturally diverse workplace and the moderator role for team‟s social identity in

reference to these relations. There is no doubt that the significance of successfully

enacting change is a critical issue that faces today‟s managers. With changes like these

comes the need for a more strategic form of leadership, these leadership styles are called

new leadership approaches (Bryman, 1992). The leader could be charismatic and

someone whom the follower trusts and whom they emotionally identify with

(Eisenbach, Walson and Pillai, 1999; Michaelis, et al., 2009). Types of exceptional

leadership, such as transformational, charismatic and visionary, are becoming more and

more critical to organisations, as workforces become more diverse, technology

improves and international competition increases. Leadership is an essential component

of the change management process, since change, requires both the formation of a new

system and the implementation of it.

45

The next section will review the different perspectives associated with charismatic

leadership theory behaviours; so as to consider what leaders actually do as opposed to

their underlying characteristics. A number of theories have been put forward to explore

leadership style in the context of organisational change such as transformational

leadership, charismatic and visionary leadership (House and Shamir, 1993).

3.3.1. Charismatic Leadership

Any discussion of charismatic leadership in organisations should begin with reference

to the work of German sociologist, Max Weber, who applied the term charismatic to

leaders in the secular world. His typology of three types of authority in society (the

traditional, the rational-legal and the charismatic) identified charismatic leadership as a

significant term with which to express forms of authority based on perceptions of

extraordinary individuals (Conger, 1988, 1993). Max Weber (1947) defined

charismatic authority as „resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or

exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order

revealed or ordained by him‟ (p. 215). He regards charisma as something attributed to a

leader by a set of followers, rather than an objective set of characters (House and

Shamir, 1993; Waldman and Yammarino, 1999).

In recent years, charismatic leadership has become a widely researched topic in

leadership literature (e.g. Levay, 2010; Wilderom and Berg, 2010; Varella, et al., 2011).

According to Bass (1985), the focus of charismatic leadership is on transforming the

beliefs, attitudes and values of followers to support the vision and goals of an

organisation by promoting an atmosphere in which relationships can be formed and by

establishing an environment of trust in which visions can be shared. House and a series

of colleagues (House and Howell, 1992; House and Shamir, 1993; House et al., 1991;

Shamir et al., 1993) introduced the concept of charismatic leadership, describing it as

not a set of specific behaviours but rather a process by which leaders and followers

elevate one another to higher levels of morality, motivation and performance. Bass

states that charismatic leaders are “charismatic actively shape and enlarge audiences

though their own energy, self-confidence, assertiveness, ambition and sexing of

opportunities” (1985: p. 34). Nadler and Tushman (1990) stated that transformational

and charismatic leaders can envision a better future, effectively communicate and get

46

others to make that future a reality. Contemporary, researchers have described

transformational and charismatic leadership as going beyond individual needs, such as

self actualisation and developing commitment and communication with their followers

(e.g. Waldman, et al., 2009; Sergiovanni, 1990; Chung, et al., 2011; Hobman, et al.,

2011). It can be seen that Weber‟s original conceptualisation has survived to the

presented to the present day.

Some scholars (e.g. Gardner and Avolio, 1998; House et al., 1991; Conger and

Kanungo, 1998) have argued that Weber concentrated principally on social patterns and

conditions under which the leader exists. However, the present research sheds light on

the psychological attributes of leaders which makes them successful and charismatic

leaders. Research demonstrates that charismatic leaders appeal strongly to the values of

their followers and that it is this psychological linked between the two which

encourages the success of charismatic leadership. Neither the sociologically oriented

Weberian approach nor the psychological approach alone can categorically define the

constituent parts of charismatic leaders. The styles together, however, give a superior

analysis of charismatic leadership.

It is expected that in culturally diverse work environments such as SABIC that a new

leader style for instance transformational and charismatic leaders will demonstrate the

necessary behaviour to communicate a set of mutually acceptable collective values that

can be managed to realise the visions of their organisations (House, et al., 1997; House,

et al., 2004; Kark and Shamir, 2002; Kark, Shamir and Chen, 2003; Lisak and Erez,

2009). The new leadership approach that put forward by transformational, charismatic,

visionary or inspirational leadership presents leaders that combine both their academic

knowledge and work experience that facilitates their dealing with complicated and

unstable organisational matters (Tichy and Devanna, 1990). This concept of charismatic

leadership seems to be comparable with Bass‟s theory. According to Bass (1985),

charisma is the emotional behaviour of leaders that function to express that “leaders

who by the power of their person have profound and extraordinary effects on their

followers” (p.35). This style of leadership has the ability to combine the skills of diverse

cultural groups of employees to obtain collective objectives. These kinds of

transformational and charismatic leaders provide followers with a vision and a positive

feeling of self-esteem and confidence, producing a culture of shared respect and

47

motivating absolute loyalty and admiration without regard for the self-interest of their

followers‟ (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Fairholm, 1994; van Knippenberg et al., 2004; De

Cremer, et al., 2006).

Others have argued that in culturally diverse settings leaders have the challenging

mission of retaining as much of their workers diversity as possible; this should enable

them to obtain the full advantages of that diversity. Thus, leaders should develop

conditions where all employees can be successful, this requires considerable effort to

shape these diverse values and norms into a new culture. Leaders in turn, require their

followers to trust each other and work together consistently according to the stated

values of their organisation. Therefore, these leaders must be effective as active

catalysts, individuals who have the knowledge and experience essential for directing

successful organisational effectiveness (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Fairholm 1994;

Schein, 1992; Tichy and Denanna, 1990; Dorfman et al., 2004; Fry and Kriger, 2009).

This study employs charismatic leadership theory since there is considerable evidence,

as discussed above, in support of charismatic leadership theories and the importance of

its behaviour in organisational settings as related to leader effectiveness (e.g. DeGroot,

Kiker and Cross, 2000; Fuller, Patterson, Hester and Stringer, 1996; Lisak, Erez, 2009).

Despite the growing body of evidence regarding the importance of charismatic

leadership, surprisingly, to the author‟s knowledge, investigations of charismatic leaders

and leader effectiveness in the context of cultural diversity is limited to a study by Lisak

and Erez (2009).

3.3.1.1 Charismatic and Transformational Leadership constructs

In order for charismatic leadership to be viewed as a valuable construct that has an

effect on the theories put forward by researchers and practitioners in organisations, it is

essential to explore its relationship with other relevant constructs. Specifically, it will be

important to distinguish charismatic leader types from transformational types.

Typically, the distinction between leadership constructs such as transformational and

charismatic leadership has been made on the basis of investigation of a set of skills, in

relation to the intentions of the leader.

48

The concept of transformational leadership was introduced into organisational literature

by Burns (1978). Transformational leaders provide their followers with a purpose or

sense of direction that transcends short-term goals and extrinsic needs. In contrast to

transactional leadership, in which leaders gain follower compliance through positive

reinforcement and directive action, transformational leadership focuses on ensuring

follower‟s identification with organisational goals and commitment to their leader‟s

vision. Scholars have hypothesised four dimensions of transformational leadership:

idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualised

consideration (Bass, 1985). The following section will discuss the two most widely used

models for describing the qualities of transformational and charismatic leadership.

Bass Model

In the 1990s Bass developed an instrument to measure transformational leadership and

its components. The instrument, known as the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire

(MLQ) is used to identify four distinct characteristics of transformational leaders, which

are referred to as the “4Is”.

Idealised influence or charisma: Transformational leaders ask their followers to

transcend their own self-interests to achieve a higher order vision for their group,

organisation or society (Bass; 1985; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Kouzes and Posner,

2002). Bass (1998) asserted that transformational leaders build up a sense of confidence

and appreciation amongst their followers, which shapes the foundation for accepting

fundamental change in an organisation. Those leaders who use idealised influence are

honoured, appreciated and also trusted; their followers admire them, and they identify

themselves with their leaders and seek to imitate them. Such leaders are representative

role models for their followers (Bass, 1998).

Inspirational motivation: This consists of communicating a vision with the confidence

and enthusiasm necessary to encourage others. Through shared values and beliefs,

transformational leaders and their followers work toward a common goal (Bass, 1998;

Yukl, 2010). Beyond their shared values and beliefs, transformational leaders perform

in ways that inspire and motivate their followers (Bass, 1998). Their followers are

challenged to share their work with others in pursuit of an universal goal, and by so

49

doing they improve their own confidence by giving up their own control (Bass, 1998).

By giving up control, leaders make themselves more vulnerable to the consequences of

workers‟ failures. Management vulnerability engenders the trust generated by followers

(Nyhan and Marlowe, 1997).

Intellectual Stimulation: Leaders, who rationally stimulate their workers effort to be

creative and accept challenges as part of their job become involved in approaching old

situations in new ways and in reassessing their old values and beliefs, also stimulating

changes in the way they think about problems. This may result in the possibility of

obtaining new and creative ideas for solving problems (Bass, 1998). By openly

considering suggestions, a transformational leader generates an atmosphere that gives

meaning to the members‟ work, and increases feelings of excellence and self-esteem

(Tichy and Devanna, 1990).

Individualized consideration: A transformational leader must understand and recognise

all the contributions of followers individually (Yammarino and Dubinsky 1994).

Leaders provide resources to support their follower‟s successes, allowing them to take

responsibility and give feedback on their performance. Followers in this case appreciate

the confidence displayed in them by the leader, and are satisfied with the leader‟s ability

to mentor and help them succeed (Bass, 1985). Followers who are allowed to contribute

freely feel more involved in solutions (Daft, 2002) and feel a sense of community, being

a part of a community increases self-esteem (Tichy and Devanna, 1990). As

emphasised by Bass (1999) charisma, including one of the four dimensions of

transformational leaderships is idealised influence.

Conger-Kanungo Model

Conger and Kanungo (1987) defined charismatic leadership as an attribution phenomenon

and suggested a framework for examining the behaviours of charismatic leaders. They

demonstrated that a constellation of leader behaviours would lead to followers‟ attributing

them with having charisma. Charismatic behaviours involve introducing an idealised

vision discordant from the status quo, taking personal risks, engaging in self-sacrifice to

50

achieve the vision, using unconventional strategies, realistically assessing the

environment, articulating motivation to lead, engaging in exemplary behaviour, and

performing as representatives of fundamental change.

As part of their research programme on charismatic leadership, Conger and Kanungo

(1987, 1989) proposed a complementary theory of charismatic leadership theories.

Conger and Kanungo (1997) conveyed that the three studies conducted in the United

States, Canada and India confirmed their findings in a 1994 study. The outcomes of

these three separate studies revealed acceptable reliability and validity as analytic tools

in multicultural contexts. Conger and Kanungo‟s (1998) research generated a model,

which presented three stages that distinguished charismatic leadership. Their research

favoured the idea that charismatic leaders are skilled at encouraging followers to

achieve superior goals, advanced performance and better satisfaction. Conger and

Kanungo‟s model for charismatic leadership addressed characteristics of leadership

behaviour that they believed were not addressed in pre-existing leadership literature.

The key features describe the leaders‟ responsibility in three main stages:

1. The critical assessment of the environment and status quo. During this stage

leaders identify the possibilities and opportunities in the environment as well

working to ensure their followers needs can be investigated;

2. The formulation and articulation of a future vision or the formulation of goals

for the follower; and

3. The building of trust and credibility in the minds of followers, which is crucial

to developing commitment to a vision. In particular, leaders engage in personal

risk, partly to inspire followers during role modelling, as well as to exhibit

unconventional behaviour. (Conger and Kanungo, 1998. P. 45). Figure (3-1)

summarises the stage model- and the six factors - of charismatic leadership.

These six factors of charismatic leadership are assessed according to the Conger

and Kanungo Scales (CKS) of charismatic leadership.

51

Foguer (3-1): Charismatic Leadership Stages of the Conger and Kanungo

Model


Conger and Kanungo‟s (1998) model “builds on the idea that charismatic leadership is

an attribution based on follower‟s perceptions of their leader‟s behaviour” (p.47). These

Formulation of environmental opportunities into

a strategic vision

Effective articulation of an inspirational vision

that is highly discrepant from the status quo, yet

within latitude of acceptance

Leadership

Conveys goals

Demonstrates means to achieve

Motivates follower by personal example: Risk

taking/Countercultural empowering/Impression

management

Assessment of environmental resourced/constraint

and follower needs

Effective articulation

Realisation of deficiencies in status

Stage 2

Formulation and

Articulation of

Organisational Goals

Stage 3

Achieving the Vision

Stage 1 Evaluation of Status

Quo

52

theorists suppose that charisma is established through followers‟ perception and

reception of their leaders‟ actions and interaction. This model is based on the follower‟s

“attribution” of charisma; this describes what makes a leader a charismatic leader. One

of the factors that Conger and Kanungo have integrated into their evaluation of the

attribution of leadership included “the nature of articulation and impression

management” (1987, p. 640).

According to Conger and Kanungo, attribution of charisma depends on six key variables

including: (a) Sensitivity to environmental context; (b) Strategic vision and articulation;

(c) Sensitivity to member needs, precise evaluation of followers‟ needs; (d) Personal

risk, presenting confidence; (e) Unconventional behaviour; and (f) Does not maintain

the status quo. The following section will discuss these six variables in more detail.

Sensitivity to Environmental Context: Conger and Kanungo‟s sensitivity to

environment scale measures a leader‟s evaluation of the external and internal

environment with the intention of achieving organisational goals (Conger and Kanungo,

1998). In other words, a charismatic assessment of the organisation‟s status quo through

gathering information about environmental circumstances. Depending on a variety of

reliable sources, the leader is able to understand the market and engage in strategies for

change.

Strategic Vision and Articulation: The second scale, strategic vision and articulation.

This scale measures the leader‟s capability to formulate sensible strategic goals. In

theory, these goals must meet leaders and followers‟ needs, and any key objectives

defined by the organisation. Idealized goals from Conger and Kanungo‟s (1998)

perspective are goals that endorse radical changes to the status quo, the leader imprints

the most memorable impressions on followers. Thus, charismatic leaders must develop

a creative and innovative vision and a goal that is equally real and concrete (Snow,

Rochford, Worden, and Benford, 1986).

Sensitivity to Member Needs: The sensitivity to the member needs scale measures the

53

ability of leaders to demonstrate concern for members‟ needs and feelings; a crucial

aspect of this dimension is the leader‟s capability to recognise members‟ capacities and

skills. Furthermore, it measures the leader‟s expressions and personal understanding of

member‟s feelings (Conger and Kanungo, 1998).

Personal Risk: The personal risk scale measures those leaders determined to chase the

organisational target, even if they include significant self-sacrifice and personal risk.

Particularly, charismatic leaders strive to illustrate that they have a complete

commitment to the cause they share with followers. These leaders build strong

perceptions that are highly responsible, which in turn strengthens follower commitment

(Conger and Kanungo, 1998).

Unconventional Behaviour: The unconventional behaviour scale measures leaders;

particularly, how far the leader is encouraged to pursue entrepreneurial and risky routes

and patterns of action to establish organisational objectives (Conger and Kanungo,

1998).

Does not Maintain the Status Quo: To achieve organisation goals and opportunities

leaders critically evaluate existing circumstances to identify the shortages or the

opportunities. Leader that exhibit this behaviour are often described as agents of change

(Conger and Kanungo, 1998).

3.3.1.2. Comparison of Bass’s Model and Conger and Kanungo’s Model

Below, the Conger and Kanungo model (1998) will be discussed in reference to Bass‟s

(1985) theories referring to transformational, charismatic leadership. The reason for

presenting this contrast is that the two models focus effectively on the impact of

phenomena related to leadership, and are frequently used interchangeably as a result of

their similarities.

Both Charismatic {Conger and Kanungo (C-K)} and transformational {the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)} models are typically placed in the same categories of

54

leadership, as those theorists describe as “the new Leadership School”, which is based

on the “Neo-Charismatic paradigm” (Bryman, 1992; Antonakis and House, 2002). Both

emphasise the essential distinction between leadership and management. Both

transformational and charismatic leaders are considered as agents of change. Both

theories base their examination of leadership on the same perspectives.

Bass, Conger and Kanungo perceive leadership as a set of role behaviours performed by

individuals. This means, leadership is both a relational and an attributable phenomenon.

In addition, their methodologies are connected to leadership effectiveness measurement.

While leaders‟ role behaviours are in the long-term intended to direct their followers‟

attitudes and behaviours, both agree that the effectiveness of leadership should be

measured with regard to “the degree to which a leader promotes instrumental attitudes

and behaviour that encourage the achievement of group objectives, follower‟s

satisfaction with the task and context within which they operate, and followers‟

acceptance of their leader‟s influence” (Conger and Kanungo,1998, p39), rather than be

measured regarding to the outcome of the process. Yet another striking similarity

between the theories proposed by Bass (1985) and Conger and Kanungo (1998) is that

they highlight the fact that charisma is a major factor in transformational leadership.

Meanwhile, there clearly exists a sizeable overlap between the dimensions of

charismatic leadership and transformational leadership, however, several important

differences are evident. The main disagreement relates to charisma. Although Bass

(1985) views charisma as a key component of transformational functions, Conger and

Kanungo (1998) assume that charisma and charismatic leadership is the most

exceptional construct that transformational leaders have. Specifically, for Bass,

charisma is simply a characteristic “charisma is a necessary ingredient of

transformational leadership, but by itself it is not sufficient to account for the

transformational process” (Bass, 1985, P.31). On the other hand, Conger and Kanungo

assumed that charisma is more than a characteristic and that is indeed the highest

leadership construct (1998); thus it is regarded as necessary.

Regarding the methodological aspects, additional differences between the Bass and

55

Conger and Kanungo models, Bass (1985) assesses transformational leadership based

on employee‟s evaluations. Namely, Bass‟s Leadership Behaviour Description

questionnaire (LBDQ) and (MLQ) are both based on evaluations of leader‟s

subordinates (Bass and Avolio, 1989). From Conger and Kanungo‟s view point, this is

inadequate because some researchers have revealed that there is tendency for followers

to categorise those features that reflect a prototypical leader, rather than their actual

leader (Conger and Kanungo, 1998). Conger and Kanungo (1998) conclude that Bass‟s

measurements blur the distinction between both measures, in other words, the

measurements merge leader behaviours with followers‟ measurement of effects.

Furthermore, though Bass‟s scale items the follower effects of charisma, Conger and

Kanungo‟s scale reflects the leader‟s charismatic behaviours.

Conger and Kanungo attempt to overcome some of Bass‟s limitations in terms of

contextual observations. For instance, they integrate the observation of contextual

variables and situational distinctions, which were not assessed accurately in Bass‟s

model. Moreover, Bass regards charisma as a feature of leadership; he deals differently

with some of Conger and Kanungo‟s elements of charismatic leadership. For example,

Bass treats vision as a component of inspiration, rather than as a component of

charismatic leadership.

Another difference between both approaches relates to commitment and motivation.

Bass (1985) believes that subordinates can be motivated adequately by their leader‟s

vision and objectives. On the contrary, Conger and Kanungo (1998) suppose that the

commitment and motivation that subordinates exhibit for charismatic leaders is not as

simple as identified in Bass‟ construct. As an alternative, they regard the personal

approval of a charismatic leader to be the principal measure of a follower‟s self-

efficacy (Conger and Kanungo, 1998).

The Conger and Kanungo model (1998) differentiates from Bass‟s (1985) in terms of

behavioural components. In this respect, Conger and Kanungo argue that Bass‟s model

fails to evaluate the status quo as a significant behaviour of leadership during the first

stage of charismatic leadership. They emphasise instead, the importance of

56

environmental sensitivity in moving towards the vision and articulation stage.

However, and depending upon their study, Rowold and Heinitz (2007) estimated that

the both constructs (MLQ and CKS) have only a 22% variance between them. Rowold

and Heinitz argue that although this result supports the idea that charismatic and

transformational leadership are to a great degree overlapping concepts, the remaining

22% variance indicates that each approach has unique elements.

Despite the similarity between the Conger and Kanungo‟s approach, and some

behaviour identified by other leadership theories -transformational and visionary- (e.g.

House, 1977; Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985), Conger and Kanungo (1987) describe some

conduct that makes their approach distinctive, namely, unconventional behaviour,; for

example, personal risk taking and striving to change the status quo.

3.3.1.3. Prior Studies Build on Conger and Kanungo’s Work.

Since Conger and Kanungo‟s published their work on charismatic leadership, many

theoretical works and empirical studies have sought to utilise their charismatic

leadership theory to validate and explain the phenomena presented in the model,

applying it in various organisational contexts. Such organisations include the public and

voluntary sectors, specific industries, medical organisations, military organisations. The

interest of the most studies that seek to apply (C-K scale) relates to its impact on

organisational outcomes; i.e. organisational strength (Larsson and Ronnmark, 1996),

employee perceptions of crisis and collectivist cultural orientations (Pillai and Meindl,

1998), rapidly changing and crisis in organisation (Valle, 1999) employees‟

empowerment (Lashley, 2000), subjective performance (e.i. profit) (Rowold and

Heinitz, 2007), followers' absenteeism (Rowold and Laukamp, 2009), organisational

commitment components (Rowden, 2000 and Shastri and colleagues, 2010), emotional

intelligence (Côté and colleagues, 2010) and followers‟ job performance and job

satisfaction (Lian, et al., 2011). The following table (3-1) summarises researchers‟

efforts to build on Conger and Kanungo‟s work.

57

Table (3.1) Summary of prior studies based on Conger and Kanungo‟s work

Author(s) The study aim (s)

Methodology

Sample Findings Research

approach

Research

strategy

Larsson and

Ronnmark

(1996)

Examines the relationship

between charismatic leadership

(Conger and Kanungo model) and

organisations strength (leader and

follower, leader and

organisational context, and

follower and organisational

context).

Quantitative Questionnaires

(Case study)

Workers in

voluntary

organisation in

Sweden

Larsson and Ronmark concluded that charismatic

leadership has been seen as having a positive effect in

enhancing an organisations‟ strength.

Pillai and

Meindl

(1998)

Explores how individuals might

contribute to this emergence such

as perceptions of crisis, how

groups‟ identification might

contribute to this emergence, and

how organisational structure

might contribute to this

emergence.

Quantitative Questionnaires Data was collected

from 596 managers

and subordinates

from a large

government health

service agency in

the southern United

States.

The findings indicated that there is negative

correlation between charismatic leadership and

employee perceptions of crisis. Additionally, there

are positive correlations between charismatic

leadership and organic structure and collectivist

cultural orientations.

58


Methodology


approach

Research

strategy

Valle (1999) Use the C-K scale to recognise

the importance of charismatic

leader roles and behaviours in

rapidly changing and crisis in

public organisations.

Quantitative Questionnaires Public

organisations

Concluded that in diverse and fragmented

organisations challenges are created (rapidly

changing and crisis led) that could be addressed

easily by a charismatic leader

Ramm and

Pliskin

(1999)

To determine whether charismatic

leadership was used in e-mail

functioning, whether all of the

behaviours that have been

described by Conger and

Kanungo exist in a university

leader.

Triangulation Observations,

interviews,

questionnaires.

500 faculty

members in a

medium-sized

university.

Questionnaires, 22

interviews and

observations

Result revealed that not all the behaviours that have

been described by Conger and Kanungo exist in a

University leader.

Lashley

(2000)

This study examined employee

empowerment to identify the

degree of empowerment that

employees in fact attain by using

Conger and Kanungo‟s work.

Qualitative Semi-structured

interviews.

number of TGI

Friday‟s restaurants

The findings revealed that there is a relationship

between charismatic leadership and employees‟

empowerment.

Rowden

(2000)

Empirical study to measure the

relationship between the six

leadership behaviours identified

Quantitative Survey biased on

questionnaires

Total of 245

respondents from

six organisations in

The study reveals that five of the six C-K factors

were significantly correlated with the two

commitment factors. Whereas there was no

59


Methodology


approach

Research

strategy

by Conger and Kanungo and the

two organisational commitment

components.

South-Eastern

United States.

significant correlation between „does not maintain the

status quo‟ and „organisation commitment‟

Rowold and

Heinitz

(2007)

Empirical study aimed to clarify

the similarities and differences

between the two instruments

transformational (MLQ-5X), and

charismatic leadership (CKS).

Quantitative Survey biased on

questionnaires

public transport

company in

Germany

The study finding revealed that both transformational

and charismatic leadership increased the influence of

transactional leadership on subjective performance

(profit).

Rowold and

Laukamp

(2009)

The study tested the relationship


and (followers‟ absenteeism, there

training and development

activities) and the profit level.


Sample of 320

employees, from

public services

company in

Germany,

Findings illustrate that charismatic leadership facets

correlated negatively to followers' absenteeism, on

the contrary correlated positively to their training and

development. Likewise, the results demonstrated that

charismatic leadership related positively to

profitability.

Jayakody

2008

Applying the questionnaire

developed and validated by


53 managers who

are reading for

The study outcomes revealed that there is similarity

between the Sri Lankan version of charismatic

60


Methodology


approach

Research

strategy

Conger and Kanungo in Sri

Lanka.

MBA degrees in Sri

Lankan business

organisations.

leadership and the Conger and Kanungo‟s model in

terms of personal risk, sensitivity to members‟ needs

and sensitivity to the environment. Conversely, the

Sri Lankan version does not enclose unconventional

behaviour and vision articulation. Additionally, the

findings showed that Sri Lankan version concludes

by adding excitement as a new dimension to add to

the C-K model.

Côté and

colleagues

(2010)

Examined whether the emotional

intelligence of team work related

to leadership emergence

throughout the duration of a

project.

Quantitative Questionnaire Participants were

138 undergraduate

students in a

commerce program

enrolled in an

organisational

behaviour course.

The finding supported their assumption that there is a

positive relationship between emotional intelligence

of team work and their perception of their leader

charismatic behaviour.

Shastri and

colleagues

(2010)

To identify the relationship


and organisational commitment.

Quantitative Questionnaire The sample

consisted of 147

employees of

Indian

organisations.

The findings revealed that five of the six CK-factors

were significantly related with the commitment

factors. Whereas there was no significant correlation

between „does not maintain the status quo‟ and

„organisation commitment‟.

Lian, et al., The study assessed whether this Quantitative Questionnaire Two independent Results show that although the factor structure of

61


Methodology


approach

Research

strategy

(2011) conceptualisation of charismatic

leadership is generalisable to top-

level organisational leadership in

Chinese society, where culture is

tremendously different from that

in Western society

samples with full-

time employees

from Chinese

society

charismatic leadership is replicated, some behaviours

are not attributed as charismatic and are less effective

in the Chinese context. Results also demonstrate that

charismatic leadership is positively related to

followers‟ job performance and job satisfaction, and

such positive relations are partially mediated by

followers‟ identification leaders and their

organisations.

62

Based on the previous studies illustrated in the table above, despite the advances

detailed in the literature, a number of significant gaps still remain in terms of our

understanding of charismatic leadership. For example, there are no empirical studies

which can be applied to Conger and Kanungo‟s model of multinational organisations, to

examine their effects on certain work-related outcomes that have emerged from diverse

workplaces. For example, the levels of group relation conflict, the level of group

cohesion and the level of affective commitment to an organisation. More specifically, to

the author‟s knowledge, no empirical study has been conducted to date that relates to

the culturally diverse workplace and work related outcomes at the group level in Saudi

Arabia. Indeed, more than a decade ago, Conger and Kanungo (1998) called for more

concerted efforts to establish the validity of the C-K model as an important step in

future research. For instance, they suggested that some potential outcomes of

charismatic leadership behaviours will result in followers at the group level being

characterised as having a high degree of cohesion within their work group, low relation

conflict, high value similarity and high commitment to organisational goals. The current

investigation examined Conger and Kanungo‟s (1998) theory, both because it has been

extensively investigated in deferent cultural settings such as the USA, Germany, Sri

Lanka and China, conceptualises charismatic leadership as a perceptual/attribution

phenomenon (Conger and Kanungo, 1998).

Therefore, the present study aims to address this gap and expand the literature by

empirically testing the relationship between charismatic leadership, using the C-K scale

and some of the variables suggested above. Specifically, this study investigated the

relationship between Conger and Kanungo‟s Model and leader effectiveness (high

cohesion, low internal conflict, and high commitment to the organisation), and the

moderating impact of leader prototypicality and team identification in private

organisations in a culturally diverse context such as that in Saudi Arabia.

This section has offered a sequential glimpse at previous efforts to build on the C-K

model. The following section discusses the hypotheses that have been developed to

describe charismatic leadership and leader effectiveness.

63

3.3.1.4. Charismatic Leadership and Leader Effectiveness and Hypotheses

Development

Charismatic Leadership and Level of Cohesion

As discussed earlier, one of the main problems that leaders face in the culturally diverse

workplace is the potential lack of cohesion. Scholars in this field emphasised that

followers‟ behaviours can be influenced by their leaders (Bass, 1985; Schein, 1992;

Trice and Beyer, 1993) and in view of this influence, a leader‟s understanding of the

dynamics of the team they lead is an important consideration. One of the most important

methods for assisting leaders in understanding group dynamics is analysis of a group‟s

cohesive components. Thus, to encourage cohesion, leaders should increase their efforts

and take action to create a work environment that develops productive group

cohesiveness. There are several studies that confirm that leaders can produce cohesion.

Wendt et al. (2009) for instance, proposed that leader‟s behaviour is important for

promoting cohesion through assisting co-workers to come together as a group. Leaders

can enhance positive relationships between group members by “creating expectations in

members of newly formed groups that they will like each other and by helping a

member differentiate between not liking other member‟s behaviours and not liking the

other members themselves” (Stokes, 1983, p.171). Similarly, Budman et al. (1993)

asserted that, through self-disclosure leaders can achieve greater cohesion between

group members. Studies like these draw attention to the value of the leader‟s

contribution towards producing a cohesive group. Wang, Chou and Jiang (2005)

investigated the impacts of charismatic leadership style on team cohesiveness and

overall performance during enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation. There

study results found that charismatic leadership style significantly influences the level of

team cohesiveness, which, in turn, affects the overall projected team performance. This

result is consistent with Jiang et al. (2001), White (2000) and Zaccaro et al.‟s (2001)

findings, which revealed that leaders who exhibit more charismatic leadership

behaviours may encourage team cohesiveness.

Despite this, to the author‟s knowledge there is no study that has considered leadership

behaviours as a factor promoting cohesion in diverse work settings. The present work

aims to fill this gap and focuses on analysing to what extent leadership behaviours

contribute to strengthening the cohesion in culturally diverse teams. Therefore, the

64

author posits here that this effect of charismatic leadership styles on group cohesion will

also be valid in culturally diverse workplaces, where cohesion is even more vital than in

homogeneous team. This evidence produced:

Hypothesis 1a: There is a positive relationship between charismatic leadership

behaviour and the level of cohesion in culturally diverse workplaces.

Charismatic Leadership and Level of Conflict

With respect to the relationship between charismatic leadership and group relation

conflict, to the author‟s knowledge, very few empirical studies have been conducted to

date. Theoretically, and according to Bass et al. (2003), charismatic leaders are

considered to be important directors of teamwork processes, involved in overcoming

team conflict and promoting team cohesion. He argues that charismatic leadership is

regarded as a beneficial form of conflict (Bass, 1985, 1990). This idea is supported by a

study by Mohammed and Angell (2004). The study assumed that team processes

(leadership, coordination, communication) will normally moderate the relationship

between deep-level diversity and conflict. Its finding revealed that team processes,

which included leadership and coordination operations within a group, affected

relationship conflicts. Given these prior links between conflict, cohesion and

charismatic leadership, this study proposes the following:

Hypothesis 1b: There is a negative relationship between charismatic leadership

behaviour and the level of conflict in culturally diverse workplaces.

Charismatic Leadership and Affective Commitment

Charismatic leaders strive to achieve a conjoining of the goals of their followers and the

goals of the organisations in which they work, thus aiming for increased commitment

towards their organisations. This type of commitment enables charismatic leaders to

maximise the positive output of multi-skilled workers in the organisation, with the

intention of generating the total effort of their workforce towards collective goals,

interests and values (Singh, et. al., 2008). According to Avolio (1999), transformational

and charismatic leaders can achieve employees‟ organisational commitment through

“encouraging followers to think critically by using novel approaches, involving

65

followers in decision-making processes, inspiring loyalty, while recognizing and

appreciating the different needs of each follower to develop his or her personal

potential.” (p.24). Accordingly, a specific leadership style can influence employees‟

organisational commitment. For example a study conducted by Rowden (2000)

examined the relationship between charismatic leadership behaviours and organisational

commitment. The results revealed a positive relationship between charismatic

leadership behaviours and organisational commitment for five of the six charismatic

leadership behaviours studied. The charismatic leadership behaviours that were

positively correlated with organisational commitment included vision and articulation,

sensitivity to members' needs environmental sensitivity, unconventional behaviour and

taking personal risks. This study revealed how some additional charismatic leadership

behaviours, that were components of charismatic leadership were positively related to

organisational commitment.

Given the intense feelings of emotional attachment it is proposed to foster, charismatic

leadership is likely to exhibit a strong positive relationship with affective commitment

(Bycio et al., 1995). In their study Bycio et al. (1995) found positive correlations

between charismatic leadership styles and organisational commitment. On the other

hand, they reported a lower positive normative commitment with charismatic

leadership. Their findings are consistent with Akroyd et al.‟s, (2007, 2009) and Chung,

et al.,‟s (2011) research findings which revealed that the charismatic leaders have a

significant effect on both affective and normative commitment. Hence employees who

perceive their leader to consistently demonstrate charismatic leadership skills and

behaviours were more likely to have higher levels of commitment to their work.

In a study by Chen et al. (2010), the relationship between transformational/charismatic

leadership, transactional leadership, organisational commitment and job satisfaction

were investigated; using participants selected from the IT department at the Department

of Research and Development at an Industrial Park in Shanghai, China. The results of

the study revealed that positive correlations exist between charismatic leadership and

affective and normative commitment. This suggests that commitment is based upon

wanting to be a contributing member of an organisation; actively participating as an

organisational member is related to having a leader whose focus is on inspiring and

66

motivating others and raising expectations.

Another study conducted by Walumbwa and Lawler (2003) revealed that

transformational and charismatic leaders are able to motivate their followers to become

more involved in their work and to show higher levels of affective organisational

commitment. The current study is different from the previous study by examining this

relationship in diverse workplace.

Based on the above discussion of how charismatic leadership should increase

commitment toward an organisation, the following proposition is offered:

Hypothesis 1c: There is a positive relationship between charismatic leadership

behaviour and the level of employees’ affective commitment to their organisation

in culturally diverse workplaces.

Scholars have argued that charismatic theories employ a set of ethical values for

leaders‟ regarding the behaviour of the leader and the relationship between the leader

and their followers (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1990 and Conger and Kanungo, 1998). The

issue of leaders using their skills for achieving selfish goals, or otherwise lacking

integrity, is sometimes referred to as the “dark side of leadership.” Although some have

argued that leadership must by definition be ethical (Fulmer, 2004), others in contrast

indicate that some leaders are able to garner the support and resources of others to

achieve objectives that are self-serving and not ethical (e.g. Burch, 2006; Furnham and

Taylor, 2004; Goldman, 2006; Hogan and Hogan, 2001). The following section will

consider in further detail the dark side of charismatic leadership behaviour.

3.3.1.6. The ‘Dark Side’ of Charismatic Leadership

This study examines the role of leadership behaviours in leading a culturally diverse

team based work environment. Ethics in reference to the effectiveness of culturally

diverse teams in business have prompted the motivation for a search for new and better

paradigms to improve the culture diversity. Scholars in the leadership field have argued

that the main differences between charismatic leadership and transformational and

67

authentic leadership relate to the emphasis placed on ethical conduct (e.g. Cameron,

Dutton and Quinn, 2003; Ciulla, 2005a). These leadership styles include, inspiring,

values based leadership styles that contain an ethical content and so overlap into the

field of ethics (Brown and Treviño, 2006a). Therefore, it is essential to provide a clear

definition of ethicality as it associates with leadership in organisations, since it is a

broad issue that can be culturally connected with an organisation. However, some

scholars in this field have claimed that what is believed to be unethical or amoral by one

organisation may be seen as ethical behaviour and an acceptable technique for

maximising profits in another. (Husted, 1999; Robertson, et al., 2002; Robertson; Gilley

and Street, 2003; Baccarani, 2008). In a general sense, the term ethics refers to a set of

moral norms, principles or values that guide people's behaviour (Sherwin, 1983). The

terms unethical or ethical according to Brunk (2010) “describe an individual's subjective

moral judgment of right/wrong or good/bad” (P. 255) .

Charismatic leadership has been defined as having an ethical component, for instance,

Avolio, Bass and Jung (1999) stated that “followers with a clear sense of purpose that is

energising, is a role model for ethical conduct and builds identification with the leader

and his or her articulated vision” (P. 444). This confirms that ethical conduct is an

essential feature of transformational and charismatic leadership behaviour. At the same

time, however, transformational and charismatic leaders can utilise their influence for

positive or negative goals or objectives, indicating that they could utilise their power to

achieve ethical or unethical ends.

Accordingly, House and Howell and (1992) distinguished between personalised and

socialised charisma. They developed their conception of the two forms of charisma

based on the leader‟s power motive, type of influence and behaviours. A personalised

charismatic leader is driven by his private motives, convinces followers that his goals

and approaches are those of a submissively obedient followership and that his mission

that has little life without the leader‟s influence. On the other hand, a socialised

charismatic leader has a marked concern to ensure the ethical application of power and

strives to use their power for the good of others (Howell and Shamir, 2005).

68

According to the concept of a socialised charismatic leader, Conger and Kanungo

(1998) focus on the components of charismatic leadership that highlight the ethical

nature of leaders who are described as being socialised charismatic leaders in an

organisation (as opposed to personalized charismatic leaders). They mentioned three

dimensions for this charismatic form: “the leader‟s motives, the leader‟s influence

strategies and the leader‟s character formation” (P. 213). Thus, charismatic leaders

demonstrate ethical leadership when they strive to perform with collective intention;

this encourages followers to take control and as a consequence they are more

independent of the leader (Shamir et al., 1993; Brown and Treviño, 2006b; Brown and

Treviño, 2006a). Additionally, the socialised charismatic leader is driven by a need to

improve a social situation, House and Howell (1992) have noted that this type of

charismatic leader tends to have more feminine personality characteristics, such as

being supportive, fostering, sensitive and selfless. To conclude, and on basis of

Howell‟s (1992) argument, judging if charismatic leadership is ethical or unethical can

be achieved by evaluating a leader‟s need for power, locus of control, power inhibition,

authoritarianism, self-esteem, Machiavellianism and self-interest.

Empirical evidence supports what was discussed above by Parry and Proctor-Thompson

(2002) that the ethical nature of transformational and charismatic leadership remains a

debatable issue. They studied the perceived integrity of transformational/charismatic

leaders in an organisational context. Transformational/ charismatic leaders have been

given positive characteristics such as “inspirational” and “charismatic” by some

followers, however other followers have described the same leaders as “narcissistic,”

“manipulative,” and self-centred”. Bass and Avolio‟s, (2000) study of an ethical

dimension of leadership has been embedded primarily within the transformational and

charismatic leadership domains. However, these proposed relationships between

transformational/charismatic versus transactional leadership and ethical versus unethical

leadership are not clear-cut. Moreover, some researchers asserted that the relationship

between transformational/charismatic leadership and ethical leadership remains

questionable and not evident (Bass and Steidlmeir, 1999; Bass and Avolio, 2000, Brown

and Treviňo 2006b).

69

Moreover, Brown, Treviňo and Harrison (2005) pointed out that transformational and

charismatic leadership theories both focus on a leader‟s ability to articulate a clear

vision to followers, but make little mention of an inherent ethical component to that

leader‟s behaviour. In addition, the vision put forward by transformational/charismatic

leaders does not have to be authentic or true to their sense of self. Transformational/

charismatic leaders may put forward a vision that is not in accordance with their values

and beliefs in order to influence their followers. Through reviewing 600 books and

articles on leadership, Aronson (2001) concluded that transactional leaders or managers‟

use an authoritative basis from which to control others that entails unethical behaviour.

Aronson suggests that to retain an ethical stance, leaders require more enthusiasm to

influence or convince others in a moral manner. In addition, he concluded that

transactional leadership is more closely associated with lower levels of moral

development than transformational and charismatic leadership. Shapiro (2001) adds that

a true transformational leader is ethical by nature and operates with a genuine concern

for others.

In the light of the distinctions made above this study focuses only on the positive side of

charismatic leadership. This examination does not seek to focus on the differential

effects of socialised and personalised charismatic qualities, but on the specific effects of

charismatic leader‟s behaviours on their followers‟ perspectives. It is supposed that the

positive outcomes of charismatic leadership on followers are most frequently expected

to occur as a result of the socialised approach. It is assumed that as a socialised

charismatic leader would be expected to exhibit positive ethical values (Kanungo and

Mendonca, 1998), this makes the followers‟ attitude more positive also (Brown and

Treviño, 2006a). Further, Shamir, House and Arthur‟s, 1993 and Conger and Kanungo‟s

(1997) theory implies a concentration on the more positive side of charisma to acquire a

desirable cognitive and behavioural impact on followers.

Therefore, the measure of charismatic leadership utilised in this study draws upon the

theory of charismatic leadership (Conger and Kanungo, 1998), which characterises the

leader in a manner similar to Howell‟s conception of socialised charismatic leadership

in an organisation.

70

However, recently, researchers have started to consider ethical leadership as a set of

behaviours or a behavioural style that is unique in itself, rather than focusing only on

ethical aspects of other leadership styles. In fact, researchers have shown that ethical

leadership is empirically related to the charismatic, transformational, transactional and

authentic leadership presented above (cf., Brown et al., 2005; Kalshoven, Den Hartog,

Hoogh, 2011a; Walumbwa et al., 2008). In this study ethical leadership is also

approached as being a separate leadership style. The following section addresses this

style in some detail.

3.3.2. Ethical Leadership

In the last few years, ethics and integrity have received a growing amount of attention in

the leadership field (e.g. De Hoogh and Den Hartog, 2008; Kalshove et al., 2011a;

Kalshove, Den Hartog and De Hoogh, 2011b). Ethical leaders engage in leadership in

such a way that respects the rights and dignity of their members (Ciulla, 2005b).

According to Ciulla (1995b), good leadership does not only affect how well-informed a

leader is, but also how ethical the leader is. Thus, he argued that “ethics lies at the heart

of leadership studies” (p. 17).

Kanungo (2001) also stressed the point that to be selfless is the best example of ethical

leadership. In other words, ethical leaders should be inspired and directed by a concern

for others, which can be articulated in two ways: incorporated with a self-concern that

actions will be equally valuable, or acting only on the basis of enthusiasm to encourage

followers to achieve a collective-interest.

Increased diversity in the workplace has led to new leadership roles as well as new

strategies being employed to carry out these roles (Rantz, 2002). Thus, diversity raises

new ethical issues and presents both leaders and followers with new positions that may

challenge established ethics (Bass and Avoil, 1990; Hart, 1998; Kreps, 1990; Schein,

1990). Leaders, therefore, are advised to react efficiently to surpass dissimilarities

arising from nationality, treating all employees equally, and demonstrating a respect for

other cultures, regardless of where the employees originated from. This position is

71

supported by Morrison (2006), who asserted that the development of global ethical

standards within multinational companies is a key issue when ensuring equal treatment.

The main areas that global ethical standards should address, according to Morrison

(2006), are: “Worker safety, equality in hiring, equality of opportunity for job

assignments and promotions, freedom of expression” (p.165).

In their theoretical study Brown and Treviño (2006c) argued that those working for

ethical leaders are more motivated because they are more satisfied with their leader,

they recognise this effectiveness and so are willing to work harder, and are also more

likely to report any problems that they experience. The reverse is true when unethical

leadership behaviour is observed. For that reason, it is essential that leaders are

perceived as demonstrating high standards of ethical conduct by their followers.

Furthermore, Cho and Dansereau (2010) emphasised that leadership is obstructed by

followers that do not pay attention to perceptions of fairness. Consequently, for

leadership to be charismatic, followers must believe they are acting in a way that is

equitable. Leaders that are not aware of, or do not know how to lead by exhibiting

fairness will be, at best, diluted by their followers.

House et al. (2004) pointed out that cultural diversity influences the extent to which

discrimination takes place in an organisation, particularly resulting from cross-cultural

inconsistency regarding the extent to which discrimination against certain groups occurs

when restructuring the cultural norm. Therefore, in circumstances of cultural diversity,

there is indeed an absolute and urgent need for ethical leadership. Leaders should

remember that they are working with employees whose values, beliefs and expectations

differ; this means placing importance on engaging in personalised interactions, and an

awareness of their own biases, prejudices and attitudes toward those who are dissimilar

(Chrobot-Mason and Ruderman, 2004). Additionally, this is crucial because where

perceived biases, prejudices and discrimination at work persist and have serious effects

on both employees and organisational well-being (Cox, 1993; Dipboye and Colella,

2005; Goldman, et al., 2006), employees suffer dissatisfaction with their work and

increased stress, leading to a higher turnover (Gee, 2002; Robinson and Dechant, 1997;

Goldman, et al., 2006 and Smith et al., 2010)

72

Increased cultural diversity in the workplace has led to new roles for leadership as well

as new strategies being put in place oversee these roles (Rantz, 2002). Consequently,

leaders must respond appropriately to the demands of the diverse workplace. Thus, in

the context of diversity, this means that the leader must display ethical conduct (e.g.

honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, just treatment and care). For the purpose of

maintaining ethical conduct, Dean (1997) acknowledged that leaders should be

encouraged to emphasise the necessity for the understanding of ethical standards, and

know how they should be applied. Additionally, some scholars have argued that

character and a superior reputation are considered to be an important component of

ethical leadership (Calabrese and Roberts, 2002; Treviňo, Hartman and Brown, 2000).

To investigate the impact of ethical leadership behaviour Zhu, May and Avolio (2004)

pointed out that the leader as a role model must exhibit ethical behaviours to their

employees, modelling ethical behaviours to confirm the ethical behaviours of others.

Hence, leaders must generate an ethical culture that promotes the improvement of

ethical behaviour in others. Further, employee trust in leaders, employee compliance,

and work performance is correlated with ethical leadership behaviour, which includes

fairness honesty and trustworthiness (Zhu et al., 2004).

Teylor and Strickland (2002) in their experimental study of perceptions of ethical

leadership, mentioned some of the most important behaviours of an ethical leader,

which includes for instance, integrity, honesty, reliability, competence and fairness. In

addition, they referred to other important features, such as the use of rational influence,

leading by example, trustworthiness, and accepting the consequences of individual‟s

actions and a strong sense of responsibility. They argue that studies with an

experimental design may have limited generalisability to real-life situations.

Much has been written about ethical leadership from a normative or philosophical

perspective, emphasising the importance of an organisation maintaining ethical

leadership behaviours towards its employees (Carroll, 1978; Lester, 1981, Bowie, 1982;

Walton, 1988; McDonald and Zepp. 1989; Butler, 1997; Beauchamp and Bowie, 2001;

Treviňo, Brown and Pincus, 2003; Brown, Treviňo, Harrison, 2005; De Hoogh, Den

73

Hartog, 2008). Additionally, it can be argued that since homogeneous work groups‟

perceptions of ethical leadership may be distinct from heterogeneous workgroups‟

perceptions, both must be considered when evaluating the effects of ethical leadership.

Therefore, a study that explores ethical leadership as perceived in a diverse workplace is

needed. To fill this need, the present study aims to address the gap by expanding the

literature in this area, by empirically testing the relationship between ethical leadership

and leader effectiveness in private organisations in the culturally diverse context

described as existing in Saudi Arabia at SABIC.

In summary, after the brief review of the ethical leadership literature, it can be argued

that to increase employee positive behaviour and attitude and reduce negativity in

culturally diverse work places, leaders are recommended to strive for higher levels of

ethical behaviours to respond effectively to team members. They should not be limited

or influenced by negative attitudes, thoughts or feelings, but be willing to do what‟s

right and fair for all employees, regardless of their followers‟ psychological

characteristics (personality, values, attitudes and beliefs).

3.3.2.1. Ethical leadership and Leader Effectiveness Hypotheses Development

In terms of the relationship between ethical leadership and effectiveness, there are

several studies to date that have investigated this issue. For instance, De Hoogh and Den

Hartog (2008) conducted a study looking at 73 small and medium-sized organisations in

the Netherlands to investigate how CEO‟s ethical leadership behaviour (morality and

fairness, role clarification and power sharing) related to perceived top management

effectiveness and subordinates‟ optimism. The study revealed that ethical leadership is

found to be important in terms of perceived top management team effectiveness and

subordinates‟, optimism about the future of the organisation and their own place within

it. The following section develops the study hypotheses in terms of ethical leadership

and leader effectiveness.

74

Ethical Leadership and Level of Cohesion

There is evidence in literature that supports a link between group cohesion and

perceived fairness as an ethical leadership principle. According to Treviño et al. (2000,

2003), leader behaviours such as a concern for individuals and fair treatment of

employees are pivotal in perceptions of ethical leadership. Empirically, for example,

Chansler et al.‟s (2003) study examined the determinants of group cohesion in self-

managing work teams, referred to as “natural work groups”. These work groups

(NWGS) are empowered to successfully run the business of assembling motorcycles.

One of the most significant findings that the study revealed related to: (a) employee

control over team staffing; and (b) that the perceived fairness of the leadership among

the group explains nearly 42% of the variance in group cohesion. The study concluded

that the fair treatment of team members was one of the most important contributors to

group cohesion in self-managing work teams (SMWT). The author therefore proposes

the same effect as relevant to the culturally diverse workplace:

Hypothesis 2a: There is a positive relationship between ethical leadership and the level

of cohesion in culturally diverse workplaces.

Ethical Leadership and Level of Conflict

Many authors have emphasised the importance of maintaining ethical leadership

standards to manage conflict in a business environment (Lester, 1981; Bowie, 1982;

Walton, 1988 McDonald and Zepp, 1989; Butler, 1997; Bowie et al., 2001; Treviňo,

Brown and Hartman, 2003; Brown, Treviňo, Harrison, 2005; De Hoogh and Den

Hartog, 2008). Therefore, leaders are viewed to play a dynamic role in the establishment

of any new ethical behaviour that requires a common foundation of mutual values that

followers may share in an existing multicultural condition. Beliefs and the values they

support and implement, offer a crucial standard, directing followers‟ interaction with

each other and assessing followers‟ organisational achievement (Blasé and Kirby, 1992;

Chang, Labovitz and Rosansky, 1992; Fairholm, 1991). Therefore, establishing issues

of fairness and just treatment of people is a fundamental element of business policies

and decision making procedure. The authors asserted that when leaders fail to reflect

ethical leadership behaviours, when leading in this cultural diverse environment, this

can lead to group conflict. The author therefore proposes:

75

Hypothesis 2b: There is a negative relationship between leader ethicality as leadership

behaviour and the level of conflict in culturally diverse workplaces.

Ethical Leadership and Level of Affective Commitment

Meyer and Allen (1997) report that relationships between employees and their

supervisors influence the development of affective commitment, in the sense that

employees who are allowed to participate in decision-making, and who are treated fairly

and with consideration, are more committed. Merey et al. (2002) interpreted this to

indicate that organisations that show support treat employees fairly and demonstrate

strong leadership will generate commitment. Related findings were reported in public

sector studies; Balfour and Wechsler (1990) showed the significance of employee

participation in decision-making and other aspects of organisational life, including fair

and effective supervision providing adequate discretion, opportunity for advancement

and social relationships within a work group.

Moreover, Sims and Kroeck (1994) extended the notion of compatibility to address

“ethical fit”, or correspondence between individual and organisational ethical standards.

Their findings indicated that higher degrees of ethical fit were associated with greater

organisational commitment and lower turnover intentions. Some authors claimed that

leaders in organisations are likely to create organisational systems that employees

understand as ethical behaviours (Tatum and Eberlin, 2008). Research in this field

suggests that when a leader treats their employees fairly, those employees are likely to

respond by adopting behaviours beneficial to that organisation (Allen et al., 2004;

Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Kerman and Hanges, 2002; McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992).

Some scholars have proposed that the use of fair procedures and systems may enhance

employee commitment because fairness suggests that employees are respected members

of an organisation (Lind and Tyler, 1988). Fair procedures enhance the feeling of being

treated as full members of the organisation, which in turn reinforces the emotional bond

amongst the group and/or the organisation (Tyler and Lind, 1992). Pillai, Williams, and

Tan (2001) used a questionnaire to collect data showing harmony in the relationship

between justice and trust across cultures in the United States, Germany, India and

China. In multiple cultures, Pillia et al. (2001) revealed that when people experienced

76

unfairness they showed less commitment and were more likely to contemplate leaving

their organisation.

The presumed link between perceptions of procedural justice and discretionary

behaviour was recently affirmed in the literature (e.g. Cohen-Charash and Spector,

2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter and Ng, 2001) and is consistent with the earlier

argument that ethical procedures enhance the feeling of diverse groups being treated as

full members of the organisation. This sentiment should, therefore, predispose

individuals to perform activities and assume roles that exceed their normal tasks (De

Cremer and van Knippenberg, 2002; Tepper and Taylor, 2003) and also to remain full

members of the organisation (Albrecht and Travaglione, 2003; Mulinge, 2001; Simons

and Roberson, 2003). We therefore propose:

Hypothesis 2c: There is a positive relationship between leader ethicality as leadership

behaviour and the level of employees’ commitment to the organisation in

culturally diverse workplaces.

In addition to the above, this study focuses on the examination of leadership behaviours

that can change the way in which followers with diverse cultural backgrounds perceive

themselves. Specifically, this study empirically examines how leaders activate

followers‟ social identity (collective identity and leader prototypicality) in terms of a

collective identity, acting according to the norms of the collective, in this case their

team. Thus, the following section will briefly discuss social identity as an important

component in guaranteeing effective leadership in a diverse workplace.

3.3.3. Social Identity Theory of Leadership as Moderator for Leader Effectiveness

The central aim of this thesis is to examine the moderating role of social identity theory

(team identity and leader prototypicality) in the relationship between charismatic and

ethical leadership behaviours and leader effectiveness. Over the last decade, leadership

research has witnessed the emergence of social identity as a method for analysing

77

leadership (Cicero, 2010). The value of the concept of social identity is that it offers

insights into how group memberships shape attitudes, feelings, and behaviour (van

Knippenberg, 2003). Social identity theory has been used to predict and understand how

diversity influences individual attitudes and behaviour as well as team dynamics (van

Knippenberg, et al., 2011). To explain the effects of diversity on individual outcomes,

the basic argument is that one‟s similarity to visible and relatively immutable traits

influences feelings of identification (Tsui, Egan and O‟Reilly, 1992). By extending the

logic of theories that explain individual attitudes and behaviour, diversity researchers

have uncovered a strong theoretical rationale for making predictions about how

diversity is likely to influence social processes within teams and organisations (e.g. Jehn

et al., 1999; Pelled, Eisenhardt and Xin, 1999). Although social categorisation and

social identity theory were originally developed to explain the effects of readily-

detected diversity (surface-level), some scholars have used these theories in recent times

to explain the effects of personality and value-based diversity (deep-level) (e.g. Thomas,

1999). Many researchers have adopted social identity theory and social categorisation

theory to understand the effects of workplace diversity (Brewer, 1995; Northcraft,

Polzer, Neale and Kramer, 1995). Additionally, these theories without a doubt enrich

our understanding of the dynamics of cultural diversity and the concept of the self;

thereby providing a basis for investigating the effects of multi-dimensional diversity.

Therefore, to bridge cultural diversity and multicultural limitations it is necessary to

become involved in team work (Becker, 1998; De Young et al. 2003; Emerson and

Kim, 2003; Emerson and Woo, 2006).

Recently, researchers in this field have become interested in the concept of group

identity (e.g. James, 2008; Blader and Tyler, 2009; Tajfel, 2010 and Lee and Chen,

2011; Patel et al., 2011). Group identity refers to the essential features of a structured

group of individuals that share answers to the question: “who are we?”, assisting the

connecting of followers to organisations and to each other (Ashforth and Mael, 1989).

They argued that the stronger the feeling of “we” is embedded in a group, the less

significant individual distinctions appear to be. Group values, customs and norms

classify team members and strengthen the sense of collective social identity.

Consequently, strong organisational collective social identity can reduce internal in-

group/out-group dissimilarities and create a negative attitude.

78

At the beginning, it may be helpful to demonstrate in brief what social identity theory

(SIT) means when used as an influential theoretical framework to realise individuals‟

behavioural patterns. The idea of social identity as developed by Tajfel (1972) refers to

a method by which individuals identify with certain social groups, according to this, one

feels a strong sense of belonging to a particular group, and there is a perceived

partisanship in the group as it is a critical feature of group identity.

Tajfel and Turner (1986) proved the difference between interpersonal conditions and

group conditions. SIT starts from the assumption that people make every effort to

achieve or sustain a positive social identity, thus enhancing their self-esteem. This in

turn develops a favourable comparison that can be related to the in-group and related to

the out-groups. Generally speaking, social identity theory (SIT) predicts that an

individual‟s endeavour to achieve a positive self-perception and identity, to a certain

extent consists of membership of an organisation (Hogg and Terry, 2000). In addition to

these basic principles, Tajefel and Turner (1986) also illustrated three groups of

variables that might increase the weight of comparisons in the intergroup: individuals

should identify their selves with an in-group subjectively; the situation should permit

evaluative intergroup comparisons; a similar or proximal out-group must be evaluated

adequately. In 1987, John Turner and colleagues presented Self-Categorization Theory

(Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, and Wetherell, 1987), which adds to the SIT hypothesis

regarding people‟s behaviour within a group. People can classify themselves on diverse

levels: a personal level, as a member of group different from relative out-groups or with

the organisation altogether.

In agreement with the above, Brown (2000) stated that SIT contribution appeared

significant in four areas: in-group favouritism; reactions to the level of dissimilarity;

intergroup homogeneity and stereotyping; accordingly intergroups change their

attitudes. This point of view has been developed officially according to Self

Categorisation Theory (SCT). SCT demonstrates that consistent behaviour could impact

on the internalisation of equal group concepts and in-group members‟ definite attributes

(Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher and Wetherell, 1987). Additionally, Haslam (2004)

considered that, Social Identity Theory and Self-Categorisation Theory are considered

as two components of the Social Identity Approach.

79

Social-categorisation has been the principal psychological mechanism identified to

explain why culture diversity impacts on group performance negatively (van

Knippenberg et al., 2004). Social categorisation is associated with perceptual and

attitudinal biases that favour people from the in-group and denigrate people from the

out-group. Thus, social categorisation may disrupt elaboration of task-relevant

information because of possible positive basis (e.g., favouritisms) toward in-group

members and negative biases toward out-group members (e.g. derogation). Since social

psychologists have translated schemes of the social identity approach successfully into

organisational environments, this has been a productive framework from which to

investigate and recognise leadership issues, efficiency, and decision making,

communication or workplace pressures and also to draw on matters such as, power,

complaint and collective action, debates and amalgamations (Haslam, 2004; Haslam and

Ellemers, 2005; Haslam, Postmes and Ellemers, 2003; van Dick, 2004; van Dick, et al.,

2004).

This study explores here whether team identity moderates the relationship between

leadership behaviours and leader effectiveness. Chemers (2001) pointed out that in

order to prevent identity-based conflicts from emerging and growing, the leaders of

diverse workgroups must enhance a groups‟ collective identity, binding its members to

the organisation and to one another. In this sense, leadership effectiveness is often

described in terms of leaders‟ ability to inspire followers towards a collective goal,

which is achieving the organisation‟s mission and vision. Therefore, a deeper

understanding of the components of social identification and its consequences in

organisational contexts is extremely valuable. To achieve organisational goals, diverse

groups should improve their common social identity within the group and begin to

exchange information to enhance group effectiveness. To do so, Zee et al. (2004)

emphasised the importance of developing a common social identity amongst group

members. Hence, for group members from different backgrounds, a component of their

actions is influenced by their social identity. This in turn negatively affects constructive

group processes, which may then have a harmful impact on performance (Messick and

Mackie, 1989).

80

Recent research findings not only show that leadership may affect follower‟s

identification with the collective, but also that this effect on identification

mediates/moderates the effects of follower attitudes and behaviour. For example, Hogg,

(2003) emphasised that there are specific features of leadership that may have an effect

on followers‟ identification. For instance, charismatic and transformational leadership

theories, which emphasise the importance of charismatic leadership as aspects of

building collective identification, impact on leader‟s collective identification and is

correlated to leaders‟ self-sacrificing behaviour (Choi and Mai-Dalton, 1998; Yorges,

Weiss and Strickland, 1999). This displays self-confidence (Conger and Kanungo,

1987), a characteristic of charismatic and transformational leaders. In the same way

Kark et al. (2003) correlated charismatic and transformational leadership to follower

identification with collective action. A leader enhances their team‟s internal

cohesiveness and reciprocity through communication, initiating group goals and

creating goal interdependencies. Internalisation of a sense of group identification and

commitment is achievable when a leader leads by emphasising collective goals, creating

a group vision and exhibiting some sort of self-sacrifice to attain those goals (Conger

and Kanungo, 1987, 1998; Conger and Kanungo, 1987, 1998; Lester et al., 2002).

The studies that have been discussed above suggest that it can be argued that

charismatic and transformational leadership derives something of its effectiveness from

the impact of follower identification with the team. However, as shown in the literature

review, the potential of the team to identify its role as moderator of the effectiveness of

leadership behaviour is stated conceptually; although bottom-line outcomes have not

been investigated empirically. This debate has emerged mostly from research into social

identification and collective self-constructs (e.g. Hogg, 2001; Hogg and van

Knippenberg, 2003; Lord and Brown, 2004; Lord et al., 1999; van Knippenberg and

Hogg, 2003).

Leader prototypicality is also seen as an important determinant of leadership

effectiveness in the case of social-identity being used to measure leadership behaviour

(Hogg, 2001; Hogg and van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003).

Brodbeck et al. (2000) indicated that “prototypical concepts are also formed about

leadership traits and behaviours and they are used to distinguish leaders from non-

81

leaders (or outstanding from average, moral from amoral leaders etc.)” (p.3). Thus,

leaders‟ prototype-based leadership behaviour has the ability to attract and influence the

group, and therefore strengthen the leader‟s effectiveness. Hogg (2001) described such

prototypes as context specific skills that can define and prescribe behaviour, beliefs,

norms, attitudes and values. This kind of analysis of leadership stresses that leaders

function partially as members of the groups they lead they share one or more group

memberships. The crucial point in this argument is that leaders who represent a group‟s

identity are seen to be more fully authorised and more effective (Hogg and van

Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003).

Therefore, the leadership research into the structure of social identity in the workplace

has concentrated primarily on prototypicality. However, Shamir et al. (1993) proposed

that the decision to follow a leader is a dynamic process, based on the degree to which

followers perceive their leaders to be demonstrating their followers‟ perceptions and

values. In essence, followers may be more attracted to leaders who seem to be

prototypical.

Brodbeck et al. (2000) suggested that it would be essential for leaders to understand

diversity in order to be effective in view of the potential impact of people of diverse

nationalities working together. These authors establish their hypotheses on the basis that

pre-existing leadership prototypes are a resource that accounts for variance across

cultures. The findings revealed that leadership prototypes are associated with a cultural

structure and therefore the values and beliefs of a particular nation. Nations that have

similar cultural guides have similar leader prototypes. Therefore, in culturally diverse

workplaces such as SABIC, different values and beliefs with respect to leadership may

prevail, making it crucial for leaders to establish a collective identity to overcome these

differences.

Social identity among group members is related to group behaviour and attitude,

cohesion (Trice and Beyer, 1993) and relationship conflict (Chrobot-Mason, Ruderman,

Weber, Ohlott and Dalton, 2007). According to Hofstede (1997) employees with a

collective identity tend to have long term goals and interests. This results in long-term

82

commitment to the organisation (Bass, 1998). Some scholars of social identity have

argued that team identification and leader prototypicality may encourage different

individuals to behave according to team norms and standards, in order to gain

acceptance in the team (Branscombe, et al., 1999; Schmitt, et al., 2001), alleviating any

negative effect of diversity (Hobman and Bordia, 2006).

The main aim of this study is to extend previous research examining the impact of

leadership behaviour on leader effectiveness, investigating the role of team

identification and leader prototypicality. The studies described above are limited to

modest theoretical and empirical evidence regarding the direct relationship between

social identity and leadership effectiveness.

The author found, when researching the information presented above, that there is lack

of empirical studies that examine the moderator role in the case of social identity, as

related to the relationship between charismatic and ethical leadership and leader‟s

effectiveness. Therefore, most importantly, by examining the moderating role of social

identity (team identity and leader prototypicality), the researcher has responded to van

Knippenberg and Schippers‟ (2007) call for more attention to be paid to the moderators

of social categorisation of diversity research.

This also enables us to further Kalshoven and Den Hartog‟s (2009) work on leader

prototypicality by exploring models that include moderation (rather than mediation),

influencing the relationship between ethical leadership and leader‟s effectiveness. The

present study recognises the potential role of leader prototypicality as a moderating

force between leadership behaviour and leader effectiveness. In reference to the

following, it can be argued that much can be gained by pursuing this line of research

and by studying the moderator role of leader prototypicality in the relationship between

leadership behaviour and leader effectiveness. This result may help us to understand

better how prototypical leaders can influence important aspects of their followers‟

behaviour and attitudes, such as group cohesion, group relationship conflict and

affective commitment.

83

Although, scholars have suggested that social identity plays a critical role in terms of

leaders‟ ethicality (e.g. fairness) regarding employees (cf., van Knippenberg and Hogg,

2003), this suggestion does not appear to have been investigated empirically to date.

Therefore, the current study is to be the first empirical study to examine the moderator‟s

role in terms of team identity and group leader prototypicality and the affect of this on

the relationship between ethical leadership behaviour and leader effectiveness in


In the light of the discussions above, this study proposes that both team-identity and

leader prototypicality moderate the relationship between charismatic leadership, ethical

leadership and three key work-related outcomes. This leads to the formulation of the

following:

Hypothesis 3: The relationship between leadership behaviours (charismatic and

ethical) and leader effectiveness will be moderated by leadership prototypes.

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between leadership behaviours (charismatic and

ethical) and leader effectiveness will be moderated by team identity.

3.4. Overview of the Gaps in the Literature and Scope of the Current Study

This review of the literature enables the author to identify the gap which needs to be

investigated. The current study examines the issue of cultural diversity in depth

(nonobservable) in the case of the teams under investigation; diversity features have

received modest attention rather than surface-level (observable) diversity in the

organisational behaviour literature (Milliken and Martins, 1996); however, this may be

critical for informing leadership behaviour given the increase in the number of

multicultural companies. Moreover, this study contributes to the comparatively small

number of studies on team leader and follower behaviour and advances the literature in

terms of non-observable diversity characteristics.

Many cross-cultural studies are undertaken in the United States, Europe and Japan and

other East Asian countries (e.g. Larsson and Ronnmark, 1996; Lashley, 2000; Boehnke

et al., 2003, Rowold and Heinitz, 2007; Côté and colleagues, 2010). However, there has

so far been no reported attempt to validate new leadership theories in the Saudi Arabian

84

contextual setting. There is then an urgent need for the replication of new leadership

theories in Saudi Arabia, and this is what is motivating the present researcher to

undertake a study to explore to what extent the Conger and Kanungo behavioural theory

of charismatic leadership (C-K model) (Conger and Kanungo, 1997) can be used to

explain leadership effectiveness (reduce levels of relation conflict and increase levels of

cohesion and affective commitment in diverse work teams) in multi-cultural companies

Saudi Arabia. Additionally, and with regards to ethical leadership theory, most scholars

are focusing only on ethical aspects of other leadership styles transformation,

charismatic and authentic leadership (e.g. Cameron, et al., 2003; Ciulla, 2005a; Brown

and Treviño, 2006a; Zhu, et al., 2011; Sosik, et al., 2011); whereas, this study considers

ethical leadership as a set of behaviours in itself. To the author‟s knowledge there is no

empirical study that examines the moderators of social identity on the relationship

between specific leadership styles (charismatic and ethical) in the diversity context.

Furthermore, this study responds to Whit and Lean‟s (2008) call for attaching value to

examining the relationship between perceived leader ethics and their effect on employee

behaviours. Since most of the previous literature has concentrated on the effect of

ethical leadership, which influences top management and CEOs, the present study is

intended to examine how leaders in a work team affect the behaviour and attitude of

their subordinates.

Therefore, this study aims to bridge the gaps between the scarcity of studies on the

newer theories of leadership in terms of leadership effectiveness and the moderating

role of social identity in multi-cultural teams. This is a keystone approach, in light of the

growing importance of culture as an important topic in this era of globalisation;

organisations are opening up to embrace multi-cultural candidates in order to gain better

competitive positions, so it is necessary to understand how this can best be achieved.

3.5. Summary and Model Proposal

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between leadership behaviours

and follower‟s social identity in the culturally diverse workplace. Leaders are

recommended to effectively reduce group relation conflict, increase group cohesion and

attain high level of affective commitment to the organisation; how they can achieve this is

85

considered here. Based on a synthesis of the academic literature reviewed in this chapter,

two integrated leadership theories and social identity theories which refer to proposed

leadership behaviours figure (3.2) are hypothesised to influence leadership effectiveness.

As has been mentioned earlier culture plays a role in determining the values and

aspirations of people. As a consequence, the need for leaders who have the ability to

motivate, communicate and deal with different cultural challenges is increased across

multinational companies (Dorfman, et al., 2004). Thus, as discussed in this chapter, in

seeking an effective leadership style in a culturally diverse workplace, this study built on

Conger and Kanungo‟s (1998) model. This model has six classifications: strategic vision

and articulation, sensitivity to the environment, sensitivity to member needs, personal

risk, and unconventional behaviours. Conger and Kanungo (1997) argue that their model

is arguably the most comprehensive integrative approach to studying leadership; it is a

model that can be applied universally, because its dimensions are perceived across

cultures (Conger and Kanungo, 1998; Yukl, 2002).

Another theoretically important aspect of this study is determining the impact of ethical

leadership when leading a culturally diverse workplace. Besides charismatic behaviours at

team level, effective leaders should possess these behaviours as described by an ethical

value (Hogg el al. 2005). However, the tendency towards a multicultural workplace raises

serious and difficult issues in terms of ethics; diversity raises new ethical issues and

presents both leaders and followers with new situations that may challenge established

practice. Thus, successful leaders must exhibit the characteristics of charismatic

leadership behaviour to set out an ethical groundwork for an organisation (Bass and

Avolio, 1990; Hart, 1988; Kreps, 1990; Schein, 1990; Wauumbwa et. al, 2008; Den

Hartog and De Hoogh, 2011a).

To enrich our understanding of diversity dynamics and follower identity this study

adopts social identity theory, specifically, leader prototypicality and team identification.

Social Identity Theory (SIT) clarifies the cultural diversity challenges within

organisations. This theory assumes that team members create a positive social identity

and improve relationships by demonstrating a preference for members of their own

social category (Ayoko, 2006). The more prototypical a leader, the more he or she

represents the group‟s attitudes, behaviours, beliefs, values, and norms (Hogg, 2001). The

86

prototypical leader prescribes appropriate attitudes and behaviours and so has a significant

effect on group identity by presenting an idealised representation of their identity (Giessner

and van Knippenberg, 2008). Social identity theory provides a grounded basis for

investigating the effects of cultural diversity on workplace relationships. Therefore, with

this approach, leaders can transform their followers‟ beliefs and values, and influence

them to put the organisation‟s interests before their own. As a result of this behavioural

change, charismatic leaders create an effective and meaningful workplace for

employees (McCall and Hollenbeck, 2002). Which in turn reduces employee‟s negative

behaviour and attitude and promotes a positive atmosphere (Perryer and Jordan, 2005;

López-Zafra, et al., 2008; Wendt, et al., 2009; Lee, Cheng, Yeung, and Lai, 2011).

Therefore, leaders in culturally diverse environments have the difficult task of

maintaining the positive aspects of the diversity found in their workers, as well as

modelling those diverse values and customs into a new culture that asks workers to trust

each other and collaborate according to specific organisational values (Burns, 1978;

Fisher, 1990; Trice and Beyer, 1993). Understanding this diversity and complexity could

assist in overcoming relationship conflict and creating a highly cohesive team that has a

high level of affective commitment to the organisation. This conflict potential may be the

outcome of competing identities within a person or an organisation and could lead to

(violent) conflict (Coy and Woehrle, 2000; Kriesberg, 2003).

Figure (3.2): Integrated Leadership and Social Identity Theories

(Proposed leadership behaviour) Produced for the purpose of this research

Social Identity

Proposed

leadership

behaviours Ethical

Leadership

behaviours

Charismatic

Leadership

behaviours

87

According to figure (1) the leadership in the central zone indicates the proposed

leadership behaviours searched for in this study. Leaders who possess charismatic

behaviours with ethical standards should be found to emphasise the collective interests

and leader prototypicality. This in turn, increases leadership effectiveness to achieve

organisation goals with low internal personal conflict, high cohesion and high afflictive

organisational commitment. Conger and Kanungo (1994) stated that the next important

step for future research is to “vigorously establish criterion validity” (p.451). For

example, they suggested that some potential outcomes of charismatic leadership may be

high cohesion, low internal conflict, high value similarity, high commitment to

organisational goals. The present study expands the literature by empirically testing the

relationship between charismatic leadership using the C-K scale and some of the variables

suggested. Specifically, this study investigates the charismatic phenomenon in private

organisations in a culturally diverse context.

From the literature review and analysis above the researcher articulated a formal study

model and the hypotheses given. The overall framework is summarised in Figure (3.3)

88

Figure (3-3): Proposed Model

89

According to the proposed model above this study hypothesises that leadership

behaviours (charismatic and ethical behaviours) have a relationship to a leader‟s

effectiveness (level of team cohesion, level of relation conflict and level of affective

commitment). This relationship is assumed to become stronger when leadership

behaviours are combined with team identity and leader prototypicality.

The path to fulfilling these research objectives constitutes the research methodology.

Thus, the next chapter will discuss alternative research methodologies, selecting from a

multiplicity of methods, procedures and models of research methodology, which will

help to most effectively test the study framework.

90

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

4.1. Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to present a rationale for the methodological approach

that has been adopted, by providing an explanation of the processes and procedures

deemed relevant for the design of the study, the data collection techniques. This is

followed by a description of the data collection, measurements, human participants and

ethical precautions. Finally, in this chapter the researcher tests the study instruments‟

validity and reliability for pilot and main study.

In order to explain the methodology of the current study, it is essential to refer back to

the study objectives formulated and detailed in the introduction. The study has the

following aims:

To analyse the relationship between leadership behaviours (charismatic and

ethical leadership) and the level of conflict at culturally diverse workplaces in

Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC).


ethical leadership) and the level of cohesion at culturally diverse workplaces in

Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC).


ethical leadership)and the level of employees‟ commitment to their organisations

in culturally diverse workplaces in Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation

(SABIC).

To examine the moderating impact of social identity (team identity) on the

relationship between leadership behaviours (charismatic and ethical leadership)

and leading a diverse workplace effectively (defined as low conflict, high

cohesion and high affective commitment to the organisation).

To examine the moderating impact of social identity (leader prototypicality) on

the relationship between leadership behaviours (charismatic and ethical

leadership) and leading a diverse workplace effectively (i.e. low relation

91

conflict, high group cohesion and high affective commitment to the

organisation).

4.2. Research Purpose and general model

Scholars classified three types of research according to the purpose of the methodical

investigation, namely; exploratory, descriptive and explanatory (Robson, 2011; Yin,

2009). They argued that research can have more than one purpose depending in the

nature of examination that may change over time (Robson, 2011; Yin, 2009).

Accordingly, this research focuses on describing and explaining the relationships between

variables to understand the phenomenon that is being considered. To clarify this study

purpose, the proposed theoretical model that guided this research is presented in Figure

(4.1). As illustrates by the study model leadership effectiveness (group cohesion, group

relationship conflict and affective commitment to the organisation) were hypothesised to

be affected by leadership behaviours (charismatic leadership behaviours, ethical

leadership behaviours). It was hypothesised also that social identity in diverse workgroups

(followers‟ social identity and leadership prototypes) moderating the relationship between

leadership and leader effectiveness. The term „moderator‟ is used to describe a variable

that strengthens the relationship between an independent and a dependent variable (Cho et

al., 2008).

Figure (4.1): Study Model

92

4.3. Research Design and Methodological Fit

The research design is the plan or overall scheme applied to accomplish research

objectives and to answer a research question. After a comprehensive literature review,

the researcher chose a research design that would achieve a high methodological fit

(Edmondson and McManus, 2007). Therefore, the selection of a paradigm has

significant consequences for the selection of a research strategy and the collection and

analysis of data. Accordingly, the choice of a research design should be appropriate to

the subject under study (Hair et al., 2011).

An essential principle when conducting research is that the methods adopted should be

appropriate to the theoretical proposition being made regarding the phenomenon under

study. More broadly, the concept is described as ensuring „methodological fit‟

(Edmonson and McManus, 2007). According to Edmondson and McManus (2007)

inaccuracy when choosing a suitable methodology creates problems that reduce the

efficiency of the research results and conclusion. In their theoretical article on

methodological fit in organisational research, they indicate that there are four key

elements of a field project: the research question, prior work, the research design and its

contribution to literature. The first element focuses on the topic to be studied and

condenses the area of study so that it is of a logical and achievable size. The researcher

focuses on what is significant both theoretically and practically and then presents this

information in the form of a question to be answered. The second element (prior work)

requires the selection of suitable literature, empirical research and theories that are

relevant to the subject matter. Prior work also provides information on the other areas of

research covered, such as recognising unresolved questions, unexplored areas and

controversial areas of research. The third element pertains to research design and deals

with the different types of information that need to be collected, the methodology, and

the various analytical procedures required to ensure appropriate correlation of the

information. The last element mentioned by Edmondson and McManus is the

contribution to literature, which includes the theories that have been developed through

new ideas that inform and challenge prior research; these may lead to a deeper

awareness of a phenomenon.

93

Based on these four elements, are three types of research: nascent, intermediate and

mature. The table below shows the three types of Methodological Fit in field Research.

Table (4-1) three types of Methodological Fit in field Research

State of prior theory

and research Nascent Intermediate Mature

Research questions Open-ended inquiry

about a phenomenon

of interest

Proposed

relationships between

new and established

constructs

Focused questions

and/or hypotheses

relating to existing

constructs

Type of data

collected

Qualitative, initially

open ended data that

needs to be

interpreted for

meaning

Hybrid (both

qualitative and

quantitative)

Quantitative data;

focused measures

where extent or

amount is meaningful

Illustrative methods

for data collection

Interviews;

observations;

obtaining documents

or other materials

from field sites

relevant to the

phenomena being

investigated

Interviews;

observations; surveys;

obtaining material

from field sites

relevant to the issue

of interest

Surveys; interviews

of observations

designed to be

systematically coded

and quantified;

obtaining data from

field sites that

measure the extent or

quantity of salient

constructs

Constructs and

measures

Typically new

constructs, few

formal measures

Typically one or more

new constructs and/or

new measures

Typically relying

heavily on existing

constructs and

measures

Goal of data analyses Pattern identification Preliminary of

exploratory testing of

new propositions

and/or new constructs

Formal hypothesis

testing

Data analysis

methods

Thematic content

analysis coding for

evidence of

Content analysis,

exploratory statistics,

and preliminary tests

Statistical inference,

standard statistical

analyses

94

constructs

Theoretical

contribution

A suggestive theory,

often an invitation for

further work on the

issue or set of issues

opened up by the

study

A provisional theory,

often one that

integrates previously

separate bodies of

work

A supported theory

that may add

specificity, new

mechanisms, or new

boundaries to existing

theories

Source: Edmondson and McManus (2007:1160)

The research undertaken here can be categorised as mature research as it focuses on

questions and/or hypotheses related to existing constructs (here: leader Conger and

Kanungo scale of charismatic leadership, ethical leadership, identification, leader

prototypicality, team relation conflict, affective commitment and team cohesion).

The current research design includes four stages. The first stage is reviewing the related

theories and previous studies in this field. Based on the gap in the literature review the

study objectives and hypotheses were then formulated. To test the study hypotheses the

research instruments were established, the research method was identified in the final

stage and the data was analysed. The results based on analysing the data were then

discussed followed by recommendations for future research Figure (4-2) illustrates the

research design.

95

Figure (4.2) Research Design


The approach used here is also described as following a “classical” research paradigm,

as will be explained further in the next section.

4.4. Research Philosophy (Paradigm)

In the context of research methodology, the term „paradigm‟ according to Hammersley

(2007:1) “has also come to mean a set of philosophical assumptions about the

phenomena to be studied, about how they can be understood, and even about the proper

purpose and product of research”. There are two principal research paradigms used in

business research, namely, the positivistic and a phenomenological/ interpretivism

paradigm. According to Bryman and Bell, positivism is “an epistemological position

that advocates the application of the methods of the natural sciences to the study of

96

social reality and beyond” (2007:155). The role of positivism as stated by Anderson

(2004) resides in searching for facts in terms of clarifying the relationship between

variables before identifying a data collection pattern through statistical approaches as

followed in quantitative research procedures. According to Collis and Hussey (2003),

the positivistic approach concentrates on facts and the causes of social events, paying

modest respect to the subjective state of the individual.

There are several practical implications of positivism for the researcher, these assume

the researcher is completely independent from what is being observed. Accordingly, the

criteria, which guides the choice of what is being studied, are objective and not

influenced by personal beliefs and interests. Therefore, it is essential to recognise causal

descriptions and the supporting rules behind constancy in human social behaviour,

constructing an initial hypothesis, and subjecting the hypotheses developed to deductive

examinations through sensible observations, and as a consequence breaking down

concepts so that facts can be measured quantitatively. Further, by enhancing

understanding by restricting problems to their simplest potential components, by

choosing a sufficient size for samples to allow for generalisation regarding any

observation of consistency in human social behaviour, and seeking comparisons over a

cross-sectional analysis of samples (Bryman and Bell, 2007; Saunders et al., 2009:

Collis and Hassey, 2009).

In contrast, the interpretivism paradigm is based on the assumption that the social world

of business and management, and other forms of human endeavour, are far too complex

to lend themselves to being theorised according to definitive laws in the same way as

the physical sciences. This approach recommends that the researcher should understand

the differences between individuals as social actors (Collis and Hussey, 2009; Blaxter et

al., 2006; Bryman and Bell, 2007). From this perspective, the individual is considered to

be a key element in any explanation of human conduct, associated with external root

fundamental regulations. Therefore, the researcher‟s primary mission involves bringing

to light meaning, rather than collecting facts and measuring how often particular

patterns occur. In addition phenomenological practical research implications consist of

the researcher‟s involvement in the observation; the ideas and theories developed rely

on the analysis of gathered data; the complicated examination of the data; creating

97

various settings based on the phenomena requiring multiple methods; and small samples

of intensive investigation over time and analysis (Easterby-Smith et. al., 1991). The

interpretative approach seems to be appropriate for obtaining rich qualitative data that is

relevant to the objectives set, and is in keeping with the context of the research (Bryman

and Bell, 2007). Interpretivism is similar to Weber‟s work, which recognises sociology

as a branch of knowledge which is aimed at an interpretative comprehension of action in

order to understand its cause and its effects (1921). The interpretivist approach

emphasises the subjective aspects of human activity by focusing on meaning instead of

the measurement of social event. There is therefore no right or wrong paradigm, rather,

a particular paradigm is more appropriate to a specific study than any other. The

features of the two approaches are presented in the table below.

Table (4-2): Positivist versus Interpretivist Paradigms

Positivist principles Interpretivist principles

Work from scientific principles

Analyse phenomena in terms of variables

Start with theory and test/refine theory with

data

Data should be collected „dispassionately‟

A highly structured research process should be

used.

Theories can be used to predict future

relationships and behaviours.

Quantitative data is preferred

The validity and reliability of data is

important for formulating generalisable

conclusions.

Knowledge is constructed by human

beings as they make sense of their

environment.

Analyse phenomena in terms of issues.

Researchers cannot be wholly

dispassionate-they are involved and

will influence situations to varying

degrees (often unintentionally).

Flexibility may be required to allow

the emphasis of the research to change

as the process unfolds

Qualitative data is preferred

Generating „rich‟ data is as important

as (or more important than) the ability

to generalise.

Source: Anderson (2004: 42)

98

The difference between these paradigms, as stated by Gill et al., (2010), is their

emphasis upon deduction (testing theory) as opposed to induction (structuring theory)

(Bryman and Bell, 2011). In the deductive approach, hypotheses are developed based on

theory, and the research strategy is designed to test the hypothesis, which is achieved by

establishing a cause and effect relationship between two or more variables (Saunders et

al., 2009; Collis and Hussey, 2009; Gill et al., 2010). Conversely, the inductive

approach begins with data, and then develops an empirical generalisation that describes

patterns of data and seeks to identify or develop a theoretical proposition that is

consistent with such patterns (Saunders et al., 2009; Gill et al., 2010).

4.5. Research Methods

In social sciences research, two major approaches can be differentiated: the qualitative

and the quantitative approach. This section discusses the nature of each approach in

order to justify their relevance to this research. However, these approaches are not

mutually exclusive (as with deductive and inductive paradigms) and can be combined

effectively to produce more comprehensive results.

Qualitative research is built on the intensive study of as many features as possible of a

small phenomenon. Researchers following this approach seek understanding through

inductive analysis, moving from specific observation to general. Collis and Hussey

(2009) argue that qualitative methods are often related to the phenomenological

position. The main aim of the qualitative approach is therefore to provide a detailed

description of the social setting being investigated, rather than being based on statistical

generalisation (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Collis and Hussey (2009) argue that the reason

behind using a qualitative approach is that it helps to develop a deeper understanding of

social and human activities by examining and reflecting individuals‟ perceptions. The

nature of this style of research is often exploratory and typically involves a small

number of people being interviewed in-depth (Creswell, 2004). Qualitative research, in

fact, concentrates on understanding phenomena and describing events meaning and

implications (Saunders et al., 2009). In addition, the qualitative approach acts as a

useful planning tool when following quantitative approach. Bryman and Bell (2007)

claimed that criticism of subjectivity as qualitative analysis is practical in nature; data

99

can be used to create a reality that the researcher then desires to obtain. Additionally, a

lack of accurate experimental manipulation and determinism is often highlighted as

qualitative data collection and analysis. These features result in a restriction of their

application to particular types of research.

In contrast, quantitative research is built on a numerical measurement of specific

characteristics relation to a phenomenon. Quantitative approaches employ deductive

logic, moving from the general to the specific. The tools used to carry out quantitative

research tend to be surveys and questionnaires (Coombes, 2001). It is a very structured

approach and is most often focused on objectivity, generalisability and reliability (Collis

and Hussey, 2009). The key advantage of the quantitative approach, therefore, is that it

is based on fact and reliable data that enables researchers to generalise their findings to

the population from which the sample has been drawn. The quantitative researcher aims

to obtain data to explain events and situations in terms of a cause and effect

relationship; predicting or explaining a relationship by comparing or relating several

variables under investigation (Creswell, 2004; Eldabi et al., 2002). Subsequently, facts

can be comprehended in a factual sense (Easterby- Smith et al., 2008). As stated by

Anderson (2004) a significant reason for the use of quantitative data is to answer

research questions, through defining a recent condition, which enables the reader to

make more sense of statistical terms such as, frequency, central tendency, and

dispersion. She added that acquisition of this statistical data enables the researcher to

make comparisons between what has been found in other previous studies and thus can

illustrate their study‟s contribution. Another advantage of the quantitative approach is

its flexibility when handling data, regarding comparative analysis, statistical analysis,

and repeatability of data collection, with the intention of confirming reliability

(Partington, 2002). On the other hand, a most important weakness with this approach is

that it is not possible to investigate every area in depth simultaneously, since

information is standardised and therefore does not afford any opportunity for

interpretation or a new perspective (Robson, 2002).

In spite of the differences between quantitative and qualitative approach, the core of the

quantitative-qualitative dispute is in reality philosophical, not methodological.

Philosophical suppositions or a theoretical paradigm about the nature of reality are vital

100

to understanding in general perspective upon which a study is designed and carried out

(Krauss, 2005).

4.6. Research Strategy-Survey

Research strategy is defined as a general plan of how the researcher will go about

answering research questions and meeting their research objectives (Saunders et al.,

2009, p.141). Robson (2002) defines strategy as the general approach taken in an

enquiry. He further distinguishes between three main strategies, namely experiments,

surveys and case studies. Experimental strategy measures the effect when manipulating

one variable with another variable, and is usually related to the natural sciences,

although it features strongly in social science research, especially psychology. On the

other hand, case study strategy requires the development of intensive, detailed

knowledge about a single case, or a small number of related cases, and is usually

appropriate for exploratory work (Yin, 2003). Meanwhile, survey strategy is the

collection of information in a standardised form from groups of participants, and is

usually associated with a deductive approach (Robson, 2002). Other scholars comment

that surveys are used by researchers in management research as they represent a popular

strategy that allows for the collection of large amounts of data from a wide population

in an economical way. Using a survey approach allows the researcher more control over

the research process (Oppenheim, 1997; Easterby-Smith et. al. 2008). Surveys with a

suitable sample may provide generalisable results; they enable the researcher to make

comparisons by repeating the survey at different times or in distinct situations, which is

regarded as an important advantage of surveys. With regards to response time, a survey

with a good reply rate may allow the acquisition of a great deal of data quickly (Blaxter,

Hughes and Tight, 2006).

4.7. Data Gathering Methods:

Gathering data is the key activity involved in a research project; it should be directed by

the research objectives, and influenced by the environmental factors that the researchers

have investigated. In this research, the data gathering instrument (questionnaire) was

selected based on the research philosophy (paradigm) and objectives. Within a survey

strategy, the data collection methods available include questionnaires, interviews and

101

participant observation. There is no single best way for collecting data as the choice is

always subjective and based on the needs of the researcher and the research questions to

be answered (Saunders et al., 2009). The following section discusses and evaluates the

data gathering instruments used in this research.

4.8. Data Gathering Instruments Adopted in this Research- Questionnaire

A questionnaire according to Collies and Hussey (2003) can be used to gather data,

“When the issues which arise are likely to be confidential and sensitive and give

respondents more time to consider their answers” (p.281). The questionnaire survey, as

defined by McDaniel and Gates (2002), is comprised of a set of questions designed to

generate the evidence necessary to accomplish the objectives of the research study. It is

a method of getting answers to the research questions based on designing specific

questions to be answered by the research participants (Robson, 2004 and Bryman,

2004). Questionnaires as a survey method may be viewed as a comparatively simple

and uncomplicated means of examining participants‟ attitudes, values, beliefs and

motives. When the survey includes sensitive issues, a questionnaire affords a high level

of confidentiality and anonymity (Robson, 2004). Although questionnaires may be

inexpensive to administer compared to other research methods, they are expensive in

terms of design time spent and interpretation (Bryman, 2004). Additionally

questionnaires as have some drawbacks, such as the possibility of a low response rate,

especially when respondents have no special interest in the subject of the questionnaire,

difficulty in controlling who completes the questionnaire, lack of any opportunity to

check the accuracy of the answers or clarify ambiguous answers; also respondents may

have difficulties with reading and there may be missing data. There is always a

likelihood that questionnaire validity will be very low (Gillham, 2000; Neuman, 2004;

Robson, 2004; Blaxter, et al., 2006). Primary data requires the researcher to gather

information independently with a specific purpose in mind.

A questionnaire contains two types of question: closed-ended and open-ended, both of

which have advantages and disadvantages. In closed-ended question, respondents are

offered a set of answers and asked to tick the one that most closely represents their

views. Closed-ended questions are easy to ask and quick to answer; they require no

writing on the part of the respondent, and their analysis is straightforward.

102

4.9. The Rationale for Choice of the Methodology Used in the Study

In this study the choice of research approach was determined by the research aim and

objectives. As mentioned previously (in chapters one and three) this study examines the

role of leadership behaviour and effectively leading culturally diverse workplaces in

Saudi Arabia by reducing internal conflict, increasing internal cohesion and attaining

organisational commitment and the moderating role of social identity theory.

As discussed in chapter three, prior theories have been reviewed by the researcher.

Therefore, it is applicable to generate the research hypotheses based on the available

literature. This is something achievable through a deductive approach; thus, a deductive

research paradigm fits this study. At the same time, this study emphasises measurable

outcomes rather than a process. This is appropriate to measure through a quantitative

approach. Additionally, a number of previous researchers in the leadership field have

utilised the quantitative approach. Jackson and Parry (2008) and Ospina et al. (2004)

stated that leadership research has long been regarded as related mainly to a quantitative

research tradition that is epistemologically steered mostly by positivistic assumptions

and preferences. In the case of this study the hypotheses are prescribed according to

theories formulated to describe behaviours associated with leadership and social

identity. For the data gathering a paper based questionnaire has been employed,

following a survey strategy, to test the study hypotheses. The researcher chose the

questionnaire survey method to collect quantitative data. The questionnaire will allow

the „what‟ questions in this research (such as the relationship between leadership

behaviour and relation conflict) to be answered; similar to many previous research

studies into leadership. According to Bryman (2011) leadership is an area of research

that has been primarily related to a specific method of data collection such as

questionnaire. This point of view was supported by Hunter et al. (2007) and Friedrich et

al. (2009) who argued that the questionnaire-based method can be considered as a

„typical leadership study‟. Additionally Antonakis et al. (2004: 55) stated that “Because

the vast majority of research that is conducted in the leadership domain is quantitative

in nature and because theory enable tested appropriately only with quantitative

method...”. Therefore, this research has followed this method by implementing the

quantitative approach. Since this search is based primarily on positivist philosophy and

builds on existing theories of leadership and social identity.

103

4.10. Sample Design and Population

The sample design refers to the process of selecting a part of the population of interest

to represent the whole of that population. According to Bryman and Bell (2007), there

are two types of samples the probability and the non probability samples. A probability

sample is characterised by random selection, whereas a non-probability sample is not

random. A non-probability sample is commonly preferred because of its convenience

(Krathwohl, 1997). There are three different types of non-probability samples;

convenience sampling, purposive sampling and quota sampling (Robson, 2002). In this

study the target population is the employees and managers in the multi-national

company (SABIC) in Saudi Arabia. The selection of this company was based on the fact

that it has a large numbers of employees with diverse backgrounds. In this study, non-

probability sampling was used in order to achieve adequate representation. Using non-

probability sampling, cluster sampling techniques were also selected. For the first

sample, a nonprobability purposive sampling technique was used to locate respondents;

this involved identifying a team with a high level of cultural diversity. It was not the

study's objective to generalise findings to a larger population, but rather to obtain

samples of a culturally diverse team who would complete the study questionnaire in

order to allow the researcher to analysis the relationship between leadership behaviour

and leader‟s effectiveness and to examing the moderating impact of social identity on

these relationships. Probability sampling techniques were not considered viable due to

the need for the sample group to exhibit certain characterstics (see below). Instead

purposive sampling involves judgements being made by researchers regarding which

characteristics of the target population should be included in the sample (Altinay and

Wang, 2009).

The foreign workers at SABIC vary from one department to another, thus, the

researcher with assistance of Director of Strategic Workforce Planning-Organisational

Development Department, deliberately selected the department with the highest number

of multinational employees, because they are likely to represent instances that are likely

to produce the most valuable data to the area being researched (Denscombe, 2010). The

second sample of the employees within the chosen team was convenience based,

104

because there was no up dated list of all employees under each team leader in SABIC.

Convenience sampling enabled the researcher to select the most available persons to act

as respondents. Thus, the employees were selected because they are seen as instances

that are likely to produce the most valuable data in the area. However, it is therefore

essential to acknowledge the potential drawbacks associated with such a sampling

strategy; these are a greater possibility for selection bias, limited potential to generalise

from the sample to the wider population, as the researcher‟s choices are unlikely to be

fully objective (Tansey, 2007; Wilson, 2009).

4.11. Determining Sample Size

The sample size is a significant characteristic with any empirical study in which the goal

is to make assumptions about a population based on a sample. Indeed, the sample size

used in the study was determined based on the data collection figures, and the need to

obtain sufficient statistical power (Saunders et al., 2009). According to Saunders et al.

(2009, p. 217) “the larger your sample‟s size the lower the likely error in generalising to

the population”; for this reason, it was determined to work with categorical data to

complement the variable population of SABIC. In this study the researcher will set the

alpha level a priori at .05 which indicates the level of risk; the researcher is willing to

take the risk that the true margin of error may exceed the acceptable margin of error.

The P value 0.05 will be adopted as the universally accepted value for statistical

significance. This means that there is a 5% chance of no significant difference (and a

95% chance that the findings are significantly different) (Field, 2009).

The general equation for sample size in all populations, both large and small, is given

by (Red and Parker, 2005) as:

Where Cρ = confidence interval in terms of preparation

Zα = Z score for various levels of confidence (α)

ρ = the true proportion

N= study population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power

105

To proceed with the calculation of the Sample sizes (n), the value of Zα, Cρ and ρ must

be established. Zα, is set at 1.96 for the 95 percent level of confidence or 2.575 for 99

percent. The confidence interval Cρ is typically set to not exceed 10 percent and is more

frequently set in the 3 to 5 percent range, depending on the specific degree of accuracy

to which the findings must conform. The true proportion (ρ) is unknown and is

estimated according to the proportion that would result in the highest sampling size at ρ

=.5

Thus by applying this equation to the study, the population of SABIC employees (N=

12000), the sample size needed will be:

n = 376

And the population of team leaders in SABIC (N= 135), the sample size needed will be

n =100

Thus, the sample size decision for the population size (12000, SABIC employees and

135 team leaders), was made up of 376 employees and 100 leaders. In order to test the

hypotheses of the study, data from the two samples was collected. A first sample of

(500) employees and a second sample of (100) managers was identified from this

population, to enable the use of appropriate data collection methods, ensuring that the

samples would a good representation of the entire population.

4.12. Data Analysis Methods Adopted in this Thesis

As the research adopts a positivist approach, data analysis is accordingly driven

according to quantitative strands. The main analysis of quantitative data is achieved by

using the SPSS package (version 18). There are various statistical methods employed

such as Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), frequency,

percentage, arithmetic mean, standard deviation and the Pearson Correlation.

106

To test the study hypotheses Multi Level Modelling has been selected as the main

analytical technique testing for the model using aggregate data to achieve a higher level

of analysis (aggregating a group of followers‟ and their ratings of their leader). In recent

years, scholars investigating scenarios involving organisational behaviour have

recognised the value of the multilevel modelling of data (e. g. Goldstein, 2010; Hitt,

2007). Multilevel modelling is a technique that seeks to allow for hypothetical tests at

the group level. This technique is crucial for detecting a moderating effect at group

level. According to the special issue of Leadership Quarterly (2002, vol. 13 No.1),

analysing data at the individual level using regression techniques has so far failed to

detect the effects of moderation; since they have generally not operated at the individual

level of analysis (Bliese, Halverson and Schriesheim, 2002). Thus, this study considers

the level of analysis using multilevel modelling by aggregating team members to their

leaders. Antonakis, et al. (2004) emphasised that “consideration of the boundary

condition of levels regarding leadership theories leads to better theories that are more

applicable to practice” (p 64).

4.13. Instrumentation and Measures

In the light of the discussion in the previous section, questionnaires are the researcher‟s

tool for collecting data from both employees and managers in the private sector in Saudi

Arabia (SABIC). In this study, two samples are drawn, namely, the employees and

managers group. Therefore, two questionnaires (employees‟ questionnaire and mangers‟

questionnaire) have to be presented. The employee‟s questionnaire includes six

sections: (1) a self-report segment for collecting demographic information from the

respondent (2) the Conger-Kanungo Charismatic Leadership behaviours Questionnaire,

(3) ethical Leadership, (4) team identity, (5) leader prototypicality and (6) follower‟s

affective commitment to the organisation. While the managers‟ questionnaire includes

three sections: (1) a self-report segment was utilised to collect demographic information

about the respondents, (2) internal conflict within the group and (3) group cohesion.

Employee Questionnaire

Demographic variables: this section details the demographic characteristics of

participant managers for the following: years worked under current direct manager, age

107

group, level of education, years worked in this organisation and the employee‟s

nationality.

The Conger-Kanungo Charismatic Leadership Questionnaire (C-K Scale) has been

developed to measure leadership behaviours using the 6 dimensions of charismatic

leadership (Conger and Kanungo, 1998) (see appendix A). The questionnaire is

comprised of the following dimensions; (a) the first factor contains seven items that

reflect sensitivity to the environment and measure the leader‟s assessment of the

external and internal environment; (b) the second factor contains six items reflecting

strategic vision and articulation measures associated with the leader‟s ability to develop

sound strategic goals; (c) the third factor contains three items which reflect sensitivity to

measures associated with member needs, the leader‟s ability to show sensitivity to the

needs and feelings of the organisational members; (d) the fourth factor contains four

items reflecting personal risk measures the leader‟s drive to pursue organisational

objectives even when they involve considerable self-sacrifice and personal risk; and (e)

the fifth factor contains three items that reflect unconventional behavioural measures

that reflect a leader‟s tendency to follow entrepreneurial and risky courses of action to

achieve organisational goals. The final factor contains two items that reflect the failure

to maintain status quo behavioural measures, and leader‟s action orientation away from

the maintenance of the status quo.

The C-K questionnaire consists of 25 questions, using a Likert scale ranging from 1 =

very uncharacteristic to 6 = very characteristic. Each dimension includes between 2 and

7 statements, which measure the perceptions of leadership behaviours as observed by

followers. Conger and Kanungo (1998) conducted six empirical studies using diverse

samples from various companies in Canada, India, and the United States in order to

establish the reliability and validity of the perceived leadership behaviours measured,

and the impact of charismatic leadership on subordinates. Past research has shown

internal consistencies (Cronbach‟s alpha) ranging from (0.6 to 0.84) across the six

dimensions. Test-retest reliabilities ranged from 0.69 to 0.84, which is regarded as an

acceptable reliability coefficient according to George and Mallery (2003). A

confirmatory factor analysis of the scale showed a goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of (0.94)

for the six-dimensional model. Divergent validity evidence has also shown that the

measure was conceptually independent from task-oriented leadership, which indicates a

108

sound measurement for charismatic leadership.

Perceptions of leader ethicality were measured using items employed on a nine-item

managerial morality scale (Masud, 2005). The items on the original scale were intended

to be answered by leaders. In this study the scale was answered by followers to avoid

self reporting, which may lead to bias. This is in accordance with Cummings et al.

(2008), who suggest that the observation of leaders‟ styles and behaviours is more valid

when based on the reports of others. Furthermore, Athore stated that social desirability

response bias can occur when leaders give self-reports, meaning those of their followers

are likely to be more accurate (Polit, et al., 2004; Xin, et al., 2002).

The scale assessed three dimensions of managerial morality; honesty, integrity, and

justice. Based on previous research, the average coefficient alpha value across the three

dimensions was 0.61, which is slightly below the conventionally accepted value of 0.70

(George and Mallery, 2003). The honesty subscale demonstrated a reliability of alpha =

0.71. In addition, results from the confirmatory factor analysis validated the three-

dimensional model with a GFI value of 0.97. All items were rated on a seven-point

Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

Team Identification: the study team identification was measured using items employed

based on seven-items from the grid form of the identification questionnaire (van Dick et

al., 2004). All items were rated on a six-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = is not

at all true for me to 6 = is totally true for me. Van Dick et al.‟s (2004) study yielded a

Cronbach‟s alpha of .83.

Leader prototypicality: participants were asked to respond to six-items derived from the

work of van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg (2005). Participants‟ responses were

recorded on a six-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree,

and their study yielded a Cronbach‟s alpha of (.92). The internal consistency of the six

items was very high, α = .89 in a later similar study by Giessner and van Knippenberg

(2008).

109

Affective Commitment was measured using an eight-item scale designed to assess

positive feelings of attachment to, and involvement in, an organisation. The affective

Commitment Scale (ACS) was created by Meyer and Allen (1993) and demonstrated a

coefficient alpha value of 0.87. Allen and Meyer (1996) reported that test-retest

reliabilities for ACS have been consistently above 0.70. All items are rated on a seven-

point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Leader Questionnaire

The relationship conflict and group cohesion were rated by team leaders because they

should be the most knowledgeable team members in this respect.

Demographic variables

This section details the demographic characteristics of participating managers for the

following: years worked in this organisation, age group, level of education, years

worked in this organisation and the manager‟s nationality.

The Intergroup Conflict Scale Items Relationship conflict will be measured using

items from Intragroup Conflict Scale (ICS) (Jehn, 1995). All items are rated on a five-

point Likert-type scale ranging from 1= “none” to 5= “a great deal”.

Group Cohesion Group cohesiveness was measured based on line managers‟

perceptions of cohesiveness in their groups using the six-item scale presented in the

study by Podsakoff and their colleagues (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994; Podsakoff,

Niehoff, et al., 1993) indicated that the scale possesses good psychometric properties,

with reliability ranging from a low of .91 to a high of .93, across three different

samples. Respondents were asked to use a seven-point scale ranging from “strongly

disagree” to “strongly agree” to report on the perceived level of trust and cooperation

among group members.

4.14. Human Participants and Ethical Precautions

This study implements all the requirements outlined by the Portsmouth University‟

Ethical Review Committee so as to protect human participants (see Ethical Review

110

Checklist appendix D). Furthermore, permission was obtained from the head manger at

SABIC to distribute the questionnaires (appendix C). The participants were assured that

the application of the survey would be anonymous as described in the information sheet

stapled to the front of the questionnaire (appendix A). The information sheet informs all

the participants of the study aims and confirms their fulfilment with the informed

consent policy as stated by the Ethical Review Committee (ERC). The subject‟s

signature is not required on the information sheet, because according to the ERC,

returning a completed questionnaire denotes consent. Furthermore, no information from

the questionnaires will be exchanged or shared by the researchers, in addition to the

demographics data in section (I), so that they cannot be recognised from it. All

completed questionnaires will be stored in folders by the researcher. All folders

containing the questionnaires will be kept in the researcher‟s filing cabinet, which will

be locked for further security.

The research is conducted with the principle of advancing the literature on leadership

behaviours in leading culturally diverse workplaces, and thus no conflict of interest or

personal bias will influence the study.

4.15. Pilot Study Survey Population and Sample Size

Pilot studies deemed to be a crucial step in the research process. They enable the

researcher to evaluate the study instrument‟ validity and the expected reliability of the

data collected. Additionally, this helps the researcher to ensure that the data collected

answers the research question. The researcher therefore employed a pilot study before

the main study was conducted. One of the advantages of conducting a pilot study is that

it might allow for an advance warning regarding what research procedures may not have

been followed or whether proposed methods or instruments are inappropriate or too

complicated (van Teijlingen and Hundley, 2001). The results from the pilot studies are

intended to assist the researcher to reconsider any problematic aspects associated with

the main questionnaires. The primary purpose of the pilot sample was to select and

finalise the items to be incorporated in the study instrument and used in the validation

study. Factor analysis, item-total correlations, scale reliability and assessment of

whether the research procedure is realistic and workable follow the completion of a

pilot study.

111

A total of 70 respondents, both leaders and their followers, from six multicultural

organisations in Portsmouth, UK participated in the pilot study. The pilot sample group

consisted of 20 leaders and 50 employees.

Employees Background Information (pilot study)

Those participants‟ who reported having served with their current employer for between

5 and 10 years were 30%; those who had worked for them for 3 to 5 years were 22.5%.

Whereas the percentage who had been with their current direct manager for 5 years or

more was 37.5% followed by 27.5% between 3years and 5 years. A majority of the

respondents held bachelor‟s degrees as their highest qualification (52.5%) and 35%

were master‟s degree holders. The larger proportions of respondents were aged from 26-

35 years (37.5%), with an equal percentage aged from 36-45 years.

Managers Background Information (pilot study)

Participants indicating that they had served in their current company for between ten

and 20 years comprised 36.4%, whereas the percentage of managers who reported that

they had served in their current company from between 1 year and less than 3 years and

from 3 years to less than 5 years was equal, at 18.2%. The manager‟s sample included

participants ranging in age from 26 to 35 years, at 45%, followed by the age group

between 36 and 45 years at 35.8%. The majority of respondents having master‟ degrees

were 54.5% followed by those who had completed some college work at 27.3% whereas

the lowest percentage was PhD holders (9.1%).

4.16. Validity and Reliability Tests and Inter-correlation among Variables

This section will examine the validity and reliability of the study measurements. In the

present study, confirmatory factor analyses have been conducted to test factorial validity

and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out for each of the scales

individually. This analysis aimed to confirm that all the scale items were loaded based

on the particular factors identified in previous studies. According to Field (2009), factor

112

analysis recognises which variables seem to cluster together in meaningful way.

Additionally, Field (2009) emphasised the importance of checking scale reliability after

validating a questionnaire using factor analysis. Whereas reliability means that the

questionnaire should consistently reflect the construct that it is measuring. This means

that, the participant should obtain the same score on a questionnaire even if it is

completed at different points in time (Green and Salkind, 2008). According to Key

(1997) reliability is estimated in one of four ways: (a) internal consistency which is

based on the correlation among the variables comprising the test, such as Cronbach‟s

alpha; (b) Split-half reliability which is also based on the correlation of three equivalent

forms of the scale, such as the Spearman-Brown coefficient; (c) test-retest reliability

which centres on the correlation between two (or more) administrations of the same

item, scale, or instrument for different times, locations, or populations, when the two

administrations do not differ in the ordering of relevant variables, such as the

Spearman-Brown coefficient; (d) inter-rater reliability, based on the correlation of

scores between/among two or more raters who rate the same item, scale, or instrument,

such as intra-class correlation.

This study uses an internal consistency method which provides a unique estimate of

reliability for the administration of the given test. The most popular internal consistency

reliability estimate is given by Cronbach‟s alpha “the reliability coefficient”, which was

popularised in 1951 by Cronbach, based on work in the 1940s with Guttman and others

and it is the most common estimate of internal consistency of items in a scale (Feldt et

al., 1987; Key, 1997). Some researchers suggested 0.7 as the accepted cut-off (Hair, et

al. (2002), others regarded a value of more than 0.6 to be satisfactory (Nunnally and

Bernstein, 1994).

Furthermore, the corrected item-total correlation was utilised (inter-correlation). In

other words, this study examined the correlations of each item‟s score with the total

scale score in order to investigate whether the items measured the same construct. This

method usually subtracts each item‟s score from the total score to eliminate a false part-

whole correlation. Each item‟s score is then compared with the total score corrected,

although there is no universally agreed cut-off point, the most widely adopted threshold

is 0.3 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Furthermore, if an item has a negative „corrected

113

item-total correlation coefficient‟, then it is eliminated from further consideration.

Additionally, if the correlation is low for an item, this means that it is not measuring the

same information that the rest of the scale is trying to measure (Robson, 2011; Field,

2009). The following discussion provides the results of the confirmatory factor analysis.

4.17. Factor Analyses

Before testing the hypotheses, the researcher devised a means of testing whether the tool

measured the construct under investigation in a way that was consistent with the

researcher‟s understanding. Confirmatory techniques generally are most effective when

developed in following successful testing in the form of prior exploratory analyses

(Field, 2009). Thus, the researcher conducted seven factor analyses (follower

perception of charismatic leadership, ethical leadership, leader prototypicality, team

identity, affective organisational commitment, and group relationship conflict and group

cohesion). Most widely used among these is Maximum Likelihood (ML). The primary

advantage of ML is that it allows for the computation of a wide range of indexes

measuring the goodness of fit of the model. ML also permits statistical significance

testing of factor lodgings and correlations among factors and the computation of

confidence intervals for these parameters (Cudeck and O‟Dell, 1994). The primary

limitation of ML estimation is its assumption of multivariate normality. When this

assumption is severely violated, the procedure can produce distorted results (Curran,

West and Finch, 1996; Hu, Bentler and Kano, 1992). MLF generates a chi-square

goodness-of-fit test. A goodness-of-fit index is used to test how well the model fits,

ranging from the value of this index derived from 1.0- 5.0. Chi square goodness-of-fit

ratio should be close to one, a “good fit” is achieved when the reduced chi-square equals

one.

The decision was made to consider eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and to eliminate the

items with loadings less than 0.30 (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). As stated by (Field,

2009) if the deletion of an item increases Cronbach‟s then this means that the deletion

of that item improves reliability. Therefore, any items that result in substantially greater

values than average may need to be deleted from the scale to improve its reliability. The

following part will discuss the validity and reliability of the pilot study.

114

Factor analyses for employee’s questionnaire (pilot study)

To confirm the reliability and validity of scales incorporated in the survey instrument

confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis were applied to the pilot study

survey.

The first factor analysis included all 25 items associated with the six hypothesised

dimensions of the employees‟ perceptions of charismatic leadership. The first stage is to

rotate a six-factor solution. To conduct a factor analysis with six rotated factors. The

factor analyses yielded six-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with the eigenvalues

above 1.0, accounting for 44.321 of the variance. Results from this factor analysis

showed positive factor loadings for charismatic leadership behaviours ranging from

.375 to .935, the eighteenth item is the weakest loading in this scale .375. The variable‟s

reliability coefficient did not change significantly when this item was removed.

Additionally, and based on its theoretical appeal (as existing scale with high validity

and reliability), this item was retained. Therefore all items remained in the final data

analysis. The factors and items are presented in Table 4-3.


Leadership Scale (pilot study)

Item

Factor loading ( α=.852)

SMN SE UB PR SQ SVA

1. My line manager influences others

by developing mutual liking and

respect. (SMN)

.622 .273 .281 .037 -.113 .110

2. My line manager shows sensitivity for

the needs and feelings of the other

members in the organisation. (SMN)

.705 .251 .258 -.158 .016 .068

3. My line manager often expresses

personal concern for the needs and

feelings of other members of the

organisation. (SMN)

.519. 366 .125 .375 .415 -.014

4. My line manager readily recognises

barriers/forces within the organisation

that may block or hinder achievement

of his/her goals. (SE)

.101 .899 .092 .100 -.116 -.023


new environmental opportunities .465 .690 .191 .154 .221 .007

115

Item


SMN SE UB PR SQ SVA

(favourable physical and social

conditions) that may facilitate

achievement or organisational

objectives. (SE)


constraints in the physical environment

(technological limitations, lack of

resources, etc.) that may stand in the

way of achieving organisational

objectives. (SE)

.440 .783 -.017 .172 .002 -.269


constraints in the organisation‟s social

and cultural environment (cultural

norms, lack of grassroots support, etc.)

that may stand in the way of achieving

organisational objectives. (SE)

.414 .686 .160 -.031 .321 .008

8. My line manager recognises the

abilities and skills of other members in

the organisation. (SE)

.133 .795 -.012 -.093 .098 -.035

9. My line manager is entrepreneurial;

seizes new opportunities in order to

achieve goals. (SE)

.178 .654 .084 .131 .099 -.392


limitations of other members in the

organisation. (SE)

.366 .665 .293 .056 .182 -.084

11. My line manager engages in

unconventional behaviour in order to

achieve organisational goals. (UB)

.070 .029 .935 .322 .010 -.124

12. My line manager often exhibits very

unique behaviour that surprises other

members of the organisation. (UB)

-.070 .065 .745 .344 .120 .230

13. My line manager uses non-traditional

means to achieve organisational goals.

(UB)

.357 .091 .489 .336 -.436 -.076

14. In pursuing organisational objectives,

My line manager engages in activities

involving considerable self-sacrifice.

(PR)

.175 .497 .195 .685

-.131 .072

15. My line manager takes high personal

risks for the sake of the organisation.

(PR)

.405 .248 .272 .738 .069 .126

16. My line manager often incurs high

personal costs for the good of the

organisation. (PR)

.172 .013 .134 .822 .114 .092

17. In pursuing organisational objectives,

my line manager engages in activities

involving considerable personal risk.

(PR)

.020 .195 .343 .827 .136 .089

18. My line manager advocates following

non-risky, well-established courses of

action to achieve organisational goals.

(SQ)

.411 .064 -.015 -.029 .559 -.365

116

Item


SMN SE UB PR SQ SVA

19. My line manager tries to maintain the

status quo or normal way of doing

things. (SQ)

.250 .389

.106 .144 .533 -.190

20. My line manager provides inspiring

strategic and organisational goals.

(SVA)

.060 -.051 .090 .032 -.001 .375

21. My line manager is inspirational; able

to motivate by articulating effectively

the importance of what organisational

members are doing. (SVA)

.106

.309 .258 .024 .159 .763

22. My line manager consistently generates

new ideas for the future of the

organisation. (SVA)

.223 .119 .157 -.049 .331 .702

23. My line manager is an exciting public

speaker. (SVA) .309 .033 .197 .107 -.016 .677

24. My line manager appears to be a

skillful performer when presenting to a

group. (SVA)

.011

.466 .002 .097 .410 .627

25. My line manager has vision; often

brings up ideas about possibilities for

the future of the organisation. (SVA)

.326 .567 -.034 .363 .280 .600

The second factor analysis included all 6 items associated with leader prototypicality.

The factor analyses produced one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues

above 1.0, accounting for 65.900 of the variance. All the items have a high loading in

component one; this factor is labelled “leader prototypicality”. The results of this factor

analysis showed positive factor loadings for leadership prototypicality ranging from

0.731 to 0.908. The factors and items are presented in Table (4-4).


Prototypicality Scale (pilot study)

Items Factors loading (α = .914)

1. This team leader is a good example of the

kind of people that are members of my team.

.776

2. This team leader has very much in common

with the members of my team.

.908

3. This team leader represents what is

characteristic about the team.

.834

117

4. This team leader is very similar to the

members of my team.

.854

5. This team leader resembles the members of

my team.

.731

6. This team leader is an embodiment of our

group norms.

.753

The third factor analysis integrated all 7 items of Team Identity, producing one-factor

solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues over 1.0, accounting for 47.945 of the

variance. All items have a high loading in component one; this factor is labelled “Team

Identity”. The results of this factor analysis showed positive loading factors for team

identity, ranging from 0.462 to 0.891. The factors and items are presented in Table (4-

5).

Table (4-5): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 7-item Team Identity

Scale (pilot study)


1. I identify myself as a member of my team. .866

2. Being a member of my team reflects my

personality well.

.891

3. I like to work for my team. .707

4. I think reluctantly of my team. (recod) .646

5. Sometimes I rather don‟t say that I am member of

the team. (recod)

.564

6. My team is positively judged by others. .603

7. I work for my team above what is absolutely

necessary.

.462

The fourth factor analysis integrated all items pertaining to Afflictive Organisational

commitment. The factor analyses produced one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion)

with eigenvalues above 1.0, accounting for 87.758 of the variance. All items have high

loading in component one; this factor is labelled “Affective Organisational

commitment”. The result of this factor analysis was a positive factor for loading the

118

affective organisational commitment range from 0.867 to .992. The factors and items

are presented in Table (4-6).


Organisational Commitment Scale (pilot study)


1. I would be happy to spend the rest of my career with

this organisation.

.915

2. I really feel as if this organisation‟s problems are my

own.

.867

3. I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my

organisation. (recod)

.981

4. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this

organisation. (4recod)

.992

5. I do not feel like “part of the family” at my


.969

6. This organisation has a great deal of personal

meaning to me.

.889

The fifth factor analysis integrated all 9 items associated with Ethical leadership. The

factor analyses produce one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues

above 1.0, accounting for 39.579 of the variance. All items have a high loading in

component one; this factor is labelled “ethical leadership”. The results of this factor

analysis showed positive factor loadings in the Ethical leadership range from 0.353 to

0.999. The fourth item is the weakest loading in this scale .353. The variables‟

reliability coefficient did not change significantly when these items were removed.

Additionally, and based on its theoretical appeal (as existing scale with high validity

and reliability), this item is retained. The factors and items are presented in Table (4-7).


Leadership Scale (pilot study)

Items Factors loading (α=.864)

1. My manager will find it necessary to lie in order

to get what he/she wants. (recod)

.754

119

2. To my manager, loyalty to the company is more

important than loyalty to the truth or moral

principles. (recod)

.895

3. My manager believes that, in business, promises

are made to be broken. (recod)

.780

4. When making decisions at work, my manager

will attend to all facts even those that he/she does

not want to hear about.

.353

5. If my manager knows that something is the right

thing to do, he/she will act accordingly.

.999

6. My manager‟s actions, in business, are consistent

to his/her convictions.

.714

7. When making business decisions about rewards,

my manager lets his/her feelings override the

facts. (recod)

.480

8. My manager will consider office politics rather

than strictly basing decisions on employee merit.

(recod)

.468

9. My manager will give employees rewards based

strictly on employees‟ level of competence and

achievement.

.773

4.18. Reliability for Employee’s Questionnaire (pilot study)

Reliability analysis, using a Cronbach‟s alpha for each scale indicated that the

Cronbach‟s alpha is 0.852 for the charismatic leadership scale, 0.914 for the leader

prototypicality scale, 0,839 for the team identity scale, 0.90 for the affective

organisational commitment scale and 0.864 for ethical leadership scale. The alpha

reliability of the five scales indicates good reliability. As mentioned earlier an alpha of

0.80 is considered satisfactory. Table (4-8) shows the reliability statistics for the

employee‟s questionnaire.

Table (4-8): Reliability for Employee‟s Questionnaire (pilot study)

Scale Cronbach's Alpha No. of Items

Charismatic leadership .852 25

Leader prototypicality .914 6

Team Identity .839 7

Affective organisational commitment .90 6

Ethical leadership .864 9

120

Inter-correlation between the dimensions of the employee’s questionnaire (Pilot study)

The 25-item charismatic leadership scale was correlated with measures of leader

prototypicality, team identity, affective organisational commitment and ethical

leadership as shown in Table (4-9). Overall, pilot study results showed a strong positive

correlation between all employees‟ questionnaire dimensions ranged from .324 to 0.765,

with the weakest relationship being between ethical leadership and team identity, and

the strongest relationship being between charismatic leadership and leader

prototypicality. Inter-correlations and values for all employee questionnaire subscales

were greater than 0.3, a very satisfactory outcome according to the recommendations of

Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). From these findings, it can be concluded that the

constructs are deemed to have high internal consistency.

Table (4-9): Summary of inter-correlations among the Dimensions of the Employee‟s

Questionnaire (pilot study).

Measure CL LP TI AOC EL

Charismatic leadership (CTL) -

Leader prototypicality (LP) .756** -

Team Identity (TI) .465** .71** -

Affective organisational commitment (AOC) .580** .405

** .418

** -

Ethical leadership (EL) .564** .507** .324*. 489** -

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

4.19. Factor Analyses for Leader’s Questionnaire (Pilot Study)

The first factor analysis integrated all 5 items associated with Group relation conflict.


above 1.0, accounting for 40.826 of the variance. All items had a high loading in

component one; this factor is labelled “relation conflict”. The result of this factor

analysis showed positive factor loadings for Group relation conflict; ranging from 0.608

to 0.999. The factors and items are presented in Table (4-10).

121


Conflict Scale (pilot study)

Items Factors loading (α= .882)

1. How much emotional conflict is there among the

members of your group? (recod)

.999

2. How much anger is there among the members of

the group? (recod)

.830

3. How much personal friction is there in the group

during decisions? (recod)

.608

4. How much are personality clashes between

members of the group evident? (recod)

.795

5. How much tension is there in group during

decisions? (recod)

.776

The second factor analysis integrated all 6 items associated with Group cohesion. The

factor analyses produced one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues

above 1.0, accounting for 49.643 of the variance. All items had a high loading in

component one; this factor is labelled “Group cohesion”. The results from this factor

analysis showed positive factor loadings for group relation conflict, ranged from 0.685



Scale (pilot study)

Items Factors loading (α= .828)

1. There is a great deal of trust among members of my

work group.

.880

2. Members of my group work together as a team. .950

3. The members of my work group are cooperative

with each other.

.945

4. My work group members know that they can

depend on each other.

.940

5. The members of my work group stand up for each

other.

.830

6. The members of my work group regard each other

as friends.

.685

122

4.20. Reliability for Leader’s Questionnaire

The reliability of the 5-item group relation conflict scale was examined using

Cronbach‟s alpha. The reliability of the full 5-item scale was 0.882.

The Cronbach‟s alpha is 0.828 for the group cohesion scale. The alpha reliability of the

two scales indicates that the scales have good reliability. An alpha of 0.80 or above is

considered satisfactory. Table (4-12) shows the reliability statistics for the employee‟s

questionnaire.

Table (4-12): Reliability for Leader‟s Questionnaire (pilot study)

Scale Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

Group relation conflict .882 5

Group cohesion .828 6

Intercorrelations between the two managers’ scale dimensions

Table (4-13) presents correlations between the two manager‟s scale dimensions. Results

showed significant negative correlations between all manager questionnaire dimensions

(-0.515). The bivariate correlations between manager‟s questionnaire dimensions are all

significant at the 0.01 level. From these findings, it can be concluded that the constructs

are deemed to have high internal consistency.

Table (4-13): Intercorrelations between the Two Managers‟ Scale Dimensions (pilot

study)

Dimension GRC GC

Group relation conflict (GRC) 1

Group cohesion (RC) - .515** 1


According to the discussions above the pilot study revealed that study‟s instruments, for

both employees and leaders have high validity and reliability, and that there is strong

inter-coloration among the questionnaires dimensions. Thus, the pilot study analysis

123

supports using the study questionnaires unrevised in the hypothetical tests. Inter-

correlations values for the two manager questionnaire subscales were -.515, a very

satisfactory outcome according to the recommendations of Nunnally and Bernstein

(1994). From these findings, it can be concluded that the constructs are deemed to have

high internal consistency.

4.21. Participants and Procedures for the Main Study

Participants and Procedures for the Main Study

Before distributing the questionnaires the researcher gave a number for each line

manager‟s questionnaire, beginning with (101), and number (1011, 1012, 1013 ...etc.)

for the employees‟ questionnaires. This means the employees are clustered with the

managers.

Human resource personnel acting as researchers coordinated and helped to identify

those teams with a variety of cultural diversity and the number of employees under each

manager. Additionally, the packet of research materials included a number of separate

envelopes that included an informed consent form, an employee questionnaire, one for

line manager, and a self-addressed reply envelope for each questionnaire, to assured the

employee that questionnaire will be received directly by the researcher and that nobody

in the organisation will see their ratings and comments. This measure should, according

to Salkind (2003), increase the response rate. The assistants were instructed to distribute

the envelopes to the managers and their employees.

Each completed questionnaire was put into a separate envelope by the participants. Each

envelope was mailed to the researcher for processing. Upon receipt of the envelopes, all

folders containing the questionnaires were kept in the researcher‟s filing cabinet, which

was locked for further security when required, the questionnaires were extracted for

data capture and analytical purposes, and were returned to their place of storage.

124

4.22. Questionnaire Response Rate:

This study relied on cluster sampling, and a purposive selection team with multicultural

members and the convenience sampling of employees currently working for (SABIC).

A total of 500 employees and 100 leaders‟ questionnaires were distributed to the sample

at SABIC headquarters in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia). Each returned questionnaire was

checked thoroughly to review it for completeness and to ensure that the instructions had

been followed and to confirm that the responses were written in the proper place. There

were 351 employees‟ questionnaires and 90 leaders‟ questionnaires that were completed

and usable. A total of 457 questionnaires were returned from the participants. 5 of the

questionnaires were excluded because the respondents‟ leaders‟ questionnaires not

returned. Eleven more questionnaires were considered unusable because the respondents

had circled the same scale number for every question in the questionnaire; the

researcher suspected that these respondents probably did not read the questions and so

dropped them questionnaires from the sample. These adjustments bought the total

number of questionnaires down to 441 (351 employees and 90 leaders). The lower the

response rate, the higher the likelihood of response bias or non-response error (Hager et

al., 2003). Babbie (1990) stated that a response rate of 50% is adequate for analysis and

reporting, response rate of 60% is good, and a response rate of 70% or more is very

good. Based on these percentages, the 73.5% response rate of this research can be

regarded as very good (Hager et al., 2003).

The high response rate of 73.5% can be attributed to a number of factors. Firstly, the

human resources manager in SABIC sent an email messages to all the SABIC

employees to encourage the participants to cooperate with the researcher. Reminder

messages were sent to all the participants regularly from HRM. The employees were

assured that the questionnaires would be received directly by the researcher and that

nobody in the organisation would see their ratings and comments. According to Salkind

(2003) ensuring participant confidentiality was critical to obtaining candid responses.

Table (3.14) presents response and return rate.

125

Table (4-14): Response and Return Rate

Questionnaires

Distributed

Returned Questionnaires

Return

rate

Unusable

Usable

questionnaires

returned

respondents‟

leaders‟

questionnaires

not returned

respondents

had circled the

same scale

number for

every question

in the

questionnaire

employee 500 5 11 351 70.2%

leader 100 - 90 90%

Totals 600 16 441 73.5%

4.23. Employees’ Background Information

Participants were asked to report how long they had been with the company, how long

have they had worked under their current direct line manager, their age group, their

highest level of education, their nationality (see table -15).

Table (4-15): Employees‟ Demographic Data

How long have you been with your current

company? N. Percentage

From 6 month to less than 1 year 15 4.4%

From 1year to less than 3 years 50 14%

From 3 years to less than 5 years 72 20.5%

From 5 years to less than10 years 178 50.7%

From 10 years to 20 years 21 6%

longer than 20 years 15 4.4%

How long have you worked under your

current line manager?

From 6 month to less than 1 year 53 15%

126

From 1year to less than 3 years 70 20%

From 3 years to less than 5 years 88 25%

From 5 years to less than10 years 128 36.5%

From 10 years to 20 years 12 3.5%

longer than 20 years 0 0%

What is your age group?

Under 18 0 0%

18-25 35 10%

26-35 116 33%

36-45 149 42.5%

46-55 39 11%

Over 55 12 3.5%

What is the highest level of education you have

completed?

Did not finish high school 0 0%

High school or equivalent 0 0%

Some college work completed 19 5.4%%

Bachelor‟s degree 210 59.8%

Master‟s degree 66 18.8%.

Doctoral degree 56 16%

Other (Please describe) 0 0%

Participants indicated their service in the current company (SABIC) and responses

ranged from 6 months to less than 1 year at 4.4%, between 1 to less than 3 years at 14%,

between 3 to less than 5 years at 20.5%, and between 5 to less than 10 years at 50.7%,

between 10 years to less than 20 years at 6% Whereas, 4.4% of respondents reported

having more than 20 years of service. 35% of the respondents had 6 months or less than

3 years of work under their current direct manager, whereas 25% had between 3 and

less than 5 years, 36.5% between 5 and 10 years and 3.5% between 10 and 20 years. No

respondent had had the same manager for longer than 20 years. The majority of

respondents‟ were aged from 36-45 years (42.5%) followed by the age group between

26 and 35 years (33%). A majority of respondents have bachelor‟s degree at 59.8%

followed by master‟s degree holders at 18.8%. The participants had a mix of

nationalities as shown in table (4.16)

127

Table (4.16): Employees‟ Nationality

Nationalities N.

Australian 2

Brazilian 1

British 18

Canadian 2

Chilean 1

Chinese 8

Hollander 2

Egyptian 12

Filipino 20

Indian 80

Indonesian 11

Jordanian 6

Lebanese 5

Malaysian 10

Pakistani 20

Polish 3

Saudi Arabian 117

South African 10

Sudanese 7

Syrian 6

American 7

Venezuelan 3

4.24. Managers’ Background Information

Participants were asked to report how long they had been with the company, their age

group, their highest level of education, their nationality and the (see table -17).

Table (4-17): Employees‟ Demographic Data

How long have you been with your current

company? N. Percentage

From 6 month to less than 1 year 4 1%,

From 1year to less than 3 years 37 10.5%

From 3 years to less than 5 years 42 12%

From 5 years to less than10 years 123 35%

From 10 years to 20 years 107 30.5%.

longer than 20 years 38 11%,


128

Under 18 0 0%

18-25 7 2%

26-35 60 17%

36-45 130 37 %.

46-55 140 40%

Over 55

14 4%

What is the highest level of education you

have completed?

Did not finish high school 0 0%

High school or equivalent 0 0%

Some college work completed 9 2.5

Bachelor‟s degree 170 48.4%

Master‟s degree 100 28.6%,

Doctoral degree 72 20.5%.

Other (Please describe) 0 0%

Participants indicated their service in their current company and responses ranged from

6 months to less than 1 year at 1%, to longer than 20 years at 11%, between 3 to less

than 5 was 12%, the majority of respondents had from 5 to 20 years in the company at

65%. The manager‟s sample included participants ranging in age from 46 to 55 at 40%

followed by age group between 36 and 45 years at 37.8%. The majority of respondents

had bachelors‟ degrees at 48.4% followed by master‟s degree holders at 28.6%, whereas

the of the PhD holders percentage were at 20.5%.

4.25. Construct Validity Using Factor Analyses Technique:

A conformity factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood was performed on the

study instrument, namely, follower perception of charismatic leadership, ethical

leadership, leader prototypicality, team identity, affective organisational commitment,

and group relationship conflict and group cohesion. The following section will discuss

this in more detail.

129

Factor analyses for employee’s questionnaire

The factor analysis utilised SPSS 18.0 software. The first factor analysis included all 25

items associated with the six hypothesised dimensions of the employees‟ perception of

charismatic leadership. The first stage was to rotate a six-factor solution. The factor

analysis yielded six-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues above 1.0,

accounting for 37.899 of the variance. The result of this factor analysis showed positive

factor loadings for charismatic leadership six sub-scales ranging from .444 to .875, the

eleven items is the weakest loading. The variable‟s reliability coefficient did not change

significantly when the item was removed; therefore all items remained present in the

final data analysis. However, based on its theoretical appeal, this item was retained. The

factors and items are presented in Table (4-17).


Leadership Scale

Item

Factor Loading (α = .896)

SMN SE UB PR SQ SVA

1. My line manager influences others

by developing mutual liking and

respect. (SMN)

.694 -.174 .176 -.030 .002 .313

2. My line manager shows sensitivity

for the needs and feelings of the

other members in the organisation.

(SMN)

.619 -.068 .219 .199 -.241 -.027

3. My line manager often expresses

personal concern for the needs and

feelings of other members of the

organisation. (SMN)

.675 .052 -.046 .214 -.043 -.042


barriers/forces within the

organisation that may block or

hinder achievement of his/her

goals. (SE)

-.187 .674 .279 .253 .027 .149


new environmental opportunities

(favourable physical and social

conditions) that may facilitate

achievement or organisational

objectives. (SE)

-.094 .836 -.062 -.085 .113 -.099


constraints in the physical

environment (technological

limitations, lack of resources, etc.)

that may stand in the way of

-.242 .673 .195 .208 .072 -.110

130

Item


SMN SE UB PR SQ SVA

achieving organisational objectives.

(SE)


constraints in the organisation‟s

social and cultural environment

(cultural norms, lack of grassroots

support, etc.) that may stand in the

way of achieving organisational

objectives. (SE)

-.101 .713 .151 .124 .017 -.197


abilities and skills of other

members in the organisation. (SE)

-.218 .740 -.008 -.048 -.007 -.165

9. My line manager is entrepreneurial;

seizes new opportunities in order to

achieve goals. (SE)

.017 .692 .200 -.194 -.015 .036


limitations of other members in the

organisation. (SE)

-.189 .707 .017 .162 .040 -.244

11. My line manager engages in

unconventional behaviour in order

to achieve organisational goals.

(UB)

.288 .435 .444 -.173 .221 .040

12. My line manager often exhibits

very unique behaviour that

surprises other members of the

organisation. (UB)

.373 -.092 .481 .009 .363 .082

13. My line manager uses non-

traditional means to achieve

organisational goals. (UB)

.370 .341 .468 -.143 .041 -.047

14. In pursuing organisational

objectives, my line manager

engages in activities involving

considerable self-sacrifice. (PR)

-.085 .163 .125 .694 -.082 -.026

15. My line manager takes high

personal risks for the sake of the

organisation. (PR)

.170 .451 -.033 .583 -.123 -.109

16. My line manager often incurs high

personal costs for the good of the

organisation. (PR)

.447 .095 -.150 .568 -.133 .050

17. In pursuing organisational

objectives, my line manager

engages in activities involving

considerable personal risk. (PR)

.536 .159 -.064 .591 -.081 -.013

18. My line manager advocates

following non-risky, well-

established courses of action to

achieve organisational goals. (SQ)

.021 -.253 .049 .130 .587 .197

19. My line manager tries to maintain

the status quo or normal way of .257 -.084 -.214 .392 .401 .180

131

Item


SMN SE UB PR SQ SVA

doing things. (SQ)

20. My line manager provides inspiring

strategic and organisational goals.

(SVA)

.059 -.077 .004 -.194 -.122 .821

21. My line manager is inspirational;

able to motivate by articulating

effectively the importance of what

organisational members are doing.

(SVA)

.056 -.050 -.074 -.100 -.140 .821

22. My line manager consistently

generates new ideas for the future

of the organisation. (SVA

.042 -.019 -.145 -.158 -.151 .818

23. My line manager is an exciting

public speaker. (SVA) .142 .112 -.200 .146 -.081 .609

24. My line manager appears to be a

skillful performer when presenting

to a group. (SVA)

.070 -.091 -.235 .015 .078 .728

25. My line manager has vision; often

brings up ideas about possibilities

for the future of the organisation.

(SVA)

-.044 -.043 -.150 -.133 .169 .875

The second factor analysis included all 6 items for leader prototypicality. The factor

analyses produce one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues above 1.0,

accounting for 72.164 of the variance. All items have high loading in component one;

this factor is labelled “leader prototypicality”. The results of this factor analysis showed

positive factor loadings for the leader prototypicality range from 0.772 to 0.861. The

factors and items are presented in Table (4-18).


Prototypicality Scale.

Items Factor loading (α = .923)

1. This team leader is a good example of the

kind of people that are members of my

team.

.849

2. This team leader has very much in

common with the members of my team.

.848

132

3. This team leader represents what is

characteristic about the team.

.861

4. This team leader is very similar to the

members of my team.

.748

5. This team leader resembles the members

of my team.

.772

6. This team leader is an embodiment of our

group norms.

.811

The third factor analysis integrated all 7 items associated with Team Identity. The factor

analyses produced one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues above 1.0,

accounting for 46.586 of the variance. All items have a high loading in component one;

this factor is labelled “Team Identity”. The results of this factor analysis showed

positive factor loadings for team identity, ranging from 0.338 to 0.943. The factors and

items are presented in Table (4-20).

Table (4-20): Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood for the 7-item Team

Identification Scale

Items Factor loading (α=.849)

1. I identify myself as a member of my

team.

.633

2. Being a member of my team reflects

my personality well.

.559

3. I like to work for my team. .338

4. I think reluctantly of my team. (recod) .943

5. Sometimes I rather don‟t say that I am

member of the team. (recod)

.930

6. My team is positively judged by

others.

.630

7. I work for my team above what is

absolutely necessary.

.533

133

The fourth factor analysis integrated all items of affective organisational commitment.


above 1.0, accounting for 60.672 of the variance. All items have high loading in

component one; this factor is labelled “Afflictive Organisational commitment”. The

result of this factor analysis showed positive factor loadings for affective organisational

commitment, ranging from 0.604 to 902. The factors and items are presented in Table

(4-21).


Organisational Commitment.


1. I would be happy to spend the rest of my career with

this organisation.

.691

2. I really feel as if this organisation‟s problems are my

own.

.604

3. I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my


.850

4. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this


.902

5. I do not feel like “part of the family” at my


.842

6. This organisation has a great deal of personal meaning

for me.

.744

The fifth factor analysis integrated all 9 items of Ethical leadership. The factor analyses

produce one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues above 1.0,

accounting for 33.434 of the variance. All items have a high loading in component one;

this factor is labelled “Ethical leadership”. Te results from this factor analysis showed

positive factor loadings for Ethical leadership, ranging from 0.400 to 0.772. The factors

and items are presented in Table (4-22).

134


Leadership Scale

Items Factor loading (α= .791)

1. My manager will find it necessary to lie in

order to get what he/she wants. (recod)

.772

2. To my manager, loyalty to the company is

more important than loyalty to the truth or

moral principles. (recod)

.527

3. My manager believes that, in business,

promises are made to be broken. (recod)

.728

4. When making decisions at work, my manager

will attend to all facts even those that he/she

do not want to hear.

.400

5. If my manager knows that something is the

right thing to do, he/she will act accordingly.

.614

6. My manager‟s actions, in business, are

consistent to his/her convictions.

.453

7. When making business decisions about

rewards, my manager lets his/her feelings

override the facts. (recod)

.630

8. My manager will consider office politics

rather than strictly basing decision on

employee merit. (recod)

.560

9. My manager will give employees rewards

based strictly on employees‟ level of

competence and achievement.

.392

4.26. Reliability for Employee’s Questionnaire

The reliability of the 25-item charismatic leadership scale was examined using

Cronbach‟s alpha. The reliability of the full 25-item scale was 0.869. The Cronbach‟s

alpha gave 0.923 for the leader prototypicality scale, 0.846 for the team identity scale,

0.901 for the affective organisational commitment scale and 0.79 for ethical leadership

scale. The alpha reliability of the five scales indicates a good reliability, as an overall

alpha of 0.80 or above is considered satisfactory. Table (4-23) shows the reliability

135

statistics for the employee‟s questionnaire.

Table (4-23): Reliability for Employee‟s Questionnaire


Charismatic leadership .896 25

Leader prototypicality .923 6

Team Identity .849 7

Affective organisational commitment .901 6

Ethical leadership .791 9

4.27. Inter-correlations between the Five Employee’s Scale Dimensions

Table (4-24) presents the correlations between the five scales. The results showed

significant positive correlations between all the employees‟ questionnaire dimensions.

Correlations among the scales of the constructs ranged from 0.276 to 0.615, with the

weakest relationship being between team identity and ethical leadership and the

strongest relationship between charismatic leadership and leader prototypicality.

However, the two-tailed correlation significance or probability level was 0.001 or less,

meaning the correlations are statistically significant. The correlations between the

employee‟s questionnaire dimensions are all significant at the 0.01 level. Thus, from

these findings, it can be concluded that the constructs have high internal consistency.

Table (4-24): Summary of Inter-correlations between the Five Employees‟ Scale

Dimensions

Dimensions TL LP TI AOC EL

Charismatic leadership (CL) 1

Leader prototypicality (LP) .615** 1

Team Identity (TI) .356** .336

** 1

Affective organisational

commitment (AOC)

.462** .473

** .485** 1

Ethical leadership (EL) .511** .408

** .276** .464

** 1


136

Factor analyses for leader’s questionnaire

The first factor analysis integrated all 5 items associated with Group relation conflict.

The factor analysis produced one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues

above 1.0, accounting for 33.434 of the variance. All items had high loading in

component one; this factor is labelled “group relation conflict”. The results of this factor

analysis showed positive factor loadings for Group relation conflict ranging from 0.708



Conflict Scale


1. How much emotional conflict is

there among the members of your

group? (recod)

.806

2. How much anger is there among

the members of the group? (recod)

.708

3. How much personal friction is

there in the group during decision

making? (recod)

.809

4. How much personality clashes are

evident between the members of

the group? (recod)

.638

5. How much tension is there in the

group during decision making?

(recod)

.778

The second factor analysis integrated all 6 items associated with Group cohesion. The

factor analyses produce one-factor solutions (screeplot criterion) with eigenvalues

above 1.0, accounting for 33.434 of the variance. All items have high loading in

component one; this factor is labelled “Group cohesion”. The results of this factor

analysis showed positive factor loadings for Ethical leadership ranging from 0.674 to

0.893. The factors and items are presented in Table (4-26).

137


Scale


1. There is a great deal of trust among

members of my work group.

.893

2. Members of my group work together

as a team.

.950

3. The members of my work group are

cooperative with each other.

.980

4. My work group members know that

they can depend on each other.

.924

5. The members of my work group

stand up for each other.

.824

6. The members of my work group

regard each other as friends.

.674

4.28. Reliability for Leader’s Questionnaire

The reliability of the 5-item group relation conflict scale was examined using

Cronbach‟s alpha and the reliability of the full 5-item scale was 0.863. The Cronbach‟s

alpha was 0.952 for the group cohesion scale. The alpha reliability of the two scales

indicates that the scales gave good reliability. As previously stated, alpha of 0.80 or

above is considered satisfactory. Table (4-27) presents the reliability statistics for the

employee‟s questionnaire.

Table (4-27): Reliability for Leader‟s Questionnaire


Group relation conflict .863 5

Group cohesion .952 6

138

4.29. Inter-Correlations between the Two Leader’s Scale Dimensions

Table (4-28) presents correlations between the two manager‟s dimensions. Results

showed significant negative correlations between all the manager questionnaire

dimensions (-0.567). The bivariate correlations between manager questionnaire

dimensions are all significant at the 0.01 level. From these findings, it can be concluded

that the constructs are considered to have high internal consistency.

Table (4-28): Correlations between the two Managers‟ Scale Dimensions

Dimension GRC GC

Group relation conflict (GRC) 1

Group cohesion (RC) - .567** 1


4.30. Summary

This chapter focused on the methods followed to test the study framework. The chapter

justified the suitability of the positivist philosophy to assist in producing data relating to

theoretical frameworks and to achieve the research objectives, by clarifying

relationships between the study variables. The research was undertaken as a survey to

provide an understanding of the issue and resulted in the decision to employ a

quantitative approach, to determine the relationships between variables. A survey tool is

an appropriate means by which to gather data from a large group of individuals in a

short time frame. The main study involved conducting a paper based questionnaire that

was distributed to 500 employees and 100 team leaders throughout (SABIC) in different

regions in KSA; 441 questionnaires were returned giving a high 73.5% response rate.

The researcher employed a pilot study before the main study was conducted. To give

advancewarning about which research procedures may not be followed, and to

determine whether the methods or instruments proposed were inappropriate or too

complex. The data collected were analysed using the SPSS package (version 18). Thus,

descriptive statistics were used to ensure that the data was normally distributed and to

provide averages and standard deviations for each of the variables in the study.

139

Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to ensure the construct validity of

the instrument as well as to identify groups or clusters of variables (Field, 2009). Finally

the study‟s instruments, validity and reliability were tested. Evidence was found that the

study instruments reliability, based on the pilot and main study of employees and

leaders questionnaires ranged from .791-.952; well above the generally accepted lower

limit of 0.6 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994).

140

CHAPTER FIVE: DATA ANALYSIS

5.1. Introduction

This chapter is based on the questionnaire results collected from Saudi Basic Industries

Corporation (SABIC) employees, principally because the company employs people

drawn from a range of different countries and cultures. As mentioned in chapter four, a

survey questionnaire was distributed to 500 employees and 100 team leaders in SABIC;

441 questionnaires were returned with 73.5% response rate.

The data collected was then analysed using the SPSS package (version 18). The analysis

was conducted in a series of steps. The first step in the data analysis was to calculate the

realities of the various scales measuring the differing variables at the individual level.

This study determined the internal consistency of similar items, indicating the average

of the inter-correlations between the items (Crocker and Algina, 1986). Particularly, this

study employed a widely used index of internal consistency, namely the Cronbach‟s

alpha coefficient (Cronbach, 1951). Descriptive statistics were used to ensure that the

data was normally distributed and to provide averages and standard deviations for each

of the variables in the study. The confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to

ensure construct validity of the instrument, as well as to identify groups or clusters of

variables (Field, 2009). The results from these analytical procedures were introduced in

chapter four. In the second step in the analysis of the data, a Pearson product moment

correlation was computed between independent variables, moderator variables and

dependant variables at the individual and group level. After this was completed, the

main analyses were conducted, probing the research questions. Critical to this study was

the challenge of the level of analysis. The study was interested in group level variables

since it was examining the employees‟ perspective. Because the data has been collected

from individuals, it is critical to aggregate the data into teams. Using the SPSS

procedure AGGREGATE, thus, individual responses have been collapsed into team

responses. While the initial sample size was 351 employees (level 1) and 90 leaders

(level 2), in the end, the sample size used for the main analysis comprised of 90 groups

(figure 5-1 gives an example of this nesting).

141

Multilevel Modelling (MLM) techniques were used to test the hypotheses. Three

hundred and fifty one employee questionnaires were collected, these employees were

spread across 90 leaders, thus the employees could be nested under teams based on their

leaders, with each employee lead by a single leader, with each leader responsible for

between 2 and 8 employees in the study. Bar chart number (5.1) shows the number of

employees surveyed for each leader. Such nesting is a standard feature of multilevel

data. Each employee nested under the same leader is likely to be influenced similarly by

the characteristics of that leader. This feature of multilevel data vastly widens the scope

and nature of the questions that can be answered. At the same time, such nesting can

invalidate the use of “single-level” ordinary least square regression analysis of variance,

and other forms of analysis that fail to account for the non-independence between

observations that such nesting produces (Bliese and Hanger, 2004; Field, 2009). The

primary independent variable of interest is employee perspectives, whereas the social

identity components (team identity and leader prototypicality) are used as moderators.

The first outcome variable identifies the extent to which the employee is committed to

the organisation. This data is collected at the employee-level “level-1”. Finally, the

remainder of the outcome variables identify group relation conflict and group cohesion

were measured at the leader level, “level-2.

Figure (5-1): An Example of Employees Nested Under their Leaders


142

Figure (5.2): The Number of Employees for Each Leader

Inter-correlations between the study’s scale dimensions - group level

Table (5-1) presents correlations between the aggregated study variables. Results

showed significant positive correlations between the six study‟s variables at the group

level. The results also displayed the expected significant negative correlation between

group relation conflict and all the study variables at the group level. Correlations among

the scales of the constructs ranged from .79 to .14, with the weakest relationship being

between team identity and group cohesion and the strongest relationship being between

charismatic leadership and leader prototypicality. However; the two-tailed correlation

significance, or probabilities level was found to be .001 or less (Field, 2009), so the

correlations are statistically significant. The correlations between study variables are all

significant at .01 levels. Whereas, the correlation between team identification and

cohesion was significant at .05 level.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

101

103

105

107

109

111

113

115

117

119

121

123

125

127

129

131

133

135

137

139

141

143

145

147

149

151

153

155

157

159

161

163

165

167

169

171

173

175

177

179

181

183

185

187

189

143

Table (5-1): Summary of Inter-Correlations between the Study‟s Scale Dimensions - Group Level.

Variables Mean S.D TI LP CL EL AOC GRC GC

Team identify (TI)

4.95

.96

1

Leader Prototypicality ( LP) 3.34 .94 .58** 1

Charismatic Leadership (CL) 3.96 .84 .56** .79

** 1

Ethical Leadership (EL) 4.8 1.09 .56** .6

** .6** 1

Affective Organisational Commitment

(AOC)

4.9 1.52 .6** .66

** .6** .7

** 1

Group Relation Conflict (GRC) 2.4 .75 -.35** -.57

** -.6** -.36 -.36

** 1

Group Cohesion (GC) 5.4 1.098 . 14*

.397** .39

** .34** .32

** -.54** 1


* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

144

5.2. Testing the Hypothesised Relationships between Leadership Behaviours and

Leader’s Effectiveness

Hypothesis testing has been divided into two sections, first are those hypotheses that

examine the relationships between the two study concepts, charismatic leadership and

ethical leadership to affective commitment, group relation conflict and group cohesion.

The second group of hypotheses address the role of leader prototypicality and team

identification as moderators of these relationships. As has been mentioned before, this

study was interested in group level. Thus, to test these relationships, multilevel analyses

and maximum likelihood (ML) estimations were employed. As recommended by Cress

(2008) the first step in this analysis run by the researcher was the intercept-only model

“null model” for affective commitment, group relation conflict and group cohesion. The

intercept-only model does not explain any variance, but simply reveals the proportion of

variance caused by the groups. The intercept-only model is given in the following

equation:

Y ij = y00 + uoj +rij

This model reveals whether employees affective commitment to the organisation, group

relation conflict and group cohesion are dependent on their perspective of their leader.

The model is a one-factorial ANOVA with a random factor “u” describing the different

groups. First, null models were run to assess whether the study data met the condition

that there be a systematic link between-group variance in these measures. The results for

affective organisational commitment ( = 1.134,df = , X2 =, p < .000), group relation

conflict ( = .48, df = , X2 =, p < .000) and group cohesion ( = 1.08, df = , X

2 =, p

< .000) are so described. Estimating the null mode also produces the information

necessary for commuting inter-correlation coefficients (ICC) in the proportion of

between-group variance in affective organisational commitment, group relation conflict

and group cohesion. In includes no explanatory variables at the individual or the group

level. This model allows for the calculation of the ICC which is presented in the

following equation:

145

Only if the ICC is significant, i.e. the variance components are different to zero, must

multilevel mode is used. So, if the ICC is not significant it is recommended to apply a

standard regression without any anxiety, because there is no group effect in the data

(Cress, 2008). If the ICC is adequately proximal to zero some argue MLM is

unnecessary, as the implication of this is that, statistically, level-1 units (employees) are

independent. However, the required proximity is dependent on variables also as values

of ICC as small as 0.05 can be cited to nullify hypotheses and confidence intervals

where MLM is not used (Kreft and de Leuw, 1998). Accordingly, before proceeding to

test the relationships in the hypothesised model with (MLM) the Inter-correlation

coefficient (ICC) was applied to test the necessity of using (MLM). Thus, in testing

variance components, the researcher is testing whether they differ from zero, however,

variances can never be negative, and thus, the lowest permissible value for a variance is

zero, which affects the sampling dissemination of the variance component (Hayes,

2006).

Based on table (5-2), estimating the null model produces information necessary for

computing inter-correlation coefficients (ICC) that indicate the proportion of between-

group (level-2) variance in affective commitment = .104879 = 1.134157, so ICC

= 1.134157/(1.134157 + .104879) = .91535436. The result of this analysis indicates that

91% of the variance in affective organisational commitment lies between-leaders (level-

2). Whereas, ICC for group relation conflict is, = .029289 so ICC =

.476922/(.476922+ .029289) = .94214073, this means that 94% of the variance in group

relation conflict lies between-leaders (level-2). Finally, the ICC for group cohesion

is , so ICC =1.079588 (1.079588+ .094276) =.91968746, this in turn

means that 91% of the variance in group cohesion lies between-leaders (level-2). Both

the results for affective commitment, group relation conflict and group cohesion

variance components are different to zero, which suggests that this condition has been

satisfied.

146

Table (5-2): Null Mode

Parameter Dependent Variable Estimate S.E Sig. 95%CI

Affective Organisational

Commitment

Residual .105 .009 .000 .088, .125

Intercept (subject =

manger no.) Variance

( )

1.134 .175 .000 .838, 1.535

Group Relation Conflict

Residual .029 .003 .000 .025, .035



( )

.477 .073 .000 .354, .643

Group Cohesion

Residual .094 .008 .000 .079, .111955



( )

1.08 .166 .000 .799, 1.459

The second step in the data analysis was to run a multilevel model to test the

relationship between the protectors‟ variables and the dependants‟ variables.

5.2.1. Test Statistics for Hypothesised Relationship for Charismatic Leadership

and Leader Effectiveness

Hypothesis 1 was concerned with the relationship between charismatic leadership and

leader effectiveness (affective organisation commitment, group relation conflict and

group cohesion).

H1a there is a positive relationship between charismatic leadership behaviour and the

level of employees’ affective commitment to the organisation.

147

The finding for the relationship between charismatic leadership behaviours and

employees affective commitment is given in table (5-3). Multilevel modelling analyses

showed that charismatic leadership behaviours significantly predicted employee‟s

affective commitment ( β = .85, t = 9.08, p < .000), leading to an acceptance of the H1a

hypothesis, indicating, that as the study assumed, those employees who perceive their

leader to exhibit charismatic leadership behaviours felt more committed to the

organisation than those who did not.

According to H1b, it is assumed that there is a negative relationship between

charismatic leadership behaviour and the level of conflict. It was found that charismatic

leadership was negatively related to group relation conflict (β = -.57, t = -9.56, p <

.000), thus, support for this hypothesis was found. Therefore, team/employees who

perceive their leader to exhibit charismatic leadership behaviours have less relation

conflict than those who do not.

Hypothesis H1c proposed a positive relationship between charismatic leadership

behaviour and the level of cohesion. The result for this relationship is revealed by the

positive relationship between charismatic leadership and group cohesion, (β = .51, t =

5.12, p < .000). Thus, it can be argued that team/employees that perceive their leader

exhibits charismatic leadership behaviours have more cohesion than those who do not.

Table (5-3): Multilevel Results of Charismatic leadership as a Predictor of Leader

Effectiveness

Dependent Beta T SE Sig. 95%CI

Intercept 1.49 4.07 .37 .000 .77, 2.22


commitment

.85 9.08 .09 .000 .67, 1.04

Intercept 1.77 7.57 .23 .000 1.3, 2.24

Group Relation Conflict -.57 -9.56 .05 .000 .45, .69

Intercept 3.35 8.53 .39 .000 2.58, 4.13

Group Cohesion .51 5.12 .1 .000 .32, .7

148

To conclude it was found that charismatic leadership was positively related to two

indicators of leader effectiveness, affective organisational commitment and group

cohesion. Charismatic leadership was most significantly related to affective

organisational commitment (B =.85, p <.000), followed by group cohesion (β =.51, p

<.000) and finally a negative relationship with group relation conflict (β = -.57, p

<.000). Therefore, support was found for Hypothesis 1 which predicted a significant

relationship between charismatic leadership behaviours and leader effectiveness.

5.2.2. The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Dimensions and Leader

Effectiveness

In the previous section the researcher examined the relationship between charismatic

leadership behaviour (C-K scale) and the three work–related outcomes (affective

organisational commitment, group relation conflict and group cohesion). Whereas, the

main aim of this section is to identify which dimension of charismatic leadership (C-K

scale) has the most significant impact on the relationship between charismatic

leadership behaviours and the three dependent variables being studied.

To examine the relationship between charismatic leadership dimensions (C-K) and

affective organisational commitment multilevel modelling was applied. The results

showed a significant positive relationship between the five dimensions of the scale and

affective organisational commitment; whereas, there is no main effect seen between

unconventional behaviours (UB). This relationship ranged from (.6 to .75), with the

weakest relationship describing sensitivity to member needs (SMN) and strategic vision

and articulation (SVA), and the strongest relationship being the association with status

quo (SQ) {for more details see table (5-4) and figure (5-3)}. The relationship between

most of the charismatic leadership scale‟s dimensions are significant at .000, indicating

that charismatic leadership‟s five dimensions are significant predictors of employee‟s

affective organisational commitment.

149

Figure (5-3): The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Subscales

and affective Organisational Commitment.


Leader Effectiveness

Dimension Dependant variable Beta T SE Sig.

Affective organisational commitment

Intercept 3.2 9.8 .24 .000

SMN .6 11.3 .05 .000

Intercept 4.12 7.3 .57 .000

UB .2 1.2 .17 .231

Intercept 2.25 5.4 .42 .000

SVA .6 5.8 .11 .000

intercept 2.69 5.6 .48 .000

150

PR .61 4.2 .15 .000

intercept 2.04 4.2 .49 .000

SE .67 5.5 .12 .000

intercept 1.7 2.9 .6 .000

SQ .75 5.1 .15 .000

Table (5-5) illustrates a significant negative relationship between charismatic leadership

dimensions and group relation conflict. This effect ranged from -.3 to -.6, with the

weakest relationship being that to unconventional behaviours (UB) and the strongest

relationship with Sensitivity to Environmental context (SE) {for more details see table

(5-5) and figure (5-4)}. The relationships between the charismatic leadership scale‟s

dimensions are all significant at .000, .001 and .006, indicating that charismatic

leadership is a significant predictor of group relation conflict.

Figure (5-4): The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Subscales

and Group Relation Conflict

151




Group relation conflict

intercept -2.27 -7.62 .3 .000

SMN -.42 -5.96 .07 .000

intercept -2.97 -7.88 .38 .000

UB -.3 -2.8 2.8 .006

intercept -1.79 -5.6 .32 .000

SVA -.55 -7.1 .77 .000

intercept -2.77 -7.67 .36 .000

PR -.35 -3.49 .1 .001

intercept -1.59 -4.65 .34 .000

SE -.58 -7.18 .08 .000

intercept -1.76 -4.047 .44 .000

SQ -.54 -5.2 .1 .000

The results also displayed, as expected, a significant positive relationship between

charismatic leadership dimensions and group cohesion. They showed that there is a

main effect for charismatic leadership dimensions on group cohesion. This main effect

scored from .33 to .62, with the weakest relationship being to unconventional

behaviours (UB) and the strongest relationship being with Sensitivity to Environmental

context (SE) {for more details see table (5-6) and figure (5-5)}. The relationships

between charismatic leadership scale‟s dimensions are all significant at the .000, .001,

.01 and .05, indicating that charismatic leadership is a significant predictor of group

relation conflict.

152

Figure (5-5): The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Subscale

and Group Cohesion

Table (5-6): Multilevel Results for Charismatic Leadership Subscale as a Predictor of



Group cohesion

intercept 3.7 7.4 .5 .000

SMN .39 3.4 .12 .001

intercept 4.07 7.06 .6 .000

UB .37 2.3 .16 .024

intercept 3.3 5.9 .56 .000

SVA .52 3.8 .14 .000

intercept 4.03 7.67 .36 .000

PR .38 3.4 .16 .01

153

intercept 2.8 4. 7 .59 .000

SE .62 4.5 .14 .000

intercept 2.9 4.14 .7 .000

SQ ,59 3.5 .16 .001

In summary, from the multilevel modelling analysis, the results revealed that there are

significant positive relationships between the five dimensions of charismatic leadership

and affective organisational commitment. Whilst, the results exhibited no significant

relationship between the second dimension of charismatic leadership, which is

unconventional behaviours (UB) and affective organisational commitment. However,

the relationships between charismatic leadership dimensions and group relation conflict

were negative, as assumed. The results also revealed a positive relationship between the

six dimensions of charismatic leadership and group cohesion. Therefore, there are no

significant differences between the results obtained from analysing the relationship

between the charismatic leadership scale as whole and those from testing each

dimension separately. With the exception of the relationship between unconventional

behaviours (UB) and affective organisational commitment.

5.2.3. Test Statistics for Hypothesised Relationship for Ethical Leadership and


Hypothesis 2 was concerned with the relationship between ethical leadership and leader

effectiveness (Affective organisation commitment, group relation conflict and group

cohesion). To test this relationship, multilevel modelling analysis was employed for

each of the indicators of leader effectiveness/work-related outcomes. The finding for

each of the dependent variables can be found in table (5-4).

The findings for the relationship between ethical leadership behaviours and employees

affective commitment can be found in table (5-7). Multilevel modelling analyses show

that ethical leadership behaviours significantly predicted employee‟s affective

organisational commitment, (β = 1.1, t = 16.45, p < .000), leading to an acceptance of

the H1a hypothesis. This means in turn that team/employees who perceive their leaders

154

to exhibit ethical leadership behaviours felt more committed to the organisation than

those who do not.

According to H2b, which assumes that there is a negative relationship between ethical

leadership behaviour and the level of conflict, it was found that ethical leadership was

negatively related to group relation conflict (β = -.48, t =-.10.81, p < .000); thus, the

support for this hypothesis was found. Therefore, team/employees that perceive their

leader to exhibit charismatic leadership behaviours have less relation conflict than those

who do not.

Hypothesis H2c proposed a positive relationship between ethical leadership behaviour

and the level of group cohesion. The result for this relationship revealed the positive

relationship between ethical leadership and group cohesion (β = .37, t = 4.48, p < .000).

Thus, it can be argued that team/employees that perceive their leader to exhibit ethical

leadership behaviours have more cohesion than those teams that do not.

Table (5-7): Multilevel Results of Ethical Leadership as a Predictor of Leader

Effectiveness

Dependent Beta T SE Sig. 95%CI

Intercept -.27 .86 .31 .394 -.88, 35


commitment

1.1 16.45 .07 .000 .95, 1.21

Intercept 3.17 4.9 ,65 .000

Group Relation Conflict -.48 -.10.81 .04 .000 .39, .56

Intercept 3.57 8.88 .40 .000 2. 8, 4.4

Group Cohesion .37 4.48 .08 .000 .21, .55

In conclusion, it was found that Ethical leadership was positively related to two

indicators of leader effectiveness, affective organisational commitment and group

cohesion. Ethical leadership was most significantly related to affective organisational

commitment (β = 1.1, p<.000), followed by group cohesion (β =.37, p <.000) and finally

related negatively to group relationship conflict (β = -.48, p <.000). Therefore, support

155

was found for Hypothesis 2, which predicted a significant relationship between ethical

leadership behaviours and leader effectiveness.

The following section of multi-level analysis was performed for each factor to detect the

main effect of the independent variables and moderators on dependent variables (model

1). Multi-level analysis was performed also to determine the interactions that exist

between independent variables and moderators‟ variables (model 2).

5.3. Test Statistics for Hypothesising the Moderator role for Leader Prototypicality

and Team Identity on the Relationship between Leadership Behaviours and

Leader’s Effectiveness.

The third step was to run multilevel analyses to examine the moderating role of leader

prototypicality and team identification on the relationships between predictors‟

variables and dependants‟ variables. Multilevel modelling was conducted in order to

determine whether leadership prototypicality and team identification moderate the

relationship between charismatic leadership and leader effectiveness. More specifically,

this test allowed us to determine whether there is an interactive effect, meaning

describing the slopes for leader prototypicality and team identification. If there is a

significant interactive effect, this means that these variables are moderators of the

relationship between charismatic leadership and leader effectiveness.


Relationship between Charismatic Leadership Behaviours and Leader’s

Effectiveness.

Hypothesis 3 addressed the relationship between charismatic leadership and leader

effectiveness when leader prototypicality and team identification were also considered.

It was hypothesised that the relationship between charismatic leadership and leader

effectiveness would be moderated by these variables.

Using the methods recommended by Field (2009), tests for moderation were conducted.

Specifically, the approach consists of three predictor relationships that contribute to the

156

outcome variable of leader effectiveness including: charismatic leadership as a

predictor. Each of the proposed moderators acts as a predictor and the interaction or

product of the predictor and each of the moderators. As emphasised by (Field, 2009)

group mean centring is a typical form of centring variables in multilevel modelling prior

to analysis. To do so, all of the continuous predictor variables for this analysis were

centred by subtracting the team level mean of the variables from each individual score.

Field suggested group mean centring as a method for reducing multicollinearity in

multilevel models with interactions, especially when the independent variables

themselves are inter-correlated. Coulton and Chow (1992) highlighted that the use of

centred scores, results in two benefits: multicollinearity is reduced and the results for

the main effects become easier to interpret. In line with this discussion Raudenbush

(1989a, 1989b) recommended that in testing between-level moderation models, group

mean centring produces a more reliable estimate of the within- group slope (βlJ the

dependent variable) which, in turn, presents a fuller evaluation of the between-level

moderation. Therefore, it was necessary to use group mean centring in the present study

for operational reasons due to the various levels under analysis.

The pattern generated for accepting or rejecting the hypotheses, relating to the

moderating role of social identify on the relationship between leadership behaviours

(charismatic and ethical) and leader‟s effectiveness (reduce group relation conflict,

promote level of cohesion and affective commitment) will be described to explain the

moderation results (see Figure 5. 6).

157

Figure (5.6): Decision Tree for the Moderator

Affective organisational commitment.

In order to test H3a (the relationship between charismatic leadership and affective

organisational commitment will be moderated by leadership prototypes, such that the

relationship will be stronger with higher levels of leadership prototypes), multilevel

modelling was conducted. The multilevel results, describing variation between the

hypothesised moderation and dependent variable affective organisational commitment

158

can be found in (5-8). As shown in table (4-5), there was a main effect for charismatic

leadership (β = .33, t = 2. 7 p < .05), indicating it to be a significant predictor of

employees‟ affective organisational commitment. Additionally, a main effect was found

for leader prototypicality (β = .62, t = 6.87 p < .000), indicating that leader

prototypicality is a significant predictor of employees‟ affective organisational

commitment. Comparing the X2

change in model 1 to the same critical values for the chi

square statistic with df =1 (i.e. 3.84 and 6.63), shows that this change is highly

significant at p< .01 because 43.85 is much larger than these two values. Supportive of

the hypothesis, significant interaction was found for charismatic leadership × leader

prototypicality (β = .11, t = 2.98 p < .003). X2 resulted in a change in model 2 that was

highly significant at p < .01, because 8.75 is bigger than the critical value of 3.83 for the

chi square statistic with 1 degree of freedom (see appendix A4). Thus, evidence was

found for leader prototypicality as moderators of the relationship between charismatic

leadership and affective organisational commitment.

Table (5-8): Test Statistics for the Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Affective

Organisational Commitment

Model 1 Model 2

Independent Variable Beta T SE Sig. Beta T SE Sig.

intercept 1.52 4.38 .35 .000 1.48 4.32 .34 .000

Charismatic leadership .33 2.7 .12 .05 .30 2.6 .12 009

Leader prototypicality .62 6.87 .09 .000 .65 .7.24 ..09 .000

Charismatic leadership

× Leader

prototypicality

.11 2.98 .04 .003

Mode fit (X2) 397.4 388.65

df 5 6

Change of mode fit

(X2)

43.85 8.75

159

Variation within groups .069 .068

Variation between

groups

.50 .51

H 3b describes the relationship between charismatic leadership and affective

organisational commitment as being moderated by team identification, such that the

relationship will be stronger with higher levels of team identification. As can be seen

from table 5-9, there is a main effect for charismatic leadership (β = .40, t = 4.23, p <

.000), indicating that charismatic leadership is a significant predictor of employees‟

affective organisational commitment. There was also a main effect for team

identification (β = .98, t = 10.12, p < .000), indicating that team identification is a

significant predictor of employees‟ affective organisational commitment. Moreover,

when comparing the X2

change in model 1 to the same critical values for the chi square

statistic with df =1 (i.e. 3.84 and 6.63), this shows that the change is highly significant at

p < .01 because 88.27 is much larger than the two values. Supportive of the hypothesis,

significant interaction was found for charismatic leadership × team identification (β =

.6, t = 8.18, p < .005). The X2 change in model 2 is also significant at .01 because 8.23

is larger than the critical value of 3.83 for the chi square statistic, with a (1) degree of

freedom (see appendix C). Thus, evidence was found for team identification as a

moderator of the relationship between charismatic leadership and affective


160



Model 1 Model 2


intercept -1.52 -3.4 .45 001 -1.52 -3.4 .45 .001

Charismatic leadership .40 4.23 .09 .000 .40 4.23 .10 000

Team Identification .98 10.12 .09 .000 .97 9.9 . 10 .000


× Team Identification

.6 8.18 .03 .005

Mode fit (X2) 352.98 361.73

df 5 6

Change of mode fit

(X2)

88.27 8.23

Variation within

groups

.05 .06

Variation between

groups

.415 .414

Group relation Conflict.

When group relation conflict was examined as the dependent variable, a negative main

effect was found for charismatic leadership (β = -.79, t = -11.06 p < .000), (see table 5-

10). There was a main effect found for leader prototypicality (β = -.22, t = -5.77 p <

.000), indicating that leadership prototypicality is a significant predictor of group

relation conflict. Additionally, the table X2 statistic of 1 independent variable with

1degree of freedom at a significance level of .01 yields a value of (3.84 and 6.63). The

X2

change value of 31.43 for model 1 exceeds the table of X2

6.63, indicating that this

change is highly significant. Supportive of the hypothesis, significant interaction was

found for charismatic leadership × leader prototypicality (β = -.32, t = -6.2, p < .003).

X2 change in model 2 is significant at .01 because 9.96 is larger than the critical value of

161

6.63 for the chi square statistic with 1 degree of freedom (see appendix C). Thus,

evidence was found for leader prototypicality as a moderator of the relationship between

charismatic leadership and group relation conflict.


Relation Conflict

Model 1 Model 2


Intercept 1.66 7.08 .24 .000 1.68 7 .24 .000

Charismatic leadership -.79 11.06 .07 .000 .30 10.9 .07 .000

Leader prototypicality -.22 -5.77 .04 .000 -.22 -5.9 .04 .000

Charismatic leadership ×

Leader prototypicality

-.32 -6.2 .01 .003

Mode fit (X2) 98.9 102.8

df 5 6

Change of mode fit (X2) 31.43 3.9


Variation between

groups

.712 .758

Table (5-11) illustrates that there is a main effect for charismatic leadership (β = -1.28, t

= -5.63, p < .000); thus, indicating that charismatic leadership is significant predictor of

employees affective organisational commitment. There was also a main effect for team

identification (β = -.79, t = -29, 8 p < .000), indicating that team identification is a

significant predictor of group relationship conflict. Furthermore, when comparing the

X2

change in model 1 to the same critical values for the chi-square statistic with df =1

(i.e. 3.84 and 6.63), it shows that this change is highly significant, because 206 is much

larger than these two values. Supportive of the hypothesis, significant interaction was

162

found for charismatic leadership × team identification (β = -.8, t = -3.9, p < .05). X2

change in model 2 is significant at p < .05 because 4.54 is larger than the critical value

of 3.83 for the chi square statistic with 1 degree of freedom (see appendix C). Thus,

evidence was found for team identification as a moderator of the relationship between

charismatic leadership and group relation conflict.


Relation Conflict

Model 1 Model 2


Intercept 2.89 3.3 .87 .001 2.92 3.34 .45 .001

Charismatic leadership -1.28 -5.63 .23 .000 -1.3 -5.7 .23 .000

Team Identification -.79 -29.9 .03 .000 -.80 -29.8 . 27 .000



-.8 -3.9 .004 .05

Mode fit (X2) 273.5 278.04

df 5 6

Change of mode fit (X2) 206 4.54


Variation between

groups

20.74 20.8

Group Cohesion.

The multilevel results for group cohesion can be found in table (5-12). Again a main

effect was found for charismatic leadership (β = .58, t = 4.45 p < .000). There was a

main effect found for leader prototypicality (β =, 43, t = 3.77 p < .000), indicating that

leader prototypicality is a significant predictor of group cohesion. Additionally, when

comparing the X2

change in model 1 with the same critical values for the chi square

163

statistic, df =1 (i.e. 3.84 and 6.63) shows that this change is highly significant because

8.22 is much larger than these two values. Supportive of the hypothesis, significant

interaction was found for charismatic leadership × leader prototypicality (β = .7, t = 9.7,

p < .005). X2 change in model 2 is significant at p < .05 because 3.83 is the same value

as the critical value of 3.83 for the chi square statistic with 1 degree of freedom (see

appendix C). Thus, evidence was found for leader prototypicality as a moderator of the

relationship between charismatic leadership and group cohesion.


Cohesion

Model 1 Model 2


Intercept 3.35 8.52 .39 .000 3.34 8.49 .39 .000

Charismatic leadership .58 4.45 .13 .000 .56 4.35 .13 .000

Leader prototypicality .43 3.77 .1 .000 .42 3.67 .15 .000


× Leader prototypicality

. 7 9.7 1.7 .005

Mode fit (X2) 454.1 457.93

df 5 6



Variation between

groups

.858 .874

As demonstrated by table (5-13) there is a main effect for charismatic leadership (β =

2.57, t = 3.74, p < .001), indicating that charismatic leadership is a significant predictor

of employees‟ affective organisational commitment. There was also a main effect found

for team identification (β = 2, t = 50.6 p < .000), indicating that team identification is a

significant predictor of group cohesion. Moreover, when comparing the X2

change in

164

model 1 to the same critical values for the chi square statistic with df =1 (i.e. 3.84 and

6.63), it was shown that this change is highly significant because 418,49 is much larger

than these two values. Supportive to the hypothesis, significant interaction was found

for charismatic leadership × team identification (β = .7, t = 3.31, p < .004). The X2

change in model 2 is significant at p < .05, because 5.73 is larger than the critical value

of 3.83 for the chi square statistic with 1 degree of freedom (see appendix C). Thus,

evidence was found for team identification as a moderator of the relationship between

charismatic leadership and affective organisational commitment.

Table (5-13): Test Statistics for the Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Group

Cohesion

Model 1 Model 2


Intercept 5.64 2.14 2.6 .040 5.69 3.34 2.65 .038

Charismatic leadership 2.57 3.74 .69 .001 2.57 3.7 .69 .001

Team Identification 2 50.6 .04 .000 1.996 49.6 . 04 .000



.7 3.31 .05 .004

Mode fit (X2) 36.23 41.96

Df 5 6



Variation between

groups

191.24 191.52

For all the tests of moderation, there were strong main effects found for charismatic

leadership, leader prototypicality and team identification across all three dependant

variables. Evidence was also found for leader prototypicality and team identification as

moderators of the relationship between charismatic leadership and all three dependent

165

variables.


Relationship between Ethical Leadership Behaviours and Leader’s

Effectiveness

Hypothesis 4 addressed the relationship between ethical leadership and leader

effectiveness when leader prototypicality and team identification were also considered.

It was hypothesised that the relationship between ethical leadership and leader

effectiveness would be moderated by these variables.

Affective organisational commitment.

The multi-level results between the hypothesised moderation – leader prototypicality

and the dependent variable affective organisational commitment can be found in table

(5-14). As shown in the table, there was a main effect for ethical leadership (β =.89, t =

13.6, p < .000). Additionally, a main effect was found for leadership prototypicality (β

=.47, t = 7.88, p < .000), indicating that leadership prototypicality is a significant

predictor of employees‟ affective organisational commitment. Furthermore, when

comparing the X2

change in model 1 with the same critical values for the chi square

statistic of df =1 (i.e. 3.84 and 6.63) it was found that this change is highly significant

because 56.86 is much larger than these two values. Supportive of the hypothesis,

significant interaction was found for ethical leadership × leadership prototypicality (β =

.5, t = 4.2, p < .005). The X2 change in model 2 is significant at.05 because 4.5 is larger

than the critical value of 3.83 for the chi square statistic with 1 degree of freedom (see

appendix C). Thus, evidence was found for leadership prototypicality as a moderator of

the relationship between ethical leadership and affective organisational commitment.

166



Model 1 Model 2


Intercept -.94 -3 .30 .002 -.95 -3 .39 .002

Ethical leadership . 89 13.6 .05 .000 .89 13.6 .13 .000

Leader prototypicality .47 7.88 .06 .000 .47 7.89 .25 .000

Ethical leadership ×


.5 4.2 1.7 .005

Mode fit (X2) 252.20 256.03

df 5 6



Variation between

groups

.442 .443

Table (5-15) showed that there was also a main effect for team identification ((β =.87, t

= 12.21 p < .000); indicating that team identification is a significant predictor of

employees‟ affective organisational commitment. In addition, when comparing the X2

change in model 1 to the same critical values as those for the chi square statistic, df =1

(i.e. 3.84 and 6.63) shows that this change is highly significant because 115.19 is much

larger than these two values. Supportive of the hypothesis is the fact that significant

interactions were found for ethical leadership × team identification (β = .6, t = 3.1, p <

.000). X2 change in model 2 is significant at .05 because 3.9 is larger than the critical

value of 3.83 for the chi square statistic with 1 degree of freedom (see appendix C).

Thus, evidence was found for team identification as moderator of the relationship

between ethical leadership and affective organisational commitment.


167


Model 1 Model 2


Intercept -3.67 -9.36 .39 .000 -3.67 -9.35 .4 .000

Ethical leadership .896 14.49 .06 .000 .894 14.36 .06 .000

Team Identification .87 12.21 .07 .000 .87 12.21 .07 .000


Team Identification

. 6 3.1 .02 .000

Mode fit (X2) 193.87 197.77

df 5 6

Change of mode fit

(X2)

115.19 3.9

Variation within

groups

.030 .030

Variation between

groups

.52 .52

Group Relation Conflict.

When group relation conflict was examined as the dependent variable, a main effect was

found for ethical leadership (β = -.27, t= -5.2p < .000), (see table 4-16). There was a

main effect found for leader prototypicality (β = -.41, t = - 4.24, p < .005), indicating it

to be a significant predictor of group relation conflict. Furthermore, when comparing the

X2

change in model 1 to the same critical values for the chi square statistic with df =1

(i.e. 3.84 and 6.63), it was shown that this change is highly significant because 272.06 is

much larger than these two values. Supportive of the hypothesis, significant interaction

was found for ethical leadership × leader prototypicality (β = -.3, t = -3.47, p < .003).

The X2 change in model 2 is significant at p < .05 because 4.22 is larger than the critical

value of 3.83 for the chi square statistic with a 1 degree of freedom (see appendix C).

Thus, evidence was found for leader prototypicality as a moderator of the relationship

between ethical leadership and group relation conflict.

168


Relation Conflict

Model 1 Model 2


Intercept 2.43 -9.8 .24 .000 2.43 -9.8 .24 .000

Ethical leadership -.27 -5.2 .05 .000 -.276 -5.2 .05 .000

Leader prototypicality -.41 -4.24 .04 .005 -.42 -4.88 .04 .005



-.3 -3.47 1.7 .003

Mode fit (X2) 66.09 70.31

Df 5 6



Variation between

groups

.38 .398

There was also a main effect for team identification (β = -.31, t = -3.14p < .002) (see

table 5-17), indicating that team identification is a significant predictor of group relation

conflict. Moreover, when comparing the X2

change in model 1 to the same critical

values for the chi square statistic with df =1 (i.e. 3.84 and 6.63) it was shown that this

change is highly significant, because 9.37 is much larger than these two values.

Supportive of the hypothesis, significant interaction was found for ethical leadership ×

team identification (β = -.5, t = -3.31, p < .001). The X2 change in model 2 is significant

at p < .05 because 5.34 is larger than the critical value of 3.84 for the chi square statistic

with a 1 degree of freedom (see appendix C). Thus, evidence was found for team

identification as a moderator of the relationship between ethical leadership and affective


169

Table (5-17): Tests Statistics for Hypothesised Moderated Relationship for Group

Relation Conflict

Model 1 Model 2


Intercept -4.6 5.99 .39 .000 4.6 -9.35 .77 .000

Ethical leadership -.33 -3.6 .06 .000 -.187 14.36 .13 .158

Team Identification -.31 -3.14 .07 .002 -.31 12.21 .08 .002


Team Identification

-. 5 -3.31 .03 .001

Mode fit (X2) 347.5 352.837

df 5 6

Change of mode fit

(X2)

9.37 5.337


Variation between

groups

10.95 10.92

Group Cohesion. The multi-level modelling results for group cohesion can be found in

table (5-18). Again a main effect was found for ethical leadership (β =.33, t = 3.6 p <

.000) and a main effect was found for leader prototypicality (β =.34, t = 3.66, p < .001),

indicating it to be is a significant predictor of group cohesion. Additionally, when

Comparing the X2

change in model 1 with the same critical values for the chi-square

statistic with df =1 (i.e. 3.84 and 6.63) it was shown that this change is highly

significant because 22.66 is much larger than these two values. Supportive of the

hypothesis, significant interaction was found for ethical leadership × leader

prototypicality (β = .3, t = 1.7, p < .005). The X2 change in model 2 is significant at p <

.05 because 4.145 is larger than the critical value of 3.83 for the chi square statistic with

1 degree of freedom (see appendix C). Thus, evidence was found for leader

prototypicality as moderator of the relationship between ethical leadership and group

cohesion.

170


Relationship for Group Cohesion

Model 1 Model 2


intercept 3.4 8.15 .41 .000 3.4 8.2 .4 .000


Leader prototypicality .34 3.66 .08 .001 . 35 3.67 .08 .001



. 3 1. 7 .03 .005

Mode fit (X2) 469.5 473.65

df 5 6

Change of mode fit

(X2)

22.66 4.145

Variation within

groups

.079 .078

Variation between

groups

.742 .746

Table (5-19) illustrated that there was also a main effect for team identification ((β =

.46, t = 4.76 p < .04), making it a significant predictor of group cohesion. Furthermore,

when comparing the X2

change in model 1 with the same critical values for the chi

square statistic where df =1 (i.e. 3.84 and 6.63), it was shown that this change is highly

significant because 169 is much larger than these two values. Supportive of the

hypothesis, significant interaction was found for ethical leadership × team identification

(β = .51, t = 4.4, p < .000). X2 change in model 2 is significant at p < .05 because 6.05 is

larger than the critical value of 3.83 the chi square statistic with 1 degree of freedom

(see appendix C). Thus, evidence was found for team identification as moderator of the

relationship between ethical leadership and group cohesion.

171


Relationship for Group Cohesion

Model 1 Model 2


Intercept 2.49 1.31 1.9 .001 2.49 1.31 1.9 .001


Team Identification .46 4.67 .24 .04 .458 4.67 .23 .04

Ethical leadership × Team

Identification

.5 1 4.4 .153 .000

Mode fit (X2) 641.5 647.55

Df 5 6



Variation between groups 71.71 71.71

For all the tests for moderation, there were strong main effects for ethical leadership,

leader prototypicality and team identification across all three dependant variables.

Evidence was found for leader prototypicality and team identification as moderators of

the relationship between ethical leadership and all three dependent variables.

The moderator effect of the six charismatic leadership subscales on work related leader

effectiveness.

Again in this section the researcher examined which dimension of the charismatic

leadership (C-K scale) has the most significant interaction with leader prototypicality in

view of the relationship between charismatic leadership behaviours and the three

dependent variables under study. As can be seen in table (5-20 and figure 5-7), the

results reveal that there are significant interactions for sensitivity to member needs

(SMS), strategic vision and articulation (SVA), sensitivity to the environment (SE) and

172

also for does not maintain status quo (SQ) and X leader prototypicality. This interaction

ranged from .06 to .09, significant at .05, 01 and .0001. Thus, it can be argued that the

relationship between sensitivity to member needs (SMS), strategic vision and

articulation (SVA), sensitivity to the environment (SE), does not maintain status quo

(SQ) and affective organisational commitment are stronger when moderated by leader

prototypicality. In contrast, there were no significant inter actions found for

unconventional behaviour (UB) and personal risk (PR) and X leader prototypicality.

This means that the relationships between (UB) and (PR) and affective organisational

commitment remain unaltered when moderated by leader prototypicality.

Figure (5-7): The Interaction between Charismatic Leadership Subscales

and Leader Prototypicality

173


Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X leader prototypicality) for Affective




Intercept 1.68 3.87 .44 .000

SMN .09 .88 .11 .38

LP .8 11.4 .07 .000

SMN x LP .09 3 .03 .003

intercept 2.7 5.4 .49 .000

UB -.18 -1.29 .14 .198

LP .84 12.08 .07 .000

UB x LP .005 .03 .171 .865

intercept 1.35 2.79 .48 .006

SVA .21 1.6 .13 .106

LP .79 10.7 .07 .000

SVA x LP .07 2.2 .03 .028

intercept 1.7 3.56 .47 .001

PR .138 3.56 .14 .315

LP .8 11.18 .07 .000

PR x LP .03 1.15 .03 .253

intercept 1.28 2.47 .52 .015

SE .23 .13 1.75 .083

LP .78 10.87 .07 .000

SE x LP .089 2.79 .03 .006

intercept .75 1.3 .59 .210

SQ .37 2.5 .15 .013

174

LP .77 10.9 .07 .000

SQ x LP .06 2.12 .03 .035

To examine the moderator impact of leader prototypicality on the relationships between

the charismatic leadership six dimensions and group relation conflict multilevel

modelling has been utilized. Table (5-21) and figure (5-8) demonstrated the interactions

result. As can been seen there are significant interactions for (SMS), (SVA), (PR), (SE)

and (SQ) X leader prototypicality. This interaction ranged from -.03 to -.07, significant

at .05, 01 and .0001.Thus, it can be argued that the relationship between (SMS), (SVA),

(PR), (SE) and (SQ) and group relation conflict are stronger when moderated by leader

prototypicality. In contrast, there were no significant interactions found for (UB) X

leader prototypicality. This means that the relationships between (UB) and group

relation conflict do not change when moderated by leader prototypicality.



175


Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X leader prototypicality) for Group

Relation Conflict



Intercept -2.06 -6.98 .29 .000

SMN -.33 -4.59 .07 .000

LP -.17 -3.76 .045 .000

SMN x LP -.07 -3.45 .019 .001

intercept -.23 -2.3 .09 .24

UB -.18 -4.2 .04 .000

LP -.23 -2.3 .09 .24

UB x LP -.005 -.3 .018 .767

Intercept -1.66 -5.27 .31 .000

SVA .46 -5.5 .08 .000

LP -.15 -3.4 .04 .001

SVA x LP -.07 -4.01 .02 .000

intercept -2.55 -7.37 .35 .000

PR -.25 -2.49 .098 .014

LP -.18 -3.99 .045 .000

PR x LP -.039 -2.16 .018 .032

Intercept -1.5 -4.56 .34 .000

SE -.49 -5.82 .08 .000

LP -.14 -3.04 .04 .003

SE x LP -.05 -2.29 .02 .023

Intercept -1.6 -3.9 .42 .000

176

SQ -.44 -4.3 .10 .000

LP -.16 -3.6 .04 .000

SQ x LP -.03 -2.1 .02 .036

Multilevel modelling has been run to analyse the moderator impact of leader

prototypicality on the relationships between the six dimensions of the charismatic

leadership and group cohesion table (5-22) and figure (5-9) demonstrated the results of

interaction. As can been seen there are significant interactions for sensitivity to

member‟s needs (SMS), strategic vision and articulation (SVA), personal risk (PR),

sensitivity to the environment (SE), does not maintain the status quo (SQ) X leader

prototypicality. This interaction ranged from .04 to .14, significant at .05, 01 and .0001.

Thus, it can be argued that the relationship between sensitivity to members' needs

(SMS), strategic vision and articulation (SVA), personal risk (PR), sensitivity to the

environment (SE), does not maintain status quo (SQ) and group cohesion are stronger

when moderated by leader prototypicality. In contrast, no significant interaction was

found for unconventional behaviour (UB) X leader prototypicality. This means that the

relationships between unconventional behaviour (UB) and group cohesion do not

change when moderated by leader prototypicality.

177




Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X leader prototypicality) for Affective



Group Cohesion

intercept 3.4 6.8 .5 .000

SMN .29 2.37 12 .019

LP .22 2.7 .08 .006

SMN x LP .13 3.8 .03 .000

intercept 3.65 6.4 .57 .000

178

UB .29 1.9 .16 .066

LP .21 2.7 .08 .007

UB x LP .04 1.3 .03 .196

intercept 3.08 5.59 .55 .000

SVA .39 2.72 .14 .008

LP .21 2.59 .08 .010

SVA x LP .139 4.27 .03 .000

intercept 3.76 6.78 .55 .000

PR .26 1.62 .16 .109

LP .21 2.66 .08 .008

PR x LP .08 2.53 .03 .012

intercept 2.64 4.5 .58 .000

SE .53 3.59 .15 .000

LP .15 1.93 .07 .000

SE x LP .1 2.93 .03 .004

intercept 2.76 3.99 .69 .000

SQ .49 2.8 .17 .006

LP .18 2.3 .08 .23

SQ x LP .08 2.9 .03 .004

Multilevel modelling has also been utilized to examine the moderator impact of team

identity on the relationship between the six dimensions of charismatic leadership and

affective organisational commitment. Table (5-23) and figure (5-10) demonstrated the

results of the interaction. As can been seen there are significant interactions for

sensitivity to member needs (SMS), Personal risk (PR) and X team identity. This

interaction ranged from .1 to .05; significant at .05 and 01. Thus, it can be argued that

the relationship between SMS and PR and affective organisational commitment are

stronger when moderated by team identity. In contrast, there were no significant

179

interactions found for unconventional behaviour (UB), strategic vision and articulation

(SVA), sensitivity to member needs (SE) and does not maintain status quo (SQ) X

leadership team identity. This means that the relationships between unconventional

behaviour (UB), strategic vision and articulation (SVA), sensitivity to the environment

(SE), does not maintain the status quo (SQ) and affective organisational commitment do

not change when moderated by team identity.


and Team Identity

180


Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X Team Identity) for Affective




Intercept 1.29 2.39 .54 .018

SMN .18 1.7 .11 .94

TI 1.097 12.29 .08 .000

SMN x TI .05 .9 .03 .04

Intercept .8 1.27 .6 .206

UB .012 .09 .14 .929

TI 1.14 13.1 .08 .000

UB x TI .013 .47 .03 .638

Intercept 1.58 2.8 .56 .006

SVA .29 2.35 .12 020

TI 1.07 11.9 .09 .000

SVA x TI .4 11.29 .03 . 002

intercept 1.4 2.46 .57 .015

PR .245 1.8 .14 .073

TI 1.09 12.5 .09 .000

PR x TI . 1 .53 .028 .006

Intercept 1.55 2.63 .59 .010

SE .25 1.9 .13 .055

TI 1.08 12.05 .09 .000

SE x TI .4 10.41 .03 .006

Intercept 2.2 3.4 .66 .001

SQ .44 2.98 .146 .004

181

TI 1.07 12.29 .09 .000

SQ x TI .02 1.02 .02 .308

To examine the moderator impact of team identity on the relationships between the six

dimensions of charismatic leadership and group relation conflict multilevel modelling

has been utilised. Table (5-24) and figure (5-11) demonstrated the result of the

interactions. As can been seen there are significant interactions for sensitivity to

member needs (SMS), unconventional behaviour (UB), strategic vision articulation

(SVA), personal risk (PR), sensitivity to the environmental (SE) and X team identity.

This interaction ranged from -.03 to -.4; significant at .05. Thus, it can be argued that

the relationship between sensitivity to member needs (SMS), unconventional behaviour

(UB), strategic vision articulation (SVA), personal risk (PR) and sensitivity to

environmental (SE) and group relation conflict are stronger when moderated by team

identity. In contrast, no significant interaction was found for does not maintain the

status quo (SQ) and X team identity. This means that the relationships between SQ and

group relation conflict do not change when moderated by team identity.

182


and Team Identity


Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X Team Identity) for Group Relation

Conflict



intercept -1.95 -5.4 .36 .000

SMN -1.95 -5.4 .36 .000

TI -.089 -1.5 .05 .128

SMN x TI -.03 -2.1 .06 .037

intercept -2.26 -5.03 .45 .000

183

UB -.27 -5.03 .102 .007

TI -.15 -2.6 .05 .009

UB x TI -.39 -.017 1.13 .002

intercept -1.59 -4.3 .37 .000

SVA -.53 -6.47 .08 .000

TI -.06 -1.04 .06 .297

SVA x TI -.03 -2.03 .02 .04

intercept -2.33 -5.57 .42 .000

PR -.31 -3.09 .10 .003

TI -.12 -1.99 .06 .046

PR x TI -.04 -2.08 .02 .038

intercept -1.38 -3.59 .39 .000

SE -.55 -6.5 .08 .000

TI -.06 -1.06 .06 .288

SE x TI -.04 -1.9 .02 .054

intercept -1.39 -2.96 .47 .004

SQ -.5 -4.7 .11 .000

TI -.11 -1.9 .06 .061

SQ x TI -.02 -1.59 .014 .114

In order to identify the moderator impact of team identity on the relationship between

charismatic leadership‟s six dimensions and group cohesion, multilevel modelling has

been utilized. Table (5-25) and figure (5-12) demonstrated the interactive results. As can

been seen there are significant interactions for sensitivity to member‟s needs (SMS),

strategic vision and articulation (SVA), sensitivity to the environment (SE) and personal

risk (PR) X team identity. This interaction ranged from .04 to .22, significant at .05 and

01. Thus, it can be argued that the relationship between sensitivity to member‟s needs

(SMS), strategic vision and articulation (SVA), sensitivity to the environment (SE),

personal risk (PR) and group cohesion are stronger when moderated by team identity. In

184

contrast, no significant interactions were found linking unconventional behaviour (UB)

and does not maintain the status quo (SQ) with X team identity. This means that the

relationships between unconventional behaviour (UB) and does not maintain status quo

(SQ) and group cohesion do not change when moderated by team identity.


and Team Identity


Relationship (charismatic leadership subscales X Team Identity) for Group Cohesion


Group Cohesion

intercept 2.8 4.5 .6 .000

SMN .3 2.6 .12 .012

185

TI .26 2.5 .1 .013

SMN x TI .04 1.4 .03 .054

intercept 2.69 3.7 .7 .000

UB .3 2.09 .15 .040

TI .31 3.08 .099 .002

UB x TI .03 1.05 .03 .295

intercept 2.5 3.86 .66 .000

SVA .42 2.87 .14 .005

TI .238 2.3 .1 .022

SVA x TI .1 4.44 .03 .004

intercept 2.9 4.34 .67 .000

PR .28 1.72 .16 .089

TI .29 2.9 .1 .004

PR x TI .22 2.7 .03 .004

intercept 2.14 3.18 .67 .002

SE .5 3.57 .15 .001

TI .21 2.03 .1 .043

SE x TI .1 2.99 .03 .005

intercept 2.07 2.64 .78 .009

SQ .49 2.79 .18 .006

TI .26 2.58 .1 .010

SQ x TI .005 .194 .03 .849

Although the interactive effects of leader prototypicality and team identification on

charismatic leadership (K-C scale) can be seen as a whole, not all this scale‟s factors

involved the researcher‟s multilevel analysis for those factors that independently

interacted with those proposed moderators which were mentioned previously. More

specifically, there are significant interactions that are sensitivity to member‟s needs

186

(SMN), strategic vision and articulation (SVA), personal risk (PR), does not maintain

status quo (SQ) and X leader prototypicality) affecting the relationship between these

subscales and affective organisational commitment.

There are also significant interactions {sensitivity to member needs (SMS), strategic

vision and articulation (SVA), personal risk (PR), sensitivity to the environment (SE)

and does not maintain status quo (SQ) with leader prototypicality} influencing the

relationship between these five subscales and affective organisational commitment.

Finally, {sensitivity to member needs (SMN), strategic vision and articulation (SVA),

Personal risk (PR), sensitivity to the environment (SE) and does not maintain status quo

(SQ) have significant interactions with leader prototypicality} on the relationship with

these dimensions and group cohesion.

Moreover, when multilevel analysis was run to examine the moderator impact of team

identity on the relationship between the six subscales and the three leaders‟

effectiveness, the strongest interactions were found to be between the six dimensions of

charismatic leadership and team identity with regards to the relationship between these

dimensions and group relation conflict {sensitivity to member needs (SMN),

unconventional behaviour (UB), strategic vision and articulation (SVA), personal risk

(PR) and sensitivity to the environment (SE) with team identity}. Whereas, the weakest

interactions were found between the six dimensions of charismatic leadership and team

identification in reference to the relationship with these dimensions and affective

organisational commitment {sensitivity to member needs (SMN) and personal risk (PR)

with team identity}. The same result was obtained when examining the moderator

impact of team identity and the dimensions of charismatic leadership on group cohesion

{sensitivity to member needs (SMN) and personal risk (PR) with team identity}.

5.4. Summary

This chapter has illustrated the results from the study survey involving SABIC, with

data collected from all regions within Saudi Arabia. The survey findings relating to all

187

parts of the survey instrument were analysed and possible indications from the

outcomes have been highlighted.

After nesting the employees (level 1) to their leaders (level 2) analysis of multilevel

modelling were used to identify the relationship between the study concepts and the

study outcomes. The purpose was to identify the effect of interaction between the study

concepts (charismatic leadership and ethical leadership) and the two moderator

variables (leader prototypicality and team identity) on leader effectiveness

(organisational commitment group relation conflict and group cohesion). Support was

found for the hypotheses that assumed a direct relationship between charismatic

leadership behaviour and leader effectiveness (affective organisational commitment,

group relation conflict and group cohesion) when examined as a whole for each of the

subscales, with the exception of the relationship between unconventional behaviours

(UB) and affective organisational commitment. Support was also found for those

hypotheses which supposed a direct relationship between ethical leadership behaviour

and leader effectiveness. There was also support for the hypotheses describing the

moderator impact for leader prototypicality and team identity and the relationship

between charismatic leadership and leader effectiveness and between ethical leadership

and leader effectiveness. However, when examining the moderator impact for leader

prototypicality and team identity on the relationship between charismatic leadership

subscales and leader effectiveness the results were slightly different than when these

moderators were examined for charismatic leadership scale as a whole (see the

discussion in detail on pages 157-171).

The analysis of the quantitative data for this study will be elaborated on further in the

next chapter, which will discuss and present an interpretation of the survey findings.

Table (5-26) presents the hypotheses and the research outcomes. The „conclusion‟

column indicates whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected.

188

Table (5-26): Conclusions Regarding the Hypotheses.

Hypotheses Finding Conclusion


H1a: There is a positive relationship between

charismatic leadership behaviour and

the level of cohesion in culturally

diverse workplaces.

(β = .51, p < 0.001)

Supported

Sensitivity to member‟s needs (β = 0.39, p < 0.001) Supported

Strategic vision and articulation (β = 0.52, p < 0.0010) Supported

Personal risk (β = 0.38, p < 0.01) Supported

Sensitivity to environmental context (β = 0.62, p < 0.0010) Supported

Does not maintain status quo (β = 0.59, p < 0.001) Supported

Unconventional behaviour (β = 0.37, p < 0.024) Supported

H1b: There is a negative relationship between


the level of conflict in culturally diverse

workplaces.

(β = -.57, p < 0.001)

Supported

Sensitivity to member‟s needs (β = -0.42, p < 0.001) Supported

Strategic vision and articulation (β = -0.55, p < 0.000) Supported

Personal risk (β = -0.35, p < 0.001) Supported

Sensitivity to environmental context (β = -0.58, p < 0.000) Supported

Does not maintain status quo (β = -0.85, p < 0.001) Supported

Unconventional behaviour (β = -0.54, p < 0.000) Supported

H1c: There is a positive relationship between


the level of employees’ affective

commitment to their organisation in


(β = 0.85, p < 0.001)

Supported






Unconventional behaviour (β = 0.2 p < 0.231) Rejected

Ethical Leadership

H2a: There is a positive relationship between

ethical leadership and the level of

(β = .37, p < 0.001)

Supported

189

cohesion in culturally diverse

workplaces.


leader ethicality as leadership

behaviour and the level of employees’

commitment to the organisation in


(β = -.48, p < 0.001)

Supported


leader ethicality as leadership

behaviour and the level of employees’

commitment to the organisation in


(β = 1.1, p < 0.001)

Supported

H3: The relationship between leadership behaviours and leader effectiveness will be moderated

by leadership prototypes.

Leadership prototypes and charismatic

leadership (Moderator)

The relationship between charismatic

leadership behaviour and group

cohesion will be moderated by

leadership prototypes.

Charismatic leadership components

(β = . 7, p < .005)

Supported

Sensitivity to member‟s need (β = 0.13, p < 0.000) Supported





Unconventional behaviour (β = 0.04, p < 0.196) Rejected


leadership behaviour and group relation

conflict will be moderated by leadership

prototypes.


(β = -.32, p < .003)

Supported

Sensitivity to member‟s needs (β = --0.097, p < 0.001) Supported


Personal risk (β = -0.039, p < .032) Supported


Does not maintain status quo (β = -0.03, p < 0.036) Supported

190

Unconventional behaviour (β = -0.005, p < 0.767) Rejected


leadership behaviours and affective

commitment will be moderated by

leadership prototypes.


(β = .62, p < .000)

Supported



Personal risk (β = 0.03, p < .253) Rejected



Unconventional behaviour

(β = 0.005, p < 0.865) Rejected

Leadership prototypes and ethical

leadership (Moderator)

The relationship between ethical leadership

behaviour group relation conflicts will

be moderated by leadership prototypes.

(β = -.3, p < .003)

Supported


behaviour and group cohesion and

affective commitment will be

moderated by leadership prototypes.

(β =.3, p < .005)

Supported


behaviour and affective commitment

will be moderated by leadership

prototypes.

(β =.5, p < .005)

Supported

H4: The relationship between leadership behaviours (Charismatic and ethical) and leader

effectiveness will be moderated by team identity

Team’s identity and charismatic leadership

(Moderator)

The relationship between charismatic leadership

behaviour group cohesion will be

moderated by the team‟s identity.


(β =.7, p < .004)

Supported




191


Does not maintain status quo (β = 0.005, p < 0.846) Rejected

Unconventional behaviour

(β = 0.03, p < 0.259) Rejected


leadership behaviour group relation

conflicts will be moderated by team

identity.


(β = -.8, p < 0.05)

Supported

Sensitivity to member‟s needs (β = -0.03, p < 0.001) Supported

Strategic vision and articulation (β = -0.03, p < 0.04) Supported

Personal risk (β = -0.04, p < 0.038) Supported


Does not maintain status quo (β = -0.02, p < 0.114) Reject

Unconventional behaviour (β = -0.39, p < 0.002) Supported


leadership behaviour and affective

commitment will be moderated by team‟s

identity.


(β =.6, p < 0.005)

Supported


Strategic vision and articulation (β = 0. 4, p < 0.002) Supported



Does not maintain status quo (β = 0.2, p < 0.308) Rejected

Unconventional behaviour (β = 0.013, p < 0.638) Rejected

Team’s identity and ethical leadership

(Moderator)


behaviour and group cohesion will be

moderated by team‟s identity.

(β = .51, p < .000)

Supported


behaviour and group relation conflict will

be moderated by team‟s identity.

(β = -.5, p < .001)

Supported


behaviour and affective commitment will

be moderated by team‟s identity.

(β =.6, p < .000)

Supported

192

CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION

6.1 Introduction

The recognition of the importance of the impact of leaders on organisations is being

reflected by increasing interest in the leadership role amongst researchers.

Correspondingly, the purpose of this study is to provide empirical evidence of the role

of leadership behaviour on the effectiveness of that leadership in culturally diverse work

environments. In addition, it examines the moderating impact of social identity theory

(team identity and leader prototypicality) in this relationship. In order to lend support to

the existing body of knowledge in this field, this chapter offers a comprehensive

discussion and interpretation of results; the findings of the quantitative study data were

presented in chapters four and five. Furthermore, it offers quantitative results by

scrutinising and evaluating relevant literature. The model figure (6.1) presented below

aims to investigate these relationships and the moderating impact of social identity on

these relations.

Figure: (6.1): Study Model

193

Although both leadership behaviour and social identity have been separately linked to

positive organisational outcomes in a range of situations, previous research has not fully

evaluated their effect on leaders‟ effectiveness. For example; charismatic leadership, as

a certain collection of leadership behaviour (sensitivity to the environment context,

strategic vision and articulation, sensitivity to member needs, personal risk,

unconventional behaviour and does not maintain status quo), has been confirmed to be

effective regarding organisational outcomes as a result of inspiring followers and

motivating them with regards to values (Reave, 2005). Other researchers emphasise the

importance of team identity, in terms of leaders‟ fostering of group prototypicality

interaction, as key factor impacting leadership effectiveness (Hogg, 2001, Cicero et al.,

2008). The contribution of this thesis is to integrate these two important concepts, to

identify both their independent and interactive effects with the aim of reliably predicting

leaders‟ effectiveness. These results expand on existing literature in the leadership field

by revealing that charismatic and ethical leadership and social identity (leader

prototypicality and team identity) are contingently, rather than independently, related to

leadership effectiveness.

This chapter provides a comprehensive discussion of the analysis of the results and

findings of quantitative data presented in Chapter Six with investigation of relevant

literature. This chapter divided into two main parts the first part discusses charismatic

leadership and leader effectiveness and the moderator role of social identity theory

(SIT) result, and the second part discusses the results related to ethical leadership and

leader effectiveness and the moderator role of SIT.

6.2. Charismatic Leadership and Leader Effectiveness and the Moderator Role of

SIT

As illustrated previously, there is little scientifically evidence published on how the role

of charismatic leadership influences leadership effectiveness (defined here as low

conflict relations, high team cohesion and high affective commitment) and the role of

social identity (leader prototypicality and team identification) as a moderator of these

relationships. This study focuses on those leadership behaviours that assist multicultural

organisations in overcoming culturally diverse challenges successfully, based on an

194

integration of these behaviours with leader prototypicality and team identity.

The initial concern of this study was to identify what leaders in culturally diverse work

places are perceived to do; specifically in terms of behaviour that may create or enhance

cohesion amongst teams, improve affective commitment and reduce conflict in group

relationships. It was found that teams which perceive their leaders to exhibit charismatic

leadership behaviours have less internal conflict, experience more cohesion as a team

and felt more committed to their organisation than those that do not perceive their leader

exhibit charismatic leadership behaviours. This result is consistent with previous

research into leadership in organisations, including empirical studies that emphasise the

importance of exhibiting more charismatic leadership behaviours in order to obtain team

cohesion (Jiang et al., 2001; Thite, 2000 and Zaccaro et al., 2001, Wang et al., 2005,

Wendt et al., 2009). Other studies also highlight the importance of charismatic

leadership behaviours in relation to employees‟ organisational commitment (e.g.

Rowden, 2000; Akroyd et al., 2007, 2009; Bamberg and Akroyd, 2008; Shastri, Mishra

and Sinha, 2010).

Essentially, team cohesion and affective commitment have a direct effect on employee

performance and attitude. Thus, if leaders are selected on the basis of the possession of

charismatic leadership skills they should enhance team cohesion and result in an

affective commitment. This analysis confirms previous research in this field, which has

pointed to job satisfaction and group cohesion as significant measures of team

effectiveness (e.g. Campion et al., 1993; Hyatt and Ruddy,1997; Sundstrom, De Meuse

and Futrell, 1990). Additionally, recent research has established a strong correlation

between team cohesion and a team‟s perception of its own performance (Chang and

Bordia, 2001; Jung and Sosik, 2002). Tekleab et al.‟s (2009) study revealed that

members of teams who have high levels of cohesion were more satisfied and were more

focused on remaining with the team, than those whose team cohesion was lower. It can

also be stated that when organisations identify organisational commitment as indicators

of acceptance and belief in organisational goals and values, they typically become more

interested in employee loyalty.

With respect to the relationship between internal group conflict and charismatic

195

leadership behaviours, to the author‟s knowledge, no targeted empirical study that has

been conducted to date. The results of this study fill the gap left by prior research as

they clearly reveal a correlation between perceived leadership behaviour and conflict in

group relations. Thus, the theoretical work into leadership and organisations supports

this finding by suggesting that charismatic leaders are appropriately positioned to

reduce conflict in workplace relations and minimise aggression (Bass, 1985, 1990;

Dionne et al., 2003; Hepworth and Towler, 2004; Mohammed and Angell, 2004).

It is likely, then, that leaders who exhibit charismatic leadership characteristics will be

able to circumvent the negative influence of relationship conflict in diverse teams and

reduce the negative consequences of relationship conflict. This point of view is

supported theoretically by Edmondson and Smith who asserted that reducing

relationship conflict, especially when it engages crucial subjects facing the team,

“served the decision-making process, helping to deepen the team‟s understanding of

each other and of the issues, and helping the team make progress.” (2006, p. 19).

Tekleab et al., (2009) also supports this conclusion, stating that when teams overcome

conflict effectively, trust will be developed between team members, which in turn lead

to higher levels of team cohesion, perceived team performance, satisfaction with the

team, team viability and better team effectiveness.

In summary, this study's findings supported the prediction that charismatic leadership

was related to mitigating conflict in groups, assisting group cohesion and in improving

commitment and attachment to an organisation. Thus, this supports the view that

leadership is a process intrinsically linked to group membership and related processes

(Hogg et al., 2003; van Knippenberg and Van Shie, 2000).

It is widely argued that organisations with employees that have a low level of

relationship conflict, good cohesion and affective commitment to their goals and beliefs

will remain in the workforce longer, which reduces costs associated with employee

turnover and replacement. These costs are derived from several different sources,

including recruitment and selection of replacements, administrative team expenses,

advertising, screening and interviewing and applicant testing assessment (International

Survey Research, n.d.; Frank, Finnegan and Taylor, 2004). This is consistent with

previous research in this area that has argued that managing employees commitment to

196

organisations is a critical element of the leadership process as it has been found to

decrease turnover (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990, Zhou, 2009), raise contributions to

knowledge (Alvesson, 2001), promote organisational citizenship type behaviours

(Meyer et al., 2002) and decrease absenteeism (Eby et al., 1999).

Notably, all these studies examined these relationships in homogeneous workplaces

whereas this study examines this relationship in culturally diverse work place and has

obtained the same result. Therefore, multi cultural organisations are interested in

developing and improving managerial competences. Specifically the charismatic

leadership behaviour of leaders increases their effectiveness and organisational practices

and performance.

However, there is growing empirical evidence based on social identity theory that the

effectiveness of specific leadership behaviours will depend on a follower‟s identity

level- “individual/collective” (e.g. Conger, Kanungo, and Menon, 2000; Shamir et al.,

1993). Identity level, in turn, can determine the effectiveness of leadership processes:

Yorges et al., 1999 state that, “...charismatic and transformational leadership derives

part of its effectiveness from its effect on follower identification with the collective” (p.

831). Thus, it can be argued that charismatic leadership will be more effective when the

employees‟ self identity is at the collective level. Therefore, by collating the body of

leadership effectiveness research, the purpose of this study was to extend previous

research on the relationship between leadership behaviour and leader effectiveness.

Specifically, it is argued that the value of the relationship between leadership behaviour

and leader effectiveness in reducing conflict in group relations, promoting group

cohesion and affective commitment can be explained via follower identification at the

collective level.

This study‟s results clearly indicate that team identity moderates the relationship

between charismatic leadership and the three indicators of leaders‟ effectiveness (low

relationship conflict, high level of team cohesion and effective commitment to the

organisation). This finding is consistent with most recent studies in this area, which is

regarded as evidence that charismatic leadership derives its effectiveness from the

impact of followers‟ identification with the collective (Shamir et al. 1993; Choi and

197

Mai-Dalton, 1998; Yorges, Weiss and Strickland, 1999; Conger and Kanungo, 1987; by

Paul et al., 2001; Kark et al., 2003). Social identification and collective self-construal

researchers have argued that follower self-identification is regarded as a key determiner

of leadership effectiveness (Hogg, 2001; Hogg and van Knippenberg, 2003; Lord and

Brown, 2004; Lord et al., 1999; van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003).

Therefore, this study suggests that a charismatic leadership style in general enhanced

followers‟ interest in the collective and, consequently, levels of group relationship

conflict were reduced and the level of group cohesion and affective commitment were

increased. Furthermore, the results in this study add to previous research findings by

providing evidence that team identification moderates the relationship between

charismatic leadership and leader effectiveness; defined in this study as low group

relationship conflict, a high level of team cohesion and effective organisational

commitment. These findings imply that although this study reveals that charismatic

leadership has a positive effect on leader effectiveness, a team with a strong team

identity, combined with charismatic leadership behaviours, fosters this effectiveness.

Accordingly, it can be argued that lack of shared identity amongst the group members

may affect leadership effectiveness. This argument is supported by Reicher et al. (2005)

who emphasised that leadership is dependent upon the existence of a shared social

identity. Without such an identity there is nothing to attach leaders and followers

together, there is no harmony for a leader to represent and therefore leadership is

unattainable. Hence, those who are on high in individualism identity are more

committed to their individual goals and interests rather committed to group goals and

interests (Ellemers et al., 1999).

This study also proposed that a leader‟s prototypicality of the collective moderates the

relationship between leadership behaviours and leader effectiveness. According to

scholars in social identity as pertaining to leadership, group member are more likely to

trust that a leader who is prototypical supports the group‟s best interests, which in turn,

improves leadership effectiveness (Giessner et. al., 2003 and van Knippenberg et. al.,

2005). Consequently, this study result indicates that leader prototypicality is a

significant predictor of leader effectiveness. Therefore, it can be argued that a team

member in SABIC is more likely to be attracted to leaders who are prototypical and

198

most representative of the collective‟s social identity. Put another way, the study

showed that the effects of charismatic leader behaviour on leadership effectiveness were

stronger for leaders who were more prototypical for the group than for leaders who were

less prototypical of the group. As far as the author is aware there is no empirical study

examining; the moderating role of leader prototypicality, and the relationship between

charismatic leadership behaviours, and the three indicators of leader effectiveness under

review. This study‟s results are partly supported in previous literature regarding social

identity theories of leadership, in respect to the role of leader prototypicality on that

leader‟s effectiveness (e.g. Chrobot-Mason et al., 2007; van Knippenberg, et al., 2004;

Brodbeck et al., 2000; Trice and Beyer, 1993; Turner, 1998; Widmeyer and Williams,

1991). The studies listed illustrated that leader prototypicality is a crucial determinant of

perceived leader effectiveness. Scholars in the field of social identity, e.g. Hogg, 1992;

van Knippenberg, Lossie and Wilke, 1994, have argued that leaders that are more

representative of the team are more influential and as a result more attractive.

According to the study results it can be argued that leader effectiveness can be enhanced

by a leader who is more representative of group members. This notion is supported in

the relevant literature; e.g. Hogg (2001) stated that through leader prototype and

support, a leader increases his/her power to influence the group‟s behaviour and

attitude. In a conflict situation, for example, social identity becomes more significant

(Tsui and Gutek, 1999) and members are then most likely to confer leadership on

whosoever is perceived to be most prototypical of their group (Fielding and Hogg,

1997; Hogg, 1996). Hence if charismatic leadership is the prototype of the team

members in SABIC, leadership effectiveness is increased. It can be argued that to

increase leader effectiveness, SABIC should select people whose prototype is that of a

charismatic leader. Thus, team leaders have the potential, through role-modelling, to

influence their teams to behave positively and constructively (Williams et al., 2010).

However, in situations where followers‟ values differ from their leaders, they do not

experience pride on their leaders‟ behalf (Felfe and Schyns, 2010).

Closer analysis of the sub dimensions of charismatic leadership has revealed a

significant positive relationship between five of the six charismatic leadership

subscales; (namely, sensitivity to member‟s needs, vision and articulation,

199

environmental sensitivity, personal risk and failure to maintain the status quo) and

group relation conflict, group cohesion and affective organisational commitment,

indicating that charismatic leadership‟s five dimensions are significant predictors of

employee‟s group relation conflict, group cohesion and affective organisational

commitment. Whereas, there is no significant variation between unconventional

behaviours (UB) and group relationship conflicts, group cohesion and affective

organisational commitment. The following part discuses this result further.

The results of this research have confirmed that sensitivity to one‟s environment (SE) is

an important behaviour that is perceived by followers; the SABIC employees‟ result

found that under investigation asserted that a leader with sensitivity to environmental

behaviour would decrease group relationship conflict and increase cohesion, and thus,

affective commitment to the organisation. Sensitivity to the environment as defined by

Conger and Kanungo (1998) is behaviour that followers perceive when leaders identify

new environmental challenges and opportunities by gathering external and internal

information to evaluate the environmental circumstances in which the organisation

operates accurately. Leader‟s evaluation of followers‟ skills, abilities, and needs is

regarded as an essential factor of internal environmental analysis. As emphasised by

Conger (1989); when subordinates recognise that leaders have a deep empathy with

their views and their needs, they are willing to internalise such leaders‟ visions, thus

leader and follower will exist in a symbiotic relationship. One possible explanation for

this finding may be observed through applying Hofstede‟s (1980-2001) extensive

research into national cultures. He indicated that perceiving one‟s actual motivation in

terms of a subordinate‟s views and needs is regarded as feature of collectivist societies.

Thus, it is not a surprise that in the SABIC sample, which was considered as based on a

society, leaders‟ sensitivity to the environment is an expected behaviour. It was also

perceived by followers that this behaviour in their leaders relates to their relationships in

terms of conflict, cohesion and affective commitment to the organisation. This result

can be justified by Bass‟ (1990) study in Mexico, which indicated that charismatic

leadership would definitely be effective in collectivist cultures. This was supported by

Pillai‟s (1998) finding, who concluded that charismatic leadership behaviours related

positively with societies that have a collectivist orientation.

In circumstances where leaders do not properly assess either limitations in the

200

environment or the resources available, their approaches may be ineffective. This is why

it is crucial for leaders to make realistic assessments to effect successful changes within

the organisation; especially as charisma is linked to success and therefore by extension

to sensitivity toward the environment.

The results of this research confirmed that sensitivity to member needs (SMN) is an

important behaviour perceived by followers. Indeed, the SABIC‟s employees under

investigation asserted that the behaviour of leaders with sensitivity to member‟s needs

will decrease conflict in group relations and increase cohesion and affective

commitment to the organisation. The sensitivity to member needs scale was developed

by Conger and Kanungo (1998) to measure the leader‟s ability to show sensitivity to the

needs and feelings of organisational members. By knowing their followers‟ needs, a

leader readily develops the ability to articulate their vision in such a way that it meets

the needs of the followers and prompts the followers to renounce their personal needs in

favour of the needs of the collective (Shamir et al., 1993). An important part of this

dimension is the leaders‟ ability to perceive the capabilities and skills of other

organisational members. Additionally, this can be used to measure the leader‟s

expression of personal concern for the feelings of other members in the organisation.

A possible explanation of these results can be found by consulting Hofstede (2001),

who argued that sensitivity to member‟s needs is a feminine and collectivistic

behaviour. These leadership behaviours include showing sensitivity and often

expressing personal concern for the needs and feelings of other members in the

organisation. In contrast, leaders in individualistic societies put their own interests

ahead of their followers‟ needs, focusing on maintaining their own interests and

dominance over others (Popper, 1999, 2002; Rosenthal and Pittinsky, 2006). This style

of leadership is likely to create centralised authoritarian structures that maintain one-

way communication, show much less warmth and empathy and have recourse to

convenient external moral standards that suit their self-interest. This style of leadership

tends to have a negative influence on leaders‟ effectiveness, which in turn leads to the

production of followers with a self-perception (Kacmar and Ferris, 1991; Johnston,

2000; Howell and Shamir, 2005). This research contributes to knowledge by presenting

empirical evidence of the importance of leader sensitivity to member‟s needs (SMN)

increasing leader‟s effectiveness.

201

The results of this subscale revealed that strategic vision and articulation (SVA) was an

important behaviour perceived by respondents of SABIC to reduce group conflict and

promote team cohesion and affective commitment. Conger and Kanungo (1998)

described strategic vision and articulation as comprising the leader‟s ability to

accomplish considerable changes in the present situation by creating idealised goals.

These goals as supported by the follower should be visible and meet their needs as well

as the superior goals of the organisation.

As revealed by the demographic analysis for this study, roughly two thirds of the

sample is from Arab countries, India, the Philippines, Malaysia and China, which are

regarded as having a high power distance rating (Hofstede, 2009). Therefore, one

possible explanation of this finding is that followers‟ perception of strategic vision and

articulation is related to power distance (Hofstede, 1991). This assumption is further

asserted in Hofstede (2001), wherein power distance and uncertainty avoidance, are

argued as valuable for explaining behaviours in organisations. The power distance index

measures the extent to which a culture accepts inequalities between various groups

within that culture, such as social classes and organisational hierarchy.

According to the discussion above, two thirds of the sample are considered high in

terms of power distance dimensions and therefore they exhibit some of the salient

values and behaviours that are typical of societies with a high power distance index;

such as authority based on traditions, followers believe leaders are a different type,

people who hold the power are entitled to privileges, leaders depend on official rules

and information is controlled by hierarchy, among other levels (Hofstede, 2001). These

values and behaviours produced a reduced feeling of empowerment; autocratic

leadership is typified by poor communication (Jayasingam, 2009; Angus-Leppan and

Metcalf, 2010). In a “traditional” hierarchical organisational structure, for example, the

employees mostly communicate with their immediate managers and with their

immediate co-workers. Structuring organisations in this way limits information flow

and obstructs the sharing and transfer of knowledge throughout all the organisational

levels (see Erez, 2010; Vorakulpipat et al., 2010; Friesl, et al., 2011). Therefore, this

study adds evidence to that of other scholars in this field who describe the crucial role

of a leader‟s strategic vision and articulation in regards to enhancing their effectiveness.

202

Charismatic leadership personal risk behaviours (PR) were an important behaviour

perceived by respondents of SABIC with regards to reducing group conflict and

promoting team cohesion and affective commitment. Leaders, who were involved in

actions that required engagement in substantial personal risk with potential for self-

sacrifice, as well as sustained high personal costs for the advantage to the organisation,

were supposed to be highly successful agents of change by subordinates. This finding is

consistent with Conger and Kanungo‟s (1998) assertion that leaders must build a sense

of trust among their followers through personal example and risk taking. Such

exemplary willingness to court personal risks may include risking personal finances,

tenure in the job itself, and may also involve the probability of losing power, authority,

or position in the organisation. The more leaders exhibit that they are willing to incur

high personal costs for the good of the group‟s shared vision; the more followers will

believe them to be worthy of complete trust through organisational development.

Additional support has been provided by van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg‟s four

studies from 2005; these revealed that leader self-sacrifice contributes to leadership

effectiveness, including willingness to engage in organisational change, perceptions of

effectiveness and levels of follower performance.

The conception of leaders sacrificing their time and resources in the pursuit of a goal is

also related to Hofstede‟s interpretation of individualism vs. collectivism. As discussed

previously, the sample for this study is regarded as having a collectivist orientation,

because more than two thirds of the study sample in Hofstede‟s study were collective

nations; i.e. the Middle East, Pakistan, Indian and the Philippines. This consistency

could explain the significance of the relationship found between charismatic leadership,

personal risk and an employees‟ commitment to an organisation.

However, careful considerations should be observed when concluding that being self

sacrificial is always a certain path to leadership effectiveness and positive follower

assessment. Thus, there may be some situations in which a leader‟s self-sacrifice may

create a modest additional positive impact on followers and the organisation; however,

sacrifice may also have significant negative results for the leader him/herself.

Apparently, then, leaders should not be extremely self-sacrificial and there is no

203

requisite to continually go beyond their self-interest (Avolio and Locke, 2002). To a

certain extent, the authors recommended that leaders must be capable and willing to

demonstrate self-sacrificing behaviour occasionally. This study adds evidence to this

knowledge and empirical confirmation the importance of the personal risk taken by

leader‟s to enhance their effectiveness.

Across all charismatic leadership behaviour dimensions, there is a drive not to maintain

the status quo (SQ) regarding the strongest relationship to group relations conflict,

group cohesion and effective organisational commitment in SABIC. This means that

leaders desire to transform, rather than simply to maintain. They recover failing

companies, develop new products and modernise processes. Scholars in the field of

organisational development have conducted a considerable amount of research

supporting change as a possible solution for organisational achievement and survival

(Lines, 2004; Pfeffer, 1994; Piderit, 2000; Stace and Dunphy, 1991). Conger and

Kanungo (1998) stated that “charismatic leaders are always seen as organisational

reformers or entrepreneurs. In other words, they act as agents of innovative and radical

change” (p. 53). Conger and Kanungo (1998) and Levay (2010) mentioned that

sensitivity to identifying a shortage within the existing environment is regarded as one

of the charismatic leadership behaviours that distinguish a given leader from any other

leadership style. Mounting evidence suggests that altering the characteristics and

behaviours associated with individual leaders can impact on the success or failure of

initiatives to promote organisational change (e.g. Seyranian and Bligh, 2008; Bommer,

Rich and Rubin, 2005; Waldman, Javidan and Varella, 2004). Thus, in most cases, it is

important to provide employees with sufficient information regarding the necessity,

purpose behind, and implications of any change to improve their ability to manage it.

When employees recognise the importance and value of a change and are willing to

support the initiative for change, it is more likely to attain employees‟ commitment

(Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002). The result of this study suggests that when SABIC

members perceived that their leader does not maintain the status quo they exhibit low

conflict relations, high cohesion and feel more affective commitment to their

organisation.

Additionally, it has been suggested that a key reason behind the failure of some

organisation‟s to change and innovate resides with their leaders. Sometimes leaders‟

204

lack the necessary skills, which hinders successful implementation. As a consequence,

leaders that are unable to anticipate, adapt to, and execute change successfully will fail

to increase their long-term achievability (Conner, 1992; Cummings and Worley, 2005;

Pfeffer, 2005). This failure will cause operational and financial difficulties to

organisations. On the other hand, changes in the status quo can cause concerns and/or

challenge the interests of powerful groups; therefore creating a crisis point, which can in

turn represent fertile ground for charismatic leadership (Eckardt, 2003; Marcus, 1995;

Mughan, Bean and McAllister, 2003; Levay, 2010). In such circumstances, a leader

who proposes a convincing and inspirational vision of how to resist change and

maintain the status quo can become the object of charismatic attributions. The leader's

influence on maintaining the status quo is thus exerted through charismatic processes.

Charismatic leadership is embodied in resistance to change and involves the defence of

the status quo; it begins when a comparatively powerful group perceives progress or

future change as a threat to their own group identity and interests (Levay, 2010).

Nevertheless, this could lead to destabilisation for SABIC. In this regard, this empirical

study, therefore contributes to the leadership field by emphasising the personal risk to

leaders as a crucial behaviour that promotes leader‟s effectiveness.

Thus far, there is no primary factor linking unconventional behaviours (UB) and

affective organisational commitment, which has modest relations with a team‟s

cohesion and a modest negative relationship that is conferred by group relations. Conger

and Kanungo‟s (1998) unconventional behaviour scale measures the leader‟s

encouragement to follow industrial and risky pathways and a route of action to achieve

organisational goals. It includes the use of non-traditional or counter-cultural means that

may surprise other organisational followers. One possible explanation of this result was

advanced by Hofstede (2001) who hypothesised that national culture‟s uncertainty

avoidance is linked to unconventional behaviour as described by charismatic leadership

models. Uncertainty avoidance is used to express how societies with low uncertainty

avoidance are tolerant to uncertainty, have a low requirement for formal regulations, are

risk takers and acknowledge normal organisational conflicts, whereas societies with

high uncertainty avoidance have a low tolerance for uncertainty, require formal

regulations, and take risks with less regularity. Half of this current study sample is taken

from SABIC‟s employees from countries high on uncertainty avoidance; such as the

Middle East and Pakistan, Latin America, Japan and South Africa, whereas the other

205

half are uncertainty avoidance tolerance, such as, China, Southeast Asia, India.

According to Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) countries including Central and Latin

Europe, Latin America, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Middle East and Pakistan have a

high level of uncertainty avoidance. It is generally the case that uncertainty tolerant

societies readily and quickly adjust to change and are willing to involve themselves in

trade with foreigners should the opportunity present itself. As a result their attitude and

social interactions can be classified as relaxed. According to Hofstede (2005) these

countries who are uncertainty tolerant are China and Southeast Asia, Scandinavia,

Anglo-Saxon countries and India.

According to Conger and Kanungo (1998), unconventional behaviour is one element of

the final stage of charismatic leadership (see chapter 3). It could be assumed that leaders

themselves do not need to complete all three stages (here, only unconventional

behaviour) effectively to promote cultural diversity effectively in first level supervision.

In contrast, leaders who are stuck in stage (1) have not yet demonstrated all behaviours

necessary for motivating their followers to commit to their organisation and are more

conversant with their group members.

The pattern of results suggests that the first and the second stages of charismatic

leadership (excepting unconventional behaviour) were essential to generating effective

leadership qualities. In contrast to this theoretical assumption, the third stage of

charismatic leadership was not important, meaning that the use of non-traditional very

unique behaviour (unconventional behaviour) was not as important as other forms of

charismatic leadership behaviour. An explanation for the non significant relationship

between unconventional behaviour and leader effectiveness might be the context, as it is

a potential moderator between leadership and effectiveness. For instance, it was

suggested that charismatic leadership is more effective in times of crisis than in times of

comparative stability (Pillai and Meindl, 1998) whereas stable organisations scarcely

support the emergence of charismatic leadership (Hinkin and Tracey, 1999). Thus, it

can be argued that SABIC, according to the present study, is not currently in a condition

of crisis, thus it may not require a measure of unconventional and non-traditional

behaviour in their leaders. Another explanation comes from Conger and Kanungo

(1998) asserted a link between vision, implementation of new objectives and employee

206

creativity. It is possible that at SABIC this is not important, even the positive link cited

by Rowold and Laukamp (2009) between unconventional behaviour and profit was not

found to be significant in the investigation of SABIC employees. An explanation of this

is that this study investigates this relationship at the team level (first-level), in which the

leader more concerned with daily tasks rather than creating a long-term vision of the

future (Rowold and Laukamp, 2009). Thus, this study can be seen as evidence that

unconventional behaviour is not important as leadership behaviour at the team level

(first-level) as the remaining five components of charismatic leadership described in the

Conger and Kanungo model.

Further investigations have been carried out so as to identify the moderating impact of

team identity on relations between each subscale of charismatic leadership behaviours

and leader‟s effectiveness. When multilevel analysis involved examination of the

moderating impact of team identity on the relationship between six charismatic

subscales and the three indicators leaders‟ effectiveness; the strongest interactions were

found between four of the six dimensions of charismatic leadership and team identity in

relation to these dimensions and leader effectiveness (group relations conflict, group

cohesion and effective commitment) sensitivity to member needs (SMS), strategic

vision and articulation (SVA), personal risk (PR) and sensitivity to the environment

(SE). Whereas no interaction was found between two of the charismatic leadership

behaviours and group relations conflict, group cohesion and affective commitment,

namely, unconventional behaviour (UB), since the direct effect result also revealed no

significant relationship between unconventional behaviour and leader‟s effectiveness.

Although, from the direct effect result it was revealed that there is a significant

relationship between status quo and leader‟s effectiveness, although no interaction was

found between does not maintain status quo (SQ) and team identity.

In general, as the results reveal team identity has the effect of a moderator on the

relationship between charismatic leadership subscales and the leader‟s effectiveness. A

possible explanation of the non significant interactions of team identity and

unconventional behaviour (UB) does not maintain the status quo (SQ) in employee

attitude and behaviour may relate to Hofstede‟s national culture, uncertainty avoidance

(2001). This leads to the avoidance of any circumstances that might cause uncertainty

207

for SABIC people; even though SABIC employees feel strong affective ties towards

their group. As Hofstede (2001) illustrated this is in contrast with people exhibiting low

uncertainty avoidance. High uncertainty avoidance is characterised by a conservative

attitude, intolerance of diversity and unwillingness to welcome new experiences or

alternative lifestyles. Such an attitude threatens the organisation‟s potential for

innovation and creativity to a significant extent (Hermans and Dimaggio, 2007). Thus,

the current study how illustrates interactions between team identity and unconventional

behaviour (UB) and does not maintain that the status quo (SQ) failed to enhance the

relationship between these leadership behaviour (UB and SQ) and SABIC‟s employees‟

attitudes and behaviours. Accordingly, this study offer empirical evidence that four

components of Conger and Kanungo model namely, strategic vision and articulation,

sensitivity to the environment and sensitivity to member needs, are become more

stronger when combine with team identity to enhance leader‟s effectiveness.

This study also showed that leader prototypicality acts as a moderating influence on the

relationships between charismatic subscale leadership behaviours and the three

indicators of leader‟s effectiveness. The multilevel result revealed that leader

prototypicality is a moderator for the relationship between charismatic leadership

behaviour subscales and leader effectiveness. Although, leader prototypicality has a

positive effect on all three indicators of leader effectiveness, this variable did not

moderate the relationship between other charismatic behaviour subscales and leader

effectiveness. Specifically, leader prototypicality did not moderate the relationship

between unconventional behaviour (UB) and group relation conflict, group cohesion

and affective organisational commitment. This result supports what has been argued

previously regarding those cultures with high uncertainty avoidance characteristics

(Hofstede, 2001). Although leaders represent their group members, employees with

high uncertainty avoidance likely to seek to avoid ambiguous situations and require

official rules. For this reason, employees feel threatened by uncertain or unknown

situations and they also resist change and worry about future. This study presents

empirical evidence that leader prototypicality did not strengthen the relationship

between unconventional behaviour and leader effectiveness.

Additionally, leader prototypicality was not found to moderate the relationship between

leaders‟ personal risk behaviour (PR) and affective organisational commitment. This

208

result in line with van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg‟s (2005) experimental study

which revealed that productivity levels, effectiveness ratings, and perceived leader

prototypicality and charisma were positively affected by leader self-sacrifice, especially

when leader prototypicality was low. Another study from a social-identity analysis of

leadership (Hogg and van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003)

involved a series of four studies that generate consistent evidence for confirming this

result. The four studies revealed that effects of leader self-sacrificing behaviour on

leadership effectiveness were stronger with those leaders who were less prototypical

than for those leaders who were more prototypical. This study offers empirical evidence

that leader prototypicality did not strengthen the relationship between personal risk

behaviour and leader effectiveness.

6.4. Ethical Leadership and Leader Effectiveness and the Moderator Role of SIT

With regard to the relationship between ethical leadership and the leaders effectiveness

(as has been defined in this study as low group conflict, high level of cohesion and

affective organisational commitment), the following section will discuss these

relationships in details. In line with previous research, and as proposed, a relationship

between ethical leadership and perceived leader effectiveness was observed (Brown

Treviño and Harrison, 2005; Kalshoven and Den Hartog, 2009). Ethical leader

behaviour is expected to have direct positive effects on the attitudes and ethically

appropriate conduct of employees (Brow, Treviño and Harrison, 2005; Kanungo, 2001;

Treviño, Brown and Hartman, 2003), yet, the empirical knowledge of the effectiveness

of ethical leadership is still limited. Very few studies have investigated the relationship

between ethical leadership and leaders‟ effectiveness. For example, Brown et al. (2005)

and De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008) found positive correlations between ethical

leadership and perceived leader effectiveness. Hence, the present study results

contribute to this research, by producing a clearer picture of leadership behaviour and its

effect on followers‟ attitudes and behaviours.

With regard to the relationship between ethical leadership and group conflict relations,

the results revealed that ethical leadership behaviours related negatively with group

relation conflict. Therefore, support was found for H2a which predicted the significant

relationship between ethical leadership behaviours and leader effectiveness. The results

helped by starting to clarify how ethical leaders affect follower‟s behaviour and

209

attitudes. In other words, this results support the importance of ethical leaders with

regards to leader‟s effectiveness as noted by Kalshoven and Den Hartog (2009). This

study also adds to conflict literature in terms of the author‟s knowledge; ethical

leadership behaviour and conflict have never been linked before. Therefore, this study

contributes to the literature and provides evidence factors that can be identified as

having a potential positive impact on employees‟ behaviour and attitudes in the work

place, particularly in terms of reducing relationship conflict between group members.

It was also found that ethical leadership was positively related to group cohesion; in the

study it was assumed that those employees who perceived their leaders exhibited ethical

leadership behaviours were more cohesive than those that did not. There is evidence in

the literature that supports a link between group cohesion and perceived fairness as an

essential form of ethical leadership behaviours. Researchers consider leaders‟

behaviours, such as fairness, as playing an important role in perceptions of ethical

leadership (Treviño et al., 2000, 2003, Kalshoven et al., 2011). Chansler et al. (2003), in

their study into self-managing work teams (SMWT), concluded that the fair treatment of

team members was one of the most important contributors to group cohesion.

All in all, this study proposed an extended role for ethical leadership in terms of

employees‟ affective organisational commitment. The result reveals that ethical

leadership was most significantly related to affective organisational commitment. As

this study supposed, employees perceive their leader demonstrates ethical leadership

behaviours and feel more committed to their organisation than those that do not

perceive that their leader demonstrates ethical leadership behaviours. These results can

be viewed in conjunction with the increase in studies that explore the relationship

between ethical leadership behaviours and employees‟ attitude, including affective

organisational commitment (Lind and Tyler, 1988; Tyler and Lind, 1992; Kalshovern et

al., 2011).

According to the study results it could be argued that leaders‟ ethical behaviour is an

important factor to achieve group cohesion. Group cohesion has a positive effect on

employee well being and capability. As indicated by Tekleab et al. (2009), team

members who have a high level of cohesion were more satisfied and were more willing

to stay with the team than those who have a low level of team cohesion. Additionally, it

210

can be argued that the more leaders that have ethical behaviours the more employees

have low conflict relations. This is in line with previous literature (e.g. Cropanzano and

Baron, 1991; Crosby, 1976; Mark and Folger, 1984; Tatum and Eberlin, 2008), which

has also emphasised the importance of addressing issues of fairness and just treatment

of employees to reduce group conflict in an organisation. Which in turn, negatively

impact on team‟s effectiveness and job satisfaction and a potential increase in turnover

(Spector and Jex, 1998). Therefore, most research efforts have concentrated on

preventing relationship conflict in teams. Based on the results it can also be argued that

ethical leadership behaviour; such as fair treatment, honesty, integrity and justice

enhance the feeling of being treated as full members of SABIC, which in turn reinforces

the emotional bond amongst the group and/or the organisation. Feeling like full

members of the organisation is also likely to persuade employees to embrace behaviours

that are beneficial to the organisation‟s performance (De Cremer and van Knippenberg,

2002; Tepper and Taylore, 2003).

Ethical leadership behaviour provides advantages, such as unselfish behaviour creating an

encouraging work environment, enhanced coordination, and improved individual and group

productivity (Podsakoff, et al., 2000). In contrast, unethical behaviour reduces morale

leading to serious financial implications for organisations (Bennett and Robinson, 2000;

Dunlop and Lee, 2004). Gallagher and Tschudin (2010) added that “The most extreme

examples of unethical leadership have resulted in injustice, discrimination and even

genocide” (p. 225). For that reason, organisations are require to consider the issue of

ethical behaviour more critically if they wish to obtain better performance and loyalty

from their employees.

Given the established relationship between ethical leadership behaviour and leader

effectiveness, the present study also proceeded to investigate moderators of this

relationship. The investigation of situational factors was based on the assumption that

the relationship between ethical leadership and leader effectiveness will be enhanced

when interactions involve awareness of collective identity and there is leader

prototypicality. In support of predictions, the relationship between ethical leadership

and leader effectiveness was moderated by the degree of team identification and leader

prototypicality. Although there is substantial research in the area of organisational

justice (e.g. Konovsky, 2000; Walumbwa, 2009; De Coninck, 2010), ethical behaviours

such as fairness (justice) have received modest consideration as a characteristic of

211

leadership. To the author‟s knowledge, there is no empirical study examining the

moderator‟s role in terms of team identity and leader prototypicality on the relationship

between ethical leadership behaviour and leader effectiveness in the culturally diverse

workplaces. Theoretically, scholars have suggested that social identity plays a critical

role in terms of leader‟s fairness regarding employees (cf., van Knippenberg and Hogg,

2003). The present study provides empirical evidence of the team‟s identity and the

leader‟s prototypical role as moderators of ethical leadership behaviour and leader‟s

effectiveness in the culturally diverse workplace. Research into social identity and

justice (e.g. van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003) suggests that leader‟s fairness (as one

component of ethical leadership) is an important determiner of leadership effectiveness

as a term defined by collective orientation. Furthermore, leader fairness may affect

follower identification and thus motivate followers‟ collective actions. They claim that

the role of leader‟s fairness in leadership effectiveness may be achieved by integrating

them with social identity analysis.

Furthermore, the current study results show that ethical leadership and leader

prototypicality interaction strengthen the relationship between ethical leadership and

leader effectiveness. Thus far, it has not been found that the prototypicality literature

links ethical leadership behaviour and prototypicality as a moderator in a multicultural

context. To the author‟s knowledge, empirical evidence concerning the link between

ethical leader and prototypicality is limited to the Kalshoven and Den Hartog (2009)

study, and more research is needed. In this respect, it can be noted that Kalshoven and

Den Hartog‟s (2009) empirical work on ethical leadership revealed that leader

prototypicality is a mediator in the relationship between ethical leadership and leader

effectiveness. They argued that perceiving a leader as a prototype strongly increases

trust in those leaders, which in sequence increases perceptions of effectiveness.

Kalshoven and Den Hartog (2009) concluded that ethical leaders are regarded as

idealised leader prototypes.

The current study findings highlight the importance of team identity and leader

prototypicality in strengthening the relationship between ethical leadership and a

leader‟s effectiveness. Thus; prototypical leaders in a culturally diverse work place are

more effective at reducing group relation conflict and promoting group cohesion and

affective commitment when they consistently treat all group members in an ethical

212

manner. This is consistent with the findings of social identity theory scholars that have

focused on leadership; they suggest that leaders that are seen to be more prototypical are

perceived to be more effective and receive stronger leadership support. They confirm

that this is due to the fact that prototypical leaders are more trusted by their followers

(Hogg, 2001; Hogg and van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003).

Taken together, this study provides evidence taken from diverse workplaces and

populations that support the idea that perceived leadership behaviours (charismatic and

ethical leadership behaviours) influence the degree to which a leader can be effective in

reducing conflict in group relations and promote group cohesion and affective

commitment to the organisation. Thus, charismatic leadership, when effective, offers

vision and social framework, which the leader directs to ensure the vision is achieved.

Thus, it is also responsible for facilitating an environment of collective identity possible

(Drury and Reicher, 2005), meanwhile allowing individuals to create and function

within their own scenarios, instead of those prescribed by others.

It is crucial to recognise in this regard that the framework for a moderator reliant on

collective identification and leader prototypicality requires a motivated leadership

model, with leaders exhibiting behaviour that fosters follower self identification. For the

reason that those in a position to direct the group are those who are seen to be most

prototypical of the group position in a given context (which itself is defined as the

position which most clearly differentiates between the in-group and the out-group and

therefore varies as a function of which out-group is the subject of comparison (Turner

and Haslam, 2001). Thus, leaders need to represent and define social identity in context

(Ellemers, De Gilder and Haslam, 2004; Haslam and Platow, 2001; Platow and van

Knippenberg, 2001), for example in multinational companies such as SABIC

To achieve a fuller comprehension of the social identity approach of an organisation and

its followers‟ behaviour it is useful to consult, Ashforth and Mael (1989), van Dick,

Ullrich and Tissington (2006), van Dick et al. (2004), Dutton, Dukerich and Harquail

(1994), Haslam (2001) van Knippenberg (2000) and Pratt (1998). These all reveal that a

more complete understanding of leadership processes is critical to achieve successful

evaluation of the importance to the leader prototypicality and the collective identity of

the follower. It is also considered to be crucial to be aware that leadership decisions are

213

more likely to be supported when presented in the context collective social identity. A

number of authors, including (Hogg and van Knippenberg, 2003; Hogg, 1996, 2001;

van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003) have carefully evaluated this element of selecting a

leader who is prototypical.

It is reasonable, on the basis of the literature reviewed, and the research undertaken; to

assert that follower identification and leader prototypicality are very clear and decisive

factors in ensuring leadership behaviour is mirrored by follower behaviour. It is also

apparent that the natural conclusion here is; the leadership characteristic most likely to

be useful for insuring good group relations, flexibility and adherence to organisational

goals is leader prototypicality, particularly when combined with collective social

identification. This argument was supported by Reicher and Haslam and Hopkins

(2005) who perceive social identity theory leadership to share a symbiotic relationship.

In conclusion, this study has empirically examined two different approaches from

different fields of study; leadership theory and social identity theory, this has involved

examining whether the relations between independent and dependent variables become

stronger when examining team identity and leader prototypicality as moderators.

The study found that the two leadership styles (charismatic and ethical leadership) share

a significant relationship with leader effectiveness. The present study also examined

charismatic leadership behaviours‟ sub scales individually to identify the relationship

between these dimensions and leader effectiveness. To the author‟s knowledge, this is

one of the first studies to have analysed charismatic leadership behaviour on the

subscale level to identify relationships with leader effectiveness. The study revealed that

five of the six sub scales have a significant relationship with leader effectiveness.

Whereas, the sixth (unconventional behaviour) dimension has a modest relationship

with group relation conflict and group cohesion, therefore, no significant relationship

was found with employee affective commitment.

With regards to the moderator impact of team identity and leader prototypicality this

study offers empirical evidence that the relationship between charismatic and ethical

leadership becomes stronger when moderated by team identity and leader

prototypicality. Contrastingly, when examining these moderators with charismatic

214

leadership sub scales the results varied. The study illustrated that team identity

strengthens the relationship between four of the six dimensions of charismatic

leadership, whereas no interaction was found between the two charismatic leadership

behaviours and the three indicators of leader effectiveness; namely, unconventional

behaviour and does not maintain status quo. Additionally, leader prototypicality was

found to be a moderator between five of the charismatic sub scales and leader

effectiveness, whereas no interaction that enhanced leader effectiveness was found

between unconventional behaviour and leader prototypicality.

The most distinctive result from this study is the absence of unconventional behaviour

in terms of leader‟s effectiveness. This raises the possibility of that this leadership

behaviour was not influenced by followers‟ behaviour and attitude. The first

interpretation of the result examines this relationship at the team level (first-level),

wherein the leader was more concerned with daily tasks than with creating a long-term

vision of the future (Rowold and Laukamp, 2009). Thus, this study can be seen as

evidence that unconventional behaviour is not as important as leadership behaviour at

the team level (first-level) as is the case with the remaining five components of

charismatic leadership described in the Conger and Kanungo model. Thus, this study

can be seen as evidence that unconventional behaviour is not as critical as leadership

behaviour at the team level.

Secondly, it can be argued that the model emerging from the present study is similar to

the C-K model in many aspects; such as articulation of vision, personal risk, sensitivity

to member‟s needs and sensitivity to the environment. However, it deviates from the C-

K model, because unconventional behaviour does not have an effect on leader‟s

effectivness. Therefore, it is concluded that charismatic leadership exists in the SABIC

context with some variations of the C-K model, supporting the argument that

charismatic leadership is a variform phenomenon. The results therefore suggest that all

three stages of charismatic leadership (excepting unconventional behaviour) were

essential to generating effective leadership qualities. In contrast to this theoretical

assumption Conger and Kanungo‟s models of unconventional behaviour were not as

important as other forms of charismatic leadership behaviour. It seems that these

variations can be attributed to specific aspects of culture, such as it being conservative,

215

hierarchical, caring and less futuristic; as well as some aspects of the situation, i.e. a

stable organisational context. According to Conger and Kanungo (1998, p. 62), in a

conservative culture, unconventional behaviour would be considered deviant and not as

charismatic.

The third interpretation, in line with Singh and Krishnan (2002) is a study in Northern

India, the non-emergence of unconventional behaviour can be attributed to the value

congruence of leaders and followers. They argued that as a result of this value

congruence, followers may not see the actions of superiors as special or charismatic.

However, there is insufficient empirical evidence to accept or reject the notion of value

congruence among superiors and subordinates within Saudi organizations.

Another possible justification of this result is that some conditions such as a crisis

favour the emergence of charisma (Pillai and Meindl, 1991; Hinkin and Tracey, 1999),

while stable organisations such as SABIC barely support the emergence of charisma

(Hinkin and Tracey, 1999). Further, House (1992) identifies opportunities for moral

involvement and difficulty specifying and measuring performance goals, lack of

sufficient situational cues to guide behaviour, and the need of exceptional efforts or

sacrifice, as favourable conditions for the emergence of charismatic leadership. Singh

and Krishnan (2002) identified charisma as potentially perceived negatively in a work

situation that is characterised by strong rules and standard operating procedures. A

context where a crisis or some other contextual factor(s) as mentioned above is absent,

and the achievement of goals through traditional means is possible and may mute the

need for unconventional means of achieving those goals. Organizations may not be in

crisis and thus they may not feel a necessity for unconventional and non-traditional

behaviour in their leaders. As a result, behaviour that diverges from traditional

behaviour may be perceived as a leader‟s attempt at motivating others, or to basically

motivate others without deliberate effort on the part of the leader. This perceived

behaviour that creates enthusiasm itself may place the leader at a distance from the

mainstream.

217

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION

7. l. Introduction

This chapter commences with an overall summary of the research, it then considers the

research findings that accomplished the study‟s objectives. The contributions to the

field of knowledge, arising from the research findings will then be discussed. Finally,

the chapter identifies the study‟s limitations and suggests potential directions for future

research.

7.2. Research Summary

To summarise the conduct and application of this research this section reviews the steps

which were followed in the course of conducting it. The first of these included stetting

the research aim and position, selecting the research philosophy and data gathering

techniques to be adopted, designing the research framework and finally conducting the

exploratory and the empirical studies. Decisions regarding the general aims of the

research were taken into account on the basis of the gaps and critiques present in the

various strands of literature, as well as in view of the objectives and scope of the thesis.

While this section elaborates on the research objectives, section 7.4 of this chapter

discusses the main findings of the research with regards to these objectives.

7.3. The Research Aims and Positioning

The thesis began by giving an overview of the rationale and motivation behind the

research; discussing the scope and stating the problem, research aims, research

objectives, contributions of the study and the thesis structure. Chapter 2 provided

general background regarding the business culture in Saudi Arabia. In order to position

this research in relation to existing work, Chapter 3 highlighted the emphasis in the

literature on the potential of diverse teams to generate positive outcomes in terms of

innovation, improved decision making and creativity (e.g. Williams and O‟Reilly, 1998;

van Knippenberg, De Dreu and Homan, 2004; Mannix and Neale, 2005; Ottaviano and

Peri 2005 and 2006; Berliant and Fujita 2004). Conversely, it also discussed the dark

side to cultural diversity as it occurs in group situations. Diversity has been related to

218

negative affects and challenges to an organisation (Milliken, Bartel and Kurtzberg,

2003; van Knippenberg, De Dreu and Homan, 2004; Peltokorpi, 2006). Culture is a

complex, multidimensional construct that can be studied on several levels: international,

national, regional, business and organisational (Wen-Cheng, Chien-Hung and Ying-

Chien, 2011). Current literature was found to have focused primarily on the outcomes of

cultural diversity at the multinational group level in terms of process variables (conflict,

cohesion, organisational commitment).

Consequently, the need for leaders who have the ability to motivate, communicate and

manage cultural variances is a challenge that is increasing in the case of multinational

companies (Dorfman, et al., 2004). Although numerous theoretical models recognise the

effect that culture may have on leadership behaviours, most of these focus at the

organisational and interpersonal levels (Youkl, 2002). Recently there has been a

growing interest in the stream of leadership theory known as “charismatic” (Conger and

Kanungo, 1987), “transformational” (Bass, 1985), “visionary” (Bennis and Nanus,

1985). With very little differences between them (Javidan and Waldman, 2003; Yulk,

2002), these theories concentrate on leadership behaviours that produce an emotional

effect on their followers and can convert emotional attachment to the leaders‟ values

and to the collective (Javidan and Waldman, 2003). These theories, are based on the

concept of charisma and are commonly identified as “charismatic leadership” styles

(Conger and Kanungo, 1998); allowing the creation of a relationship between the

individual and the collective, as well as between the leader and their followers. This

happens through the use of shared values, which are distinct features of a group and

effect the selection from amongst existing modes, means and actions (Hofstede, 2001).

This relationship makes charismatic leadership styles the most appropriate to study in

an association between leadership behaviours and national culture.

Therefore, as discussed in chapter three, with the aim of seeking an effective leadership

style in a culturally diverse workplace, this study built on Conger and Kanungo‟s (1998)

model. This model has six sub dimensions namely: strategic vision and articulation,

sensitivity to the environment, sensitivity to member‟s needs, personal risk, and

unconventional behaviours. They claimed that their model, was debatably the most

comprehensive integrative method for exploring leadership behaviours (Conger and

Kanungo, 1998 Yokl, 2002).

219

Combined with charismatic behaviours, in salient groups, effective leaders conduct

these behaviours within ethical norms that exhibit honesty, trustworthiness, fairness,

justice treatment and care as common group members (Hogg el al. 2005). Tatum and

Eberlin (2008) argued that addressing issues of fairness and the just treatment of people

is an essential aspect of business strategy and decision making development. In a

condition of cultural diversity, there is an absolute and imperative need for ethical

leadership. Therefore, leaders are in a position to account for the possibilities that occur

when working with employees with diverse values, beliefs and expectations.

Consequently, it is vital that leaders of diverse teams are cognisant of their own biases,

prejudices and attitudes toward those who are unlike them (Chrobot-Mason and

Ruderman, 2004). Thus, failure to exhibit these ethics may lead to conflict and negative

outcomes (Tatum and Eberlin, 2008).

Additionally, a distinctive feature of this study is the use of Social Identity Theory

(SIT); since, it is often employed as a basis for understanding the positive and negative

outcomes that result when members of dissimilar identity groups interact. Generally,

these theories propose that people assess the social groups to which they belong as

positive and are enthused to sustain such assessments with the intention of preserving a

favourable self-image (Mason, et al., 2007). Thus, this study adopts social identity to

develop our comprehension of diversity dynamics and follower identity theory,

specifically, leader prototypicality and team identification. By applying such behaviour,

leaders convert their followers‟ beliefs and values, and inspire them to position the

organisation goals before their individual-interest. Consequently, as a result of this

behavioural transformation, leaders can generate an effective and valuable workplace

for employees (McCall and Hollenbeck, 2002).

However, leadership literature suggests that the responsibility of the leader is

specifically to take a challenging role, given that leader is also a member of one of the

social identity groups. Haslam (2001) suggests that a specific team member will be

perceived as prototypical of this team to the extent that the individual is similar to

members of the team to which he/she belongs and distinct from members of other

teams. The prototypical leader is often capable of influencing followers. This kind of

220

leader is socially attractive to the other team members who are expected to agree and

conform to their recommendations can seek their approval. Thus, team members tend to

support more prototypical leaders and more prototypical leaders are likely to be more

effective (Haslam, 2001).

The previous argument raised the importance of considering leadership behaviour in

leading a culturally diverse work place, and in identifying how employee team identity

is linked to the group. The perception of the team‟s leader as a team member and

representative is also essential when considering diversity in a team.

This study seeks to expand present knowledge about leaders‟ effectiveness and

perceived leader behaviour in organisational settings. Although the connection between

leadership and ethicality has been established in the literature, little empirical work has

been done. No previous study has used the Conger and Kanungo scale (C-K) as a

measurement instrument to examine the relationship between leadership behaviour and

work-related outcomes in culturally diverse workplace such as relation conflict, group

cohesion and organisational commitment. In addition, empirical studies regarding

ethical leadership and follower perceptions are not well covered. Although the literature

highlighted the effect of team identity and leader prototypicality on leadership

effectiveness, minimal empirical study has examined the moderating impact of these

variables.

This study addressed the gap in the literature by examining the relationship between

leadership behaviours and managing the culturally diverse workplace effectively; by

reducing group relation conflict, increasing group cohesion and attaining a high level of

affective commitment to the organisation, performing the moderator‟s role of social

identity (team identity and leader prototypicality) in these relationships. In moving from

the conceptual to the empirical, the research aims were translated in the research

framework into two main phases: First, an exploratory phase to achieve an interpretive

understanding of the research constructs and thus develop a research hypothesis and

second a model testing phase, to empirically assess the hypothetical research model.

221

7.4. Selecting the Research Philosophy and Data Gathering Technique

The literature review in chapter 3 helped to identify the methodological and technical

limitations in the research area under investigation. Thus, Chapter 4 focuses on the

method of testing the study framework. The chapter justifies the appropriateness of the

positivist philosophy, to assist in producing data relating to theoretical frameworks and

achieving research objectives, by clarifying relationships amongst the study variables.

The research undertaken to understand the issue resulted in the decision to employ a

quantitative approach.

The researcher employed a pilot study before the main study was conducted. The main

study involved conducting a questionnaire based paper that was distributed to 500

employees and 100 team leaders through (SABIC) in different regions in KSA; 441

questionnaires were returned with 73.5% response rate. The data collected were

analysed using the SPSS package (version 18). Descriptive statistics were used to

ensure that the data was normally distributed and to provide averages and standard

deviations for each of the variables in the study. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA)

were conducting to ensure the construct validity of the instrument as well as to identify

groups or clusters of variables (Field, 2009). Finally the study‟s instruments, validity

and reliability were tested. Evidence was found that the study‟s instruments were

reliable via the pilot; mean study-employees and leaders- questionnaires were

consistently rated above 0.80 and demonstrated divergent validity.

In Chapter 5 the data that were collected was analysed using the SPSS package (version

18). The study was concerned with group level variables since it was designed to

examine employees‟ impressions of their leaders. Consequently, multilevel modelling

(MLM) techniques were used to test the hypotheses. The survey findings related to all

parts of the survey instrument and were analysed and possible indications from the

outcomes were highlighted.

Chapter 6 offered a comprehensive discussion of the analysis of results and findings

from the quantitative study data, and this was presented in chapters 4 and 5.

Furthermore, it offered a quantitative result from a careful analysis of relevant literature.

222

The overall findings, the contributions and the implications for practice of this study

and the study limitations and future research will be the subject of this chapter.

7.5. From Research Objectives to Research Findings

This research set out five objectives, as described in chapter one. For the purpose of this

conclusion the first three objectives were combined as one objective. These objectives

were accomplished as follows:

Objectives 1, 2 and 3: Analyse the relationship between leadership behaviours

(charismatic and ethical) and the level of relation conflict, team cohesion

and the level of employees’ affective commitment to the organisation in

culturally diverse workplaces in Saudi Arabia Basic Industries

Corporation (SABIC).

The findings revealed that teams that perceive their leaders to exhibit

charismatic and ethical leadership behaviour have more cohesion, felt more

commitment to the organisation and had less internal conflict than those who do

not perceive their leaders to exhibit charismatic and ethical leadership

behaviours.

Closer analysis of the sub dimensions of charismatic leadership exposed a

significant positive relationship between five of the six charismatic leadership

subscales with no significant variation between unconventional behaviours (UB)

and group relationship conflicts, group cohesion and affective organisational

commitment.

Objective 4: Examine the moderating impact of social identity (Team identity) on the

relationship between leadership behaviours and leading the diverse

workplace effectively (defined as low relation conflict, high team

cohesion and high affective commitment to the organisation).

The study found that people who identify strongly with the group react more strongly to

charismatic and ethical leadership behaviour and therefore strengthen leader

223

effectiveness.

Team identity had the effect of moderating the relationship on four of the six

charismatic leadership subscales, whereas there were no significant interactions

regarding team identity related to (unconventional behaviour (UB) and not maintaining

the status quo (SQ) in employees‟ attitudes and behaviour.

Objective 5: Examine the moderating impact of social identity (leader prototypicality)

on the relationship between leadership behaviours and leading the diverse

workplace effectively (defined as low relation conflict, high team cohesion and

high affective commitment to the organisation).

The current study findings highlight the importance of leader prototypicality in

strengthening the relationship between charismatic and ethical leadership behaviours

and a leader‟s effectiveness.

Although, leader prototypicality has a positive effect on all three indicators of a leader‟s

effectiveness, this variable did not moderate the relationship between all of the

charismatic behaviour subscales and leader effectiveness. Specifically, the result

revealed that leader prototypicality has the effect of moderation on the relationship

between four of six charismatic leadership subscales. Contrary to this, leader

prototypicality did not moderate the relationship between unconventional behaviour

(UB) and leader‟s effectiveness. Additionally, leader prototypicality was not found to

moderate the relationship between leaders‟ personal risk behaviour (PR) and affective


7.6. Research Contributions to Knowledge

The current study focuses on developing existing knowledge regarding perceived

leadership behaviour in multicultural environment. This study is distinct from previous

studies due to its extensiveness. By exploring two styles of leadership (charismatic and

ethical leadership) it investigates the effect of social identity theory on leadership

effectiveness. It particularly emphasises the importance of identifing with team

members and puts forward the leader themselves as interactive variables for leadership

224

effectiveness.

It is expected that this study will contribute to the literature by providing useful

information to address the gaps in those issues relating to charismatic and ethical

leadership behaviours and social identity theory in multinational companies; by

focusing on the information available in depth.

This research contributes to the understanding of employee behaviour and attitude

within the framework of charismatic leadership theory. Not only are these findings an

important addition to the literature, but they also contribute to the field of organisational

psychology by adding more evidence to suggest that leadership is associated with

improving employee relationships and commitment to an organisation. With respect to

the relationship between internal group conflict and charismatic leadership behaviours,

to the author‟s knowledge, no targeted empirical study has been conducted to date. The

results from this study fill the gap left by previous research as they clearly reveal a

correlation between perceived leadership behaviour and conflict in group relations.

Positive perceptions of leadership behaviours were correlated with low levels of group

conflict in this connect, as group conflict disturbs normal working practice and hence

productivity (Curşeu, 2011). This finding has significance in that it provides empirical

evidence for the first time that charismatic leadership may be an effective technique to

use in workplaces which report conflict between teams. The findings from this study

provide unique data that gives an insight into the effect of charismatic leadership, and

specifically this describes the beneficial effect of these SABIC leaders who exhibit high

levels of these qualities.

One of the most distinctive contributions of the current study was the finding of no

significant relation between the subscale of charismatic leadership in terms of

unconventional behaviour and leader‟ effectiveness. Thus, the study demonstrates that

charismatic leadership (Conger and Kanungu exclusive of unconventional behaviour) is

related to the leader‟ effectiveness indicator (low relation conflict, high group cohesion

and high affective commitment). According to Conger and Kanungo, unconventional

behaviour is one aspect of the last stage of charismatic leadership. It may be assumed

225

that only leaders who have completed all three phases successfully with the exclusion of

the characteristic of stage three (unconventional behaviour) generate high leader‟

effectiveness. In contrast, leaders trapped in stage 1 or 2 have not yet confirmed the

charismatic leadership behaviours that are needed tp interest their followers to

contribute beyond expectations. Therefore this study offers evidence that

unconventional behaviour is not deemed to be an important type of leader behaviour,

specifically regarding first-level managers. As Rowold and Laukamp (2009) have

reported, it is top managers that are generally charged with the task of developing a

vision for the long-term, whereas first-level supervisors are responsible primarily for

ensuring the smooth running of daily tasks and routines.

The research has succeeded in examining a model that enriches current research by

offering specification, justification and empirical validation of a set of relationships

describing important leadership behaviours (ethical behaviours) that tend to be

associated with some leadership styles; such as transformational, transactional and

authentic leadership. Meanwhile, both the theory and research covered here indicate that

ethical leadership and charismatic leadership are distinct constructs (Brown et al., 2005;

Walumbwa et al., 2008; Kalshoven, Den Hartog, De Hoogh, 2011a).

Accordingly, this research stresses the importance of examining the terms charismatic

and ethical leadership separately. It provides empirical evidence of the significant role

played by ethical leadership as a set of behaviours or a behavioural style in itself, rather

than focusing only on the ethical aspects of other leadership styles. The empirical

results therefore show ethical leadership has a similarly strong effect on employee

outputs as charismatic leadership. These results point to a far greater role for the

conceptualisation of ethical leadership in leadership studies than has been

acknowledged to date. It is possible that future studies could usefully examine the

interactivity between charismatic leadership and ethical leadership, for example the

moderating effect of ethics on charismatic leadership.

Most importantly, this research integrates leadership behaviour and social identity to

influence the key relationships linked to leader effectiveness. To the author‟s

knowledge, the results of this study are the first to show empirically verified evidence

that the relationship between leadership behaviours (charismatic and ethical) and

226

effectiveness are moderated by leader prototypicality and team identity. As a

consequence this research, offers empirically evidence of the effects of social identity

on team behaviour in culturally diverse workplaces. Additionally, the contribution of

this study is to investigate in depth the integration of social identity and charismatic

leadership components. The findings then offer evidence of the importance of social

identity in strengthening the relationships between charismatic leadership and leader‟s

effectiveness. With the exception of unconventional behaviour all the study indicators

are linked; personal risk with affective organisational commitment, and does not

maintain the status quo with team identity and affective organisational commitment and

group cohesion. Additionally, the present study provides empirical evidence of the

team‟s identity and the leader‟s prototypicality role as moderating ethical leadership

behaviour and leader‟s effectiveness in culturally diverse workplaces.

Finally, all the research constructs used in this study were drawn from literature, and

were designed and validated for participants in American or European and East Asian

countries. This research contributed by validating these constructs and their associated

items and the scale for Saudi participants, where the validity and reliability of the

constructs and measurement scales were supported.

In sum, the present study‟s contributions are to expanding the literature and empirically

testing the relationship between charismatic leadership using the C-K scale, the ethical

leadership scale and some of these variables suggested above. Specifically, this study

has succeeded in confirming the relationship between Conger and Kanungo‟s model,

ethical leadership scale and leader effectiveness (low internal conflict, high cohesion

and high affective commitment to the organisation) and the moderating impact of leader

prototypicality and team identification in private organisations in a culturally diverse

context in Saudi Arabia.

7.7. Implications for Practice

The current move towards organisations adopting a more globalised perspective as a

consequence of foreign competition, the influence of foreign markets, and increases in

multi-nationals and international joint ventures, has led to a focus on workers‟ mobility.

It is frequently the case that workers imagine working for organisations abroad to be an

227

attractive option. Accordingly, managers in multi-cultural contexts are being faced with

a series of unique challenges regarding organisational change and cultural diversity.

A major implication of the findings is that charismatic and ethical leadership styles

seem to be adequate to reduce group relationship conflict and increase group cohesion

and affective commitment in the cultural diverse work place. The findings of this study

may have significant implications for transforming existing theory on charismatic

leadership effectiveness into practice. Specifically, the findings may have meaningful

implications for leadership training and development, reinforcing the need for

leadership training to enhance leader effectiveness in leading diverse teams. This

leadership training programme would ideally aim to teach leaders to articulate the

organisation‟s collective goals, communicate high level expectations and demonstrate

confidence in followers‟ capacity to meet expectations. Additionally, the language of

leaders is most effective when it exhibits a desire and willingness to alter the status quo,

presume personal risk and addresses the needs of the followers; therefore, once the

pattern of leadership is more apparent, organisations can improve the charismatic effect

by training leaders that display charismatic behaviour as recognised in chapter 3 of this

study. According to Rowold and Laukamp (2009) the CK scale refers solely to leaders‟

visible behaviours. The CK scale, when used for the purpose of training can be

employed to readily assess, evaluate, and improve the behaviour observed. This differs

from alternative leadership assessment tools, which often incorporate a measurement of

the effect on followers (i.e. the MLQ). In practical terms this gives the CK scale items

the potential to be used directly in exercises; including in role play, video feedback, etc.

(Laukamp, 2009).

Evidence from this study suggests that ethical leaders contribute positively to follower‟s

behaviour and attitudes. Therefore, it is fundamental to encourage organisations to

promote this type of behaviour in their leaders. It may also be suggested that a

leadership training program should concentrate on leaders‟ ethical conduct by adopting

certain core ethical values, with the goal that they become ethical in the manner with

which they address diverse teams within multicultural organisations. This may be very

effective, especially in the long-term. In this respect, leaders are seen as having the

potential to encourage their followers to perform ethical behaviours and reduce

unethical behaviour during interactions with group members that are dissimilar to them.

228

As the current study reveals the importance of the ethical leader lies in increasing

affective commitment to the organisation. This finding has implications for

multicultural organisations such as SABIC. It seems that to increase ethical behaviour in

organisations in general and in multicultural organisations specifically, a compulsory,

solid and controlled policy that underlines destructive outcomes is valuable. According

to the Ethics Resource Centre (2007) a number of organisations have implemented

behavioural policies that strengthen appropriate and inappropriate conducts. However,

scholars in this field have argued that the existence of this policy does not increase

ethical behaviour unless it is made salient through enforcement (see Kish-Gephart,

Harrison, and Treviño, 2010). Thus, the present study emphasises the importance of

running training programmes that aim to clarify these kinds of policies to organisation‟s

employees and assess team members to help them become more aware of their role

within the context of their own diverse team. This training programme enables the

group to experience a creative flow of ideas that can affect the culture of how the

organisation carries out its daily business from an ethical perspective. It is through such

programmes that an organisation might successfully achieve the dual objectives of

building greater leadership capacity and improving its ethical performance.

Moreover, the results from the moderating impact on the two leadership styles confirm

the importance of leader prototypicality on enhancing effectiveness. Accordingly, this

study suggests that organisations may not only increase the chances of leader‟s

effectiveness in reduce group relation conflict, but also increase the level of group

cohesion and the level of affective commitment by selecting charismatic and ethical

leader leaders who are representative of organisational identity, but also by leadership

development programs that enhance leaders‟ inspirational motivation skills and their

ability to convey an image of team prototypicality. Additionally, regarding the selection

of team members, human resource managers or the team leaders should consider the

similarities between leaders and their followers when selecting team members.

7.8. Limitations

Even though it is considered that this study was able to formulate information to

provide a positive contribution to the leadership field, it was subject to limitations that

should be acknowledged and that in turn could also suggest areas of further research.

229

There may be unexplained variables such as individual differences that are unaccounted

for in this study, affecting the relationships. For example, it could be that the strength of

the relationship between leadership behaviour and leader effectiveness could also

depend on an individual personality and such differences could be impacting the

relationships examined in this research.

In addition, in the present study ethical leadership was conceptualised and

operationalised as a one-dimensional model, whereas some recent studies suggest the

value of examining several different ethical dimensions of leadership (e.g., De Hoogh

and Den Hartog, 2008, Kalshoven, et al., 2011b). These include personal honesty and

justice when making decisions and determinations; the use of a punitive and reward

based systems, to manage adherence to ethical requirements; and, giving employees a

voice and the opportunity to influence decisions relevant to their work. These factors are

related but can provide variations and thus differently influence outcomes. We may

extend this finding, by identifying the effect of these factors on employees‟ behaviour

and attitude in culturally diverse work places. This is relevant because ethical leadership

has been shown to positively affect the attitudes and (ethical) conduct of employees;

this impacts on business units and also on organisational performance (Brown, Treviño

and Harrison, 2005; Kanungo, 2001; Treviño, Brown and Hartman, 2003; Kalshoven, et

al., 2011a).

Furthermore, research methodologies other than use of a questionnaire could have been

used to measure leader behaviour. This point of view is supported by Yukl (2010) who

stated that, quantitative data used in isolation is insufficient for addressing the field of

leadership. Leadership describes the role of the leader, the follower, and the

complication of the environment (Avolio, et al., 2005). Additional to the complication

of leadership, quantitative results are inadequate by themselves. Thus, a qualitative

research methodology, such as focus group, in-depth interviews and document analysis

may also reveal important processes that contribute to the leadership‟s relationship

between leaders and followers.

Additionally, SABIC is an organisation with all male employees. It was , therefore,

230

impossible to interview the team leaders or follower directly as women are not allowed

to enter the offices according to the Saudi system, thus sexual segregation prevented the

researcher from using direct interview methods in the study, therefore, other alternatives

methods have been used. As a consequence of this the researcher does not know if there

are different attributions would be generated if the leaders were female. It is possible

that charismatic and ethical behaviours exhibited by a female leader may not have the

same positive effects since women are more expected to conform to different roles than

men (Rosener, 1995; Rosener, 2011).

7.9. Future Studies

The current study has attempted to advance leadership theory by testing a synthesised

model of charismatic leadership, ethical leadership and social identity theory within a

culturally diversity context. Although the findings from this study addressed several

gaps in the literature, many questions remain unanswered regarding our understanding

of leadership behaviours. The following section will provide several recommendations

for future research on charismatic and ethical leadership and social identity in

organisations.

This study focuses on deep-level diversity (e.g. personality, values, attitudes and

beliefs) rather than other types of diversity; future research could benefit from studying

additional diversity characteristics, such as age and tenure (surface-level). In the future,

researchers may also want to consider examining general diversity in terms of

leadership behaviour, as well as in view of other moderators, such as follower self-

efficacy, self-esteem and team cooperation.

Additional research should be conducted to broaden an understanding of the dependent

variables that are used to assess leader effectiveness. It would be valuable to extend the

current analysis to other diverse team attitudes and behaviours; beyond relation conflict,

cohesion and affective commitment, so as to assess and develop leader effectiveness.

Thus, efforts should be made to examine effectiveness in specific areas such as affective

variables (e.g. turnover intonation, absenteeism, job satisfaction commitment to the

leader and mission). Alternatively, future research into charismatic leadership in

particular might be valuable to pursue in view of the likelihood that different features of

231

leader behaviour (e.g. nonverbal behaviour) interact in affecting leadership

effectiveness.

The current study focuses on the positive side of charismatic leadership. Although

charismatic leadership as such is often seen as value-free. Further research considers the

darker side of charismatic leadership behaviour or personalised charismatic leadership

which builds on personally dominant, authoritarian behaviour and serves the leader‟s

self-interest and is oppressive of others. This category of leadership behaviour has been

connected with definitely harmful, morally wrong and punitive (O‟Connor et al., 1995;

Gardner and Avolio, 1998).

The researcher strongly recommends that future research incorporates interviewing.

This would perhaps lead to a more complete analysis of the problems which followers

experience with their leaders and could therefore be an effective means of obtaining

information from followers.

SABIC was used as the sample in this empirical study. Further research using other

samples from different nations, will provide information to support or contradict the

results of this study.

7.10. Final Thoughts

This is an important area of study, which has been filled with rich discussion. More

empirical testing is necessary to continue to advance the field of charismatic and ethical

leadership, although we have identified a strong relationship between leader‟s

effectiveness and leadership behaviour. This study makes a clarion call that more

organisations need to identify more charismatic and ethical leaders and seek to position

them in diverse work place. This study attempted to fill the gap in the research on the

role of charismatic and ethical leadership behaviour in leading multinational companies

effectively, by reducing relation conflict, heightening team cohesion and affective

commitment. The study examined the role of social identity as a moderator to

strengthen effectiveness. It is hoped that not only will this study contribute to the

scholarly field of research, but also to the application of identifying and developing

leaders behaviour by taking into account the role of social identity theory in this kind of

232

diversity (deep-level diversity) and motivate more research into charismatic and ethical

leadership behaviour.

233

REFERENCES

Aaronson S. A. and Abouharb, M. R. (2011). Unexpected Bedfellows: The GATT, the

WTO and Some Democratic Rights. International Studies Quarterly, 55, 379–

408.

Abbas, A. J. (2008). Business and Management Environment in Saudi Arabia:

Challenges and Opportunities for Multinational Corporations for multinational

corporations. New York: Routledge.

Abbas, A. J. and Swiercs, P. M. (1986). The relationship between managerial decision

styles and work satisfaction in Saudi Arabia. In E. Kaynack (Ed.), International

Business in the Middle East. (pp.137-149). New York: Walter de- Gruyter.

Adler, N. J. (2002). International dimensions of organizational behaviour, (4th

ed.).

Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern.

Adler, N. and Gunderson, A. (2008). International Dimensions of Organizational

Behaviour (5th ed.). Mason: Thomson Higher Education.

Ahmad, S. Z. (2011). Evidence of the characteristics of women entrepreneurs in the

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: An empirical investigation. International Journal of

Gender and Entrepreneurship, 3 (2), 123 – 143.

Akroyd, D., Jackowski, M. B. and Legg, J. S. (2007). Factors affecting radiographers‟

organizational commitment. Radiol Technol, 78, 467-475.

Akroyd D, L. J., Jackowski, M. B., and Adams, R.D. (2009). The impact of selected

organizational variables and managerial leadership on radiation therapists‟

organizational commitment. Radiography, 15: 113–120.

Albrecht, S. and Travaglione, A. (2003). Trust in public sector senior management.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 76-92.

Albawardy, F. A. (2010). Comparative study between the strategic value of learning

multinational private and public sectors organisations in Saudi Arabia.

Unpublished PhD thesis. Business school, University of Portsmouth.

Alesina, A. and Ferrara, E. L. (2000). Participation in Heterogeneous Communities.

Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115 (3), 847–904.

Allen, N. J. and Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,

continuance and normative commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology,

63, 1-18.

234

Allen, R., Dawson, G., Wheatley, K and White, C.S. (2004). Diversity Practices:

Learning Responses for Modern Organisation. Development and learning in

organisations, 18 (6), 13-15.

Al Morished, M., (2004). Corporate Finance Saudi Basic Industries Corporation

(SABIC) At the Middle East Economic Digest (MEED). Project Finance

Conference October 5-6, 2004 Ritz Carlton Hotel Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain.

Alnimir, S.M. (1981). Present and Future Bureaucrats in Saudi Arabia. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. USA: Florida State University.

Alon, I., Child, J.., Li, S. and McIntyre, J. R. (2011). Globalization of Chinese Firms:

Theoretical Universalism or Particularism. Management and Organization

Review, 7(2), 191-200.

Alper, S., Tjosvold, D. and Law, K. S. (1998). Interdependence and controversy in

group decision making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams.

Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 74: 33-52.

Altinay, L., Wang, C.L. (2009). Facilitating and maintaining research access into ethnic

minority firms. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 12 (4),

367-390.

Alvesson, M. (2001). Knowledge work: Ambiguity, image and identity. Human

Relations, 54(7), 863-886.

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional

conflict on strategic decision making: resolving a paradox of top management

teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148.

Amaram, D. I. (2007). Cultural Diversity: Implications for Workplace Management.

Journal of Diversity Management - Fourth Quarter, 2, (4), 1-6.

Angus-Leppan, T., Metcalf, L. and Benn, S. (2010). Leadership Styles and CRC

Practice: An Examination of Sensemaking, Institutional Drivers and CSR

Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 189–213.

Anderson, V. (2004). Research methods in Human Resource management. London:

CIPD.

Andrews, M. C., Kacmar, K. K., Blakely, G. L. and Bucklew, N. S. (2008). Group

cohesion as an enhancement to the justice - affective commitment relationship.

Group & Organization Management, 33, 736–755.

Antonakis, J. and House, R. J. (2002). An analysis of the full-range leadership theory:

The way forward. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.) Transformational and

235

Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead (pp.3-33). Amsterdam: Elsevier

Science.

Antonakis, J., Schriesheim, C.A., Donovan, J. A., Gopalakrishna-Pillai, K., Pellegrini,

E. and Rossomme, J.L. (2004). Methods for studying leadership. In: Antonakis,

J., Cianciolo, A.T., Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), the Nature of Leadership (PP. 249-

278). London: Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Arab-Management-Style. Retrieved on July 6, 2012 from http://www.worldbusiness

culture.com/Arab-Management-Style.html.

Armstrong, C., Flood, P. C., Guthrie, J. P., Liu, W., MacCurtain, S., Mkamwa, T.

(2010). The impact of diversity and equality management on firm performance:

Beyond high performance work systems. Human Resource Management, 49, 6,

977-998.

Aronson, e. (2001) integrating leadership styles and ethical perspectives, Canadian.

Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18 (4), 244-256.

Ashforth, B. E. and Male, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organisation.

Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.

Atiyyah, H. S. (1996). Expatriate Acculturation in Arab Gulf countries. Journal of

Management Development, 15(5), 37- 47.

Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in

organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Avolio, B., Bass, B. and Jung, D. (1999). Re-examining the components of

transformational and transactional using Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 44-462.

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the

root of positive forms of leadership, The Leadership Quarterly, 16 315-338.

Avolio, B., Bass, B. and Jung, D. (1995). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire:

technical report. Pal Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Avolio, B. J. and Locke, E. E. (2002). Contrasting different philosophies of leader

motivation: altruism versus egoism. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 169-91.

Ayoko, O., Callan, V. J., Härtel, C.E. J. (2008). The Influence of Team Emotional

Intelligence Climate on Conflict and Team Members' Reactions to Conflict. Small

Group Research, 39 (2) 121-149.

236

Ayoko, O. and Härtel, C. (2006). Cultural diversity and leadership: A conceptual model

of leader intervention in conflict events in culturally heterogeneous workgroups.

Cross Cultural Management, 13 (4), 345- 360.

Babbie, E. (1990). Survey Research Methods, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Baccarani, C. (2008). What does ethical behaviour mean in management activities?

The TQM Journal, 20 (2), 154-165.

Balfour, D. L. and Wechsler, B. (1990). Organizational commitment: A

reconceptualization and empirical test of public-private difference. Review of

Public Personnel Administration, 10, 23-40.

Balkhi, Z..T. and Foul, A. (2009). Improving Inventory Control for SABIC Products.

Recent advances in applied mathematics and computational and information

sciences. 1, 146-159.

Bamberg, R., Akroyd, D. (2008). Factor that impact clinical laboratory scientists‟

commitment to their work organisation. Journal of the American Society for

Clinical Laboratory Science, 21(3), 167-192.

Baron, R. (1991). Positive effects of conflict: A cognitive perspective. Employees

Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 25-36.

Baruch, Y. and Hall, D. T. T. (2004). The academic career: A model for future careers

in other sectors. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 64, 241-262.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration.

Journal of Management, 16, 693-703.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Individual, military and educational

impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bass, B., (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the

vision. Organisational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Current developments in transformational leadership. The

Psychologist Manager Journal, (1), 3, 5-21.

Bass, B. M., and Avolio, B. J. (1989). Manual for the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bass, B. M., and Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transactional and

transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational development.

In R. W. Woodman and W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational

change and development (vol. 4, pp. 231-272). Greenwich, GT: JAI Press.

Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through

237

transformational leadership, corporate reorganization and transformation in

human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. and Avolio, B. (2000). Multifactor leadership questionnaire (2nd

ed.).

Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I. and Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting Unit

Performance by Assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, (2), 207–218.

Bassett-Jones, N. (2005). The Paradox of Diversity Management, Creativity and

Innovation.Creativity and Innovation Management, 14, 169–75.

Beauchamp, T. L. and Bowie, N. E. (2001). Ethical theory and business (6th

ed).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Becker, P. E. (1998). Making inclusive communities: Congregations and the “problem”

of race. Social Problems, 45, 451-472.

Bennis, W. and Namus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for taking charge. New

York: Harper & Row.

Bennett, R. J. and Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace

deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (3), 349-360.

Berliant, M and M. Fujita (2004). Knowledge Creation as a Square Dance in the Hilbert

Cube (Washington University, Department of Economics:

http://economics.wustl.edu/berliantfujitaworkingpaper2.pdf).

Bjerke, B., and Al-Meer, A. (1993). Culture‟s consequences: management in Saudi

Arabia. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, 14(2), 30-35.

Blader, S. and Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and expanding the group engagement model.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 445–464.

Blasé, J. and Kirby, P. C. (1992). Bringing out the best in teachers. Newbury Park, CA:

Corwin.

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., and Tight, M. (2006). How to research (3rd

ed.). England:

Open University Press.

Bliese, P.D., Halverson, R. R., and Schriesheim, C. A. (2002). Benchmarking multilevel

methods in leadership: the articles, the model, and the data set. Leadership

Quarterly, 13, 3-14

Bliese, P. D., and Hanges, P. J. (2004). Being Both Too Liberal and Too Conservative:

the Perils of Treating Grouped Data as Though They Were Independent.

238

Organizational Research Methods, 7, 400-17.

Boehnke, K., Bontis, N., and DiStefano, A. C. (2003). Transformational leadership: an

examination of cross-national differences and similarities. Leadership

Organisational Development, 24(1), 5–15.

Bogler, R. and Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers‟

organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational

citizenship behaviour in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 277–289.

Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A. and Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change:

Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behaviour on employee cynicism

about organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26, 733−753.

Boone, C. and Hendriks, W. (2009). Top management team diversity and firm

performance: moderators of functional-background and locus-of-control diversity.

Management Science, 55, 165–80.

Bowie, N.E. (1982). Business Ethics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Boxx, W. R., Odom, R. Y. and Dunn, M. G. (1991). Organizational values and value

congruency and their impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion: An

empirical examination within the public sector. Public Personnel Management,

20,195–206.

Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R. and Doosje, B. (1999). The context and

content of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.),

Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35–58). Oxford, UK:

Blackwell Science.

Brehmer, Berndt (1976). Social judgement theory and the analysis of interpersonal

conflict. Psychological Bulletin, 83 (6), 985-1003.

Brett, J., Behfar, K., and Kern, M. C. (2006). Managing multicultural teams. Harvard

Business Review, 84(11), 85–91.

Brewer, M.B. (1995). Managing Diversity: the Role of Social Identities. In S.E.

Jackson and M. Ruderman (Eds.), diversity in work teams: Research paradigms

for a changing workplace, (pp. 47-68). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Brislin, Richard (1993), Understanding Culture’s Influence on Behaviour, Orlando, FL:

Jarcourt Brace Jovanivich.

Brodbeck, G. C., Frese, M., Akerblom, S. et al. (2000). Cultural variation of leadership

239

prototypes across 22 European countries. Journal of Occupational and

Organisational Psychology, 7, 1-29.

Brown, B. and Harris, C. (1993). The Implications of Work Force Diversification in the

U.S. Forest Service. Administration & Society, 25 (1), 85-113.

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K. and Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social

learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational

Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134.

Brown, M. E. Treviño, L. K. (2006c). Ethical leadership: A review and future

directions. The Leadership Quarterly. 17, 595–616.

Brown, M. E. Treviño, L. K. (2006b). Charismatic leadership and workplace deviance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 954−962.

Brown, M. E. and Treviño, L. K. (2006a). Socialized Charismatic Leadership, Values

Congruence, and Deviance in Work Groups. Journal of Applied Psychology,

91(4), 954–962.

Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and

future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745–778.

Brunk, K. H. (2010). Exploring the Origins of Ethical Company/Brand Perceptions - A

Consumer Perspective of Corporate Ethics. Journal of Business Research, 63,

255–262.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organisations. London: Sage

Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods (2nd

ed.). Oxford: OUP.

Bryman, A. (2011). Mission accomplished?: Research methods in the first five years of

Leadership. Leadership, 7(1) 73–83.

Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007). The process of quantitative research Business research

methods (2nd

ed.). Oxford: University press.

Bryman, A. and Bell, E., (2011). Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford

University.

Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of

managers in work organisations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.

Budman, S. H., Solds, S., Demby, A., Davis, M., and Merry, J. (1993). What is

cohesiveness? An empirical examination. Small Group Research, 24, 199-216.

Budhwar, P. S. (2001). HRM in India. In P. S. Budhwar and Y. A. Debrah (Eds.), HRM

in developing countries, (pp. 75–90). London: Routledge.

240

Burch St, G. J. (2006). The “creative-schizotype”: Help or hindrance to team-level

innovation?. University of Aucklandolume Business Review, 8 (1), 43–51.

Burns, J., M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row

Butler, S. (1997). Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility: Good for the bottom

line. Vital speeches of the day, 63(18), 559-561.

Bycio, P., Hackett, R., and Allen, J. (1995). Further assessment of Bass's (1985)

conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 80, 468–478.

Chaar, I. (2010). How to address Saudi Arabia‟s leadership shortage. Retrieved on July

5, 2010 from http://www.kenexa.com.

Calabrese, R.L. and Roberts, B. (2002). Character, school leadership, and the brain:

learning how to integrate knowledge with behavioural change. International

Journal of Educational Management, 16 (5), 229-38.

Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E. and Quinn, R. E. (2003). An introduction to positive

organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.),

Positive organizational scholarship. (pp. 3–13). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Campion, M. A., Medsker G. J. and Higgs, C. A. (1993). Relations between work group

characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work

groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.

Canen, A. G. and Canen, A. (2002). Innovation Management Education for

Multicultural Organisations: challenges and a role for logistics. European

Journal of Innovation Management, 5, (2), 73-85.

Carmeli, A. (2005). Perceived External Prestige, Affective Commitment, and

Citizenship Behaviors. Organization Studies, 26, 443–464.

Carroll, A. B. (1978). Linking business ethics to behaviour in organisations. SAM

Advanced Management Journal, 43, 4-11.

Carnevale, P. J. and Probst, T. M. (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative

problem solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74, 1300-1309.

Carron, A.V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations.

Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123–138.

Carron, A. V. and Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement

issues. Small Group Research, 31, 89-106.

Carron, A. V., Colman, M., Wheeler, J. and Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and

http://www.kenexa.com/

241

performance in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,

24, 168.188.

Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander

(Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd

ed.) (pp.91–109). New York:

Harper & Row.

Cavanagh, P. A. (2011). Comparison of male Saudi Arabian business managers' self-

rated leadership styles in one organization: Influence of education origin.

Published PhD thesis. Business Administration, University of Phoenix.

Chang, A., and Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-

group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32, 379-405.

Chang, A., Bordia, P., and Duck, J. (2003) Punctuated Equilibrium and Linear

Progression: Toward A New Understanding of Group Development. Academy of

Management Journal, 46, 106-117.

Chang, Y.S., Labovitz, G. and Rosansky, V. (1992). Making Quality Work. Essex

Junction, VT: Oliver Wright Publications.

Chansler, P. A., Swamidass, P. M., and Cammann, C. (2003). Self-managing work

teams: An empirical study of group cohesiveness in “natural work groups” at a

Harley-Davidson motor company plant. Small Group Research, 34, 101-120.

Chemers, M. M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review. In M. A.

Hogg and R.S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group

processes (pp. 376-399). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Chen, Y. F. (2005). Cross-cultural leadership: Goal interdependence and leader-

member relations in foreign ventures in China, Journal of international

management, 11(3), 417-439.

Chen, L. T., Chen, C. W., Chen, C. Y. (2010). Are educational background and gender

moderator variables for leadership, satisfaction and organizational commitment?.

African Journal of Business Management, 4 (2), 248-261.

Cerimagic, S. (2010). Cross cultural project management characteristics between

Australia and the United Arab Emirates. Paper presented at the Construction,

Building and Real Estate research conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered

Surveyors (RICS): COBRA, Paris, France.

Cho, J. J., Ozment, J., Sink, H. (2008). Logistics capability, logistics outsourcing and

firm performance in an e-commerce market. International Journal of Physical

Distribution & Logistics Management, 38 (5), 336-359.

242

Cho, J. and Dansereau, F. (2010) Are transformational leaders fair? A multi-level study

of transformational leadership, justice perceptions, and organizational citizenship

behaviours. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 409–421.

Choi, Y. And Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998). On the leadership function of self-sacrifice,

The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 397-421.

Chrobot-Mason, D. and Ruderman, M. N. (2004). Leadership in a diverse workplace. In

M. S. Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of

workplace diversity (pp. 100-121). Malden, MA: Blackwell

Chrobot-Mason, D., Ruderman, M. N., Weber, T. J., Ohlott, P. J., and Dalton, M.A.

(2007). Illuminating a cross-cultural leadership challenge: when identity groups

collide. The international Journal of Human Resource Management, 2011-2-36.

Chung, A., Chen, I-Heng, Lee, A.Y., Chen, H. C. and Lin, Y. (2011). Charismatic

leadership and self-leadership A relationship of substitution or supplementation in

the contexts of internalization and identification?. Organisational Change and

Management, 24 (3), 299-313.

Cicero, L. Bonaiuto M., Pierro A., Van Knippenberg, D.(2008). Employees‟ work effort

as a function of leader group prototypicality: the moderating role of team

identification. Elsevier Masson, 117–124.

Cicero, L. Pierro, A. and van Knippenberg, D. (2010). Leadership and Uncertainty:

How Role Ambiguity Affects the Relationship between Leader Group

Prototypicality and Leadership Effectiveness. British Journal of Management,

(21), 411–421.

Ciulla, J. B. (1995). Leadership ethics: mapping the territory. Business Ethics

Quarterly, 5(1), 5–28.

Ciulla, J. B. (2005b). Integrating leadership with Ethics: is good leadership contrary to

human nature? In D. Jonathan, S. Stumpf (Eds.), Handbook on Responsible

leadership and Governance in Global Business (pp.159-179). UK: Edward Elgar

publishing limited.

Ciulla, J. B. (2005a). The state of leadership ethics and the work that lies before us.

Business Ethics: A European Review, 14, 323-335.

Clark, A. E. (2011). The Organisational Commitment of Workers in OECD Countries.

Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques, 22 (1), 8-27.

243

Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A

meta-analysis. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 86,

278–321.

Collis, J., and Hussey, R. (2003). Business Research (2nd

ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Collis, J. and Hussey, R. (2009). Business research: a practical guide for

undergraduate and postgraduate students. (3rd

ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H. and Ng, K. Y. (2001).

Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational

justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–44.

Colquitt, J. A. and Jackson, L. (2006). Justice in teams: The context sensitivity of

justice rules across individual and team contexts. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 36, 868-899.

Colquitt, J.A., Noe, R.A. and Jackson, C.L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and

consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83-109.

Conger, J. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional

leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.

Conger, J. and Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioural theory of charismatic

leadership in organizational settings. The Academy of Management Review, 12

(4), 637-647.

Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor

in Organizational Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Conger, J. and Kanungo, R. (1997). Measuring charisma: Dimensionality and validity

of the Conger-Kanungo scale of charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of

Administrative Sciences, 14(3), 290-302.

Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic Leadership in Organisations.

London: Sage.

Conner, D. (1992). Managing at the speed of change. New York: Villard.

Coombes, H. (2001). Research Using IT. UK: Palgrave.

Costa, D. L. and Kahn, M. E. (2003). Civic Engagement and Community

Heterogeneity: An Economist‟s Perspective. Perspectives on Politics, 1 (1), 103–

11.

Côté, S., Lopez, P. N., Salovey, P. and Miners, C. T. H. (2010). Emotional intelligence

244

and leadership emergence in small groups. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 496–508.

Coy, P. G. and Woehrle, L. M. (2000). Social Conflicts and Collective Identities.

Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Cress, U. (2008). The interaction between groups and individuals: The challenge of

statistically analysing cooperative learning, Knowledge Media Research Centre.

Retrieved December 13, 2010 from http://delivery. acm.org/

10.1145/1600000/1599833/p183cress.pdf?ip=148.197.8.238&acc=ACTIVE%20S

ERVICE&CFID=57915552&CFTOKEN=32725025&__acm__=1323863379_80

07809b344b31511b4d4f2fa17407d6.

Creswell, J. (2004). Educational research: planning, conducing, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (2nd

ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice

Hall.

Crocker, L., and Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory.

New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

Cronbach, L. J., and Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.

Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.

Cropanzano, R. and Baron, R. A. (1991). Injustice and organizational conflict: The

moderating effect of power restoration. International Journal of Conflict

Management, 2: 5-26.

Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83:

85-113.

Cox, T.H., Jr. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and

practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Cudeck, R., and O‟Dell, L.L. (1994). Applications of standard error estimates in

unrestricted factor analysis: Significance tests for factor loadings and correlations.

Psychological Bulletin, 115,475-487.

Cummings, G., Lee, H., MacGregor, T., Davey, M., Wong, C., Paul, L.Stafford, E.

(2008). Factors contributing to nursing leadership: a systematic review. Journal of

Health Services Research & Policy. 13(4), 240–248.

Cummings, T. G. and Worley, C. G. (2005). Organization Development and Change

(8th

ed.). New York: Thomson.

245

Curran. P. J., West, S. G. and Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to

nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis.

Psychological Methods, I, 16-29.

Curşeu, P. L. (2011). Intra-Group Conflict and Teamwork Quality: The Moderating

Role of Leadership Styles. Administrative Sciences, 1, 3-13.

Curşeu, P. L., Schruijer, S. G. L. (2010). Does Conflict Shatter Trust or Does Trust

Obliterate Conflict? Revisiting the Relationships Between Team Diversity,

Conflict, and Trust. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice , 14(1),

66–79.

Daft, R. L. (2002). The Leadership Experience (2nd

ed). Orlando, FL: Harcourt.

Davidovitz, R. and Mikulincer, M. Shaver, P. R. (2007). Leaders as Attachment

Figures: Leaders‟ Attachment Orientations Predict Leadership-Related Mental

Representations and Followers‟ Performance and Mental Health, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 93(. 4), 632–650

David, A. Harrison, K. and Klein, J. (2007). What's the difference? Diversity

constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of

Management Review, 32(4), 1199-1228.

Dean, P., J. (1997). Examining the profession and the practice of business ethics.

Journal of Business Ethics, 16 (15), 1637-1649.

De Coninck, J. B. (2010). The influence of ethical climate on marketing employees' job

attitudes and behaviours. Journal of Business Research, 63(4), 384–391.

De Cremer, D. and van Knippenberg, D. (2002). How do leaders promote cooperation.

The effects of charisma and procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology,

87, 858–866.

De Cremer, D., van Knippenberg, D.; van Dijke, M. and Bos, A. E. R. (2006). Self-

sacrificial leadership and follower self-esteem: When collective identification

matters. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(3), 233-245

De Dreu, C. W. and Van Vianen, A. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the

effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behaviour,

22(3), 309–328.

De Dreu, C. K. W. and Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team

performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88, 741–749.

DeGroot, T., Kiker, D. S., and Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review

246

organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of

Administrative Sciences, 17, 356–371.

De Hoogh, A. H. B. and Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership,

relationships with leader‟s social responsibility, top management team

effectiveness and subordinates‟ optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership

Quarterly, 19, 297-311.

Demers, J. (2002). Crossing the cultural divides. CMA Management, 76 (6), 1-28.

Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide: for small-scale social research

projects (4th

ed). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Open University

De Young, C. P., Emerson, M. O. Yancy, G, and Kim, K. C. (2003). United by faith:

multiracial congregations as a response to the racial divide. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Dima, D. C. David, D. Păiuşan, L. (2010). Specific features of Islamic accounting

and cultural paradigm. MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich,

Germany.

Dionne, G., Tremblay, R., Boivin, M., Laplante, D. and Perusse, D. (2003). Physical

aggression and expressive vocabulary in 19-month-old twins. Developmental

Psychology, 39, 261–273.

Dipboye, R. L., Colella A. (2005). Discrimination at work: The psychological and

organizational bases. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

DiStefano, J. J., and Maznevski, M. L. (2000). Creating value with diverse teams in

global management. Organizational Dynamics, 29(1), 45–63.

Dorfman, P. W. and House, R. J. (2004). Cultural Influence on Organizational

Leadership: Literature Review, Theoretical Rationale, and GLOBE Project Goals,

in R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman and V. Gupta (Eds),

Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies (pp.

51–67). CA: Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Dorfman, W. P. House. R. J. (2004) Global Influences on Organisational Leadership:

Literature Review, Theoretical Rationale and Global Project Goals. In P. J.

Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.). Culture, Leadership and

Organisations. The Global Study of 62 Societies (pp. 201-208). CA: SAGE,

Thousand Oaks.

Drummond and Al-Anazi, F (1997). Cross Cultural Management. An International

http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/pramprapa/

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/

247

Journal, 4 (4), 3-8.

Drury, J. and Reicher, S. (2005). Explaining enduring empowerment: A comparative

study of collective action and psychological outcomes. European Journal of

Social Psychology, 35, 35 – 58.

Dunlop, W. L., Beauchamp, M. R. (2011). Does similarity make a difference?

Predicting cohesion and attendance behaviors within exercise group settings.

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15(3), 258-266

Dunlop, P. D. and Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship

behavior, and business unit performance: The bad apples do spoil the whole

barrel. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25, 67–80.

Dutton, J. E. and Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member

identification. Administration Social Quarterly, 39, 239–263.

Easterby-Smith, M. P. V., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P. (2008). Management research:

theory and research. London: Sage,

Eby, L.T., Freeman, D.M., Rush, M.L, Lance, C.E. (1999). Motivational bases of

affective organizational commitment: a partial test of an integrative theoretical

model. Occupationl Organisational Psycholgy, 72: 463-483.

Eckardt, M. (2003). Explaining Legal Change from an Evolutionary Economics

Perspective. German Law Journal, 9 (4), 437-464.

Edmondson, A. C. and McManus, S., E. (2007). Methodological Fit in Management

Field Research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155-1179.

Eisenbach, R., Watson, K. and Pillai, R. (1999). Transformational leadership in the

context of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 12(2), 80-88.

Eldabi, T., Irani, Z., Ray, P., and Love, P. (2002). Quantitative and Qualitative

Decision-making Methods in Simulation Modelling. Management Decision, 40,

64-75.

Elenkov, D. S. and Manev, I. M. (2009). Senior expatriate leadership's effects on

innovation and the role of cultural intelligence. Journal of World Business, 44,

357-369.

Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D. and Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and

groups at work: a social identity perspective on leadership and group

performance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459-478.

Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P. and Ouwerkerk, J.W. (1999). Self-categorisation,

248

commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of

social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371-389.

Emerson, M. O. and Kim, K. C. (2003). Multiracial congregations: an analysis of their

development and a typology. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 217-

227.

Emerson, M. O. and Woo, R. M. (2006). People of the dream: Multiracial

congregations in the United States. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Employees number Retraved September 23, 2011from http://www.sabic.com/corporate

/ar/ourcommitments/ people/ default.aspx.

Erez, M. (2010). Commentary Culture and job design. Journal of Organizational

Behaviour, 31, 389-400.

Erumban, A. A. and De Jonge, S.B., (2006). Cross-country differences in ICT

adoption: A consequence of culture?. Journal of World Business, 41, 302-314.

Ethics Resource Centre (2007). Retreved September 1, 2011, from http://

www.ethics.org/

Evans, N. J. and Jarvis, P. A. (1986). The Group Attitude Scale: A measure of attraction

to group. Small Group Behavior, 2, 203-216.

Fairholm, G. W. (1991). Values Leadership: Toward a New Philosophy of Leadership.

New York: Praeger.

Fairholm, G. W. (1994). Leadership and the culture of trust. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Feldt, L.S., woodruff, D. and Salih, F. (1987). Statistical inference for coefficient alpha.

Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 93-103.

Felfe, J. and Schyns, B. (2010). Followers‟ personality and the perception of

transformational leadership: Further evidence for the similarity hypothesis. British

Journal of Management, 21, 393–410.

Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–

282.

Field, Andy (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Fielding, K. S. and Hogg, M. A. (1997). Social identity, self-categorization, and

leadership: A field study of small interactive groups. Group Dynamics: Theory,

Research, and Practice, 1, 39-51.

Fiol, C. M. (1994). Consensus, diversity, and learning in organizations. Organization

Science, 5: 403-420.

http://www.sabic.com/corporate%20/ar/ourcommitments/%20people/%20default.aspx.

http://www.sabic.com/corporate%20/ar/ourcommitments/%20people/%20default.aspx.

http://www.ethics.org/

249

Fisher, S. (1990). The evolution of psychological concepts about the body. In T. F. Cash

& T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body images: Development, deviance, and change (pp. 3–

20). New York: Guilford Press.

Fleury, M. T. L. (1999). The management of culture diversity: lessons from Brazilian

companies. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 99 (3), 109-14.

Folger, R. and Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effect of procedural and distributive justice on

reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115-

130.

Frank, F. D., Finnegan, R. P., and Taylor, C. R. (2004). The race for talent: Retaining

andengaging workers in the 21st century. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 12-

25.

French, R. (2010). Cross-Cultural management: In Work Organisations. London: the

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Friedrich, T. L., Byrne, C. L. and Mumford, M.D. (2009). Methodological and

theoretical considerations in survey research. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1),

57–60.

Friesl, M., Sackmann, S. A. Kremser, S. (2011). Knowledge sharing in new

organizational entities: The impact of hierarchy, organizational context, micro-

politics and suspicion. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18

(11), 71 – 86.

Fry, L. and Kriger, M. (2009).Towards a theory of being-centered leadership: Multiple

levels of being as context for effective leadership. Human Relations, 62(11),

1667-1696.

Fulmer, R.M. (2004). The challenge of ethical leadership. Organisational Dynamics,

33(3), 307-317.

Fuller, J. B., Patterson, C. E. P., Hester, K. and, Stringer, D. Y. (1996). A quantitative

review of research on charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports, 78, 271–

287.

Furnham, A. and Taylor, J. (2004). The dark side of behaviour at work: Understanding

and avoiding employees leaving, thieving and deceiving. Basingstoke: Palgrave

MacMillan.

Gakahu, N. (2011). The Social Implications of A Global Culture To Africa: Kenya‟s

Case. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 2(4), 163-170

250

Gallagher, A. and Tschudin, V. (2010). Educating for ethical leadership. Nurse

Education Today, 30, 224–227.

Gardner, W. L., and Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32–58.

Gee, G. C. (2002). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between institutional and

individual racial discrimination and health status. American Journal of Public

Health, 92, 615–623.

George, D. and Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide

andreference. 11.0 update (4th

ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Giessner, S. R., Sleebos, E. and van Knippenberg, D. (2003). License to fail?: Leader

prototypicality, leader performance, and leadership endorsement. Paper presented

at the EAESP Small Group Meeting on New Directions in Leadership Research,

Amsterdam.

Giessner, S. R. and van Knippenberg, D. (2008). “License to fail”: Goal definition,

leader group prototypicality and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after

leader failure. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 105,

14-35.

Gill, J. Johnson, P. and Clark, M. (2010). Research methods for managers (4th

ed.). Los

Angeles: SAGE

Gillham, B. (2000). The Research Interview. London and New York: Continuum.

Gladstein, D.L. (1984). Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.

Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student

attrition: Lessons from four departments. Journal of Higher Education, 76(6),

669–700.

Goldman, A. (2006). Personality disorders in leaders: Implications of the DSM IV-TR

in assessing dysfunctional organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21,

392–414.

Goldman, B., Gutek B, Stein, J. H., Lewis K. (2006). Employment discrimination in

organizations: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management, 32, 786–

830.

Goldstein, H. (2010). Multilevel Statistical Models (4th

ed.). West Sussex, UK: John

Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Goodstein, L. D. (1981). Commentary: Do American theories apply abroad?

251

Organizational Dynamics, 49–54.

Gorrill, J. (2007). Doing business in Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabian social and business

culture. Retrieved December 3, 2011 from http://www. communicaid.com/cross-

cultural-training/culture-for-business-and-management/doing-business-in/Saudi-

arabian-business-and-social-culture.php.

Green, S. B. and Salkind, N. J. (2008). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh:

Analyzing and understanding data (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Prentice Hall.

Gröschl, S. and Doherty, L. (1999). Diversity management in practice. International

Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(6), 262-8.

Gröschl, S. and Doherty, L. (2006). The Complexity of Culture: Using the appraisal

process to compare French and British managers in a UK based international hotel

organisation . International Journal of Hospitality Management , 25(2) , 313 –

334 .

Hager, M., Wilson, S.m Pollak, T. and Rooney, P. (2003). Response rates for mail

surveys of nonprofits organisations: a review and empirical test. Nonprofits

Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32 (2), 252-267.

Hair, J. F., Celsi, M. W., Mony, A. H., Samouel, P., Page, M. J. (2011). Essentials of

Business Research Methods. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Hair, J. Tatham, R., and Anderson, R. (2002). Multivariate data analysis. London:

Prentice Hall PTR.

Hain, S. (2011). Risk perception and risk management in the Middle East market:

theory and practice of multinational enterprises in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Risk

Research, 14 (7), 1–17.

Hammersley, M. (2007). Methodological Paradigms in Educational Research. London:

TLRP. Retrieved September 23, 2009, from http://www.bera.ac.uk/

methodological-paradigms-in-educational-research/.

Hammoudeh, M. M. (2012). Islamic Values and Management Practices: Quality and

Transformation in the Arab World. UK: Gower Publishing Limited.

Hanassab, S. (2006). Diversity, International Students, and Perceived Discrimination:

Implications for Educators and Counsellors. Journal of Studies in International

Education, 10 (2), 157-172.

Harrison, D. A, Price, K, H. and Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography:

time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion.

http://www.bera.ac.uk/%20methodological-paradigms-in-educational-research/

http://www.bera.ac.uk/%20methodological-paradigms-in-educational-research/

252

Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96-107.

Harrison, D. A, Price, K, H. and Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task

performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group

functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029-1045.

Hart, D. K. (1988). Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: Organizational ethics and

the founding fathers. Exchange, 2-7.

Hart, S.D. (1998). The role of psychopathy in assessing risk for violence: Conceptual

and methodological issues. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 121–137.

Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach.

London: Sage.

Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd

ed.). London: Sage.

Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., O‟Brien, A., and Jacobs, E. (2004). Social identity, social

influence, and reactions to potentially stressful tasks: Support for the self-

categorization model of stress. Stress and Health, 20, 3-9.

Haslam, S. A. and Ellemers, N. (2005). Social identity in industrial and organizational

psychology: concepts, controversies and contributions. International Review of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 20, 39–118.

Haslam, S. A. and Platow, M. J. (2001). Your wish is our command: The role of shared

social identity in translating a leader‟s vision into followers‟ action. In: M. A.

Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds), Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts

(pp. 213–228). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T.and N. Ellemers (2003). More than a metaphor:

organizational identity makes organizational life possible. British Journal of

Management, 14, 357–369.

Hayes, A. (2006). Aprimer onmultilevel modeling. HumanCommunication Research,

32, 385–410.

Hermans, H.J., and Dimaggio, G. (2007). Self, identity, and globalization in times of

uncertainty: A dialogical analysis. Review of General Psychology, 11(1), 31–61.

Hepworth, W. and Towler, A. (2004). The effects of individual differences and

charismatic leadership on workplace aggression. Journal of Occuptional Health

Psychol gy, 9, 176–85.

Herscovitch, L. and Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change:

253

Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474–

487.

Hinkin, T.R. and Tracey, J.B. (1999). The relevance of charisma for transformational

leadership in stable organizations. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 12 (2), 105-19.

Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E. and Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Building

theoretical and empirical bridges across level: Multilevel research in management.

Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1385–1399.

Hobman, E. V. and Bordia, P. (2006). The role of team identification in the

dissimilarity-conflict relationship. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(4),

483−507.

Hobman, E.V. and Jackson, C.J. (2011). The effects of transformational leadership

behaviours on follower outcomes: An identity-based analysis. European journal

of work and organizational psychology, 20 (4), 553-580.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related

values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related

values, abridged version. London: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:

McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural

Cooperation and its Impact for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequence (2nd

ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the

Mind. McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2009). Dimensionalizing cultures: the hofstede model in context.

Retrieved September 22, 2011, from: http://www.geert-hofstede.com

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations:

Software of the Mind revised and expanded (3rd

ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hogan, R., and Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40–51.

Hogg M. A. (1992). The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness. New York: New

York University Press.

http://www.geert-hofstede.com/

254

Hogg, M. A. (1996). Intragroup processes, group structure and social identity. In W. P.

Robinson (Ed.), Social groups and identities: Developing the legacy of Henri

Tajfel, (pp. 65-93). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hogg, M. A., (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 5, 184–200.

Hogg, M. A. (2003). Social identity. In M. R. Leary, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook

of self and identity, (pp. 462–479). New York: The Guilford Press.

Hogg, M. A, Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Mankad, A., Svensson, A.and Weeden, K.

(2005). Effective leadership in salient groups: Revisiting leader-member exchange

theory from the perspective of the social identity theory of leadership. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 991-1004.

Hogg, M. A. and Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in

organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.

Hogg, M. A. and van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Social Identity and Leadership Processes

in Groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 243-295.

Houghton, J. D. and Yoho, S.K. (2005). Toward a contingency model of leadership and

psychological empowerment: when should self-leadership be encouraged?.

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11 (4), 65-84.

House, R. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L.

Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale: Southern

Illinois University Press.

House, R. J. (1992). Charismatic leadership in service-producing organizations.

International Journal of Service Industry Management. 3 (2), 5-16.

House, R., and Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership.

Leadership Quarterly. 3(2), 81-108.

House, R., and Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational,

charismatic and visionary theories. In M. Chemmers and R. Ayman (Eds.).

Leadership theory and research perspectives and directions (pp. 577-594).

Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., and Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the

U.S. presidency: a psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 36, 364-396

House, R. J., Wright, N. S. and Aditya, R. N. (1997). Cross-cultural research on

255

organizational leadership: A critical analysis and a proposed theory. In P. C.

Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New Perspectives in International Industrial

Organizational Psychology (pp. 535-625). San Francisco: New Lexington.

House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. and Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,

Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Howell, J. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1992). The Ethics of Charismatic Leadership:

Submission or Liberation? Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 43-54.

Howell, J. M., Shamir B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership

process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review,

30, 96– 112.

Hu, L., Bentler, P. M. and Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure

analysis be trusted?. Psychological Bulletin, 11(2), 351-362.

Hunt, J. (1981). Indicators for nursing practice: The use of research findings. Journal of

Advanced Nursing, 6(3), 189-194.

Hunter S. T, Bedell-Avers, K. and Mumford, M. D. (2007). The typical leadership

study: Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. The Leadership

Quarterly, 18(5): 436–446.

Huselid, M. and Day, L. (1991). Organizational commitment, job involvement, and

turnover: A substantive and methodological analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 76,380-391.

Husted, B. (1999). Wealth, culture, and corruption. Journal of International Business

Studies, 30(2): 339–360.

Hyatt, D. E. and Ruddy, T. H. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work

team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel


International Survey Research. (n.d.) Retention Matters: A proactive strategy to address

turnover. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www.isrinsight.

com/pdf/insight/retentionmatters.pdf.

Jackson, B. and Parry, K. (2008). A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably

Cheap Book about Studying Leadership. London: SAGE.

Jackson, S. E., May, K. E. and Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of

diversity in decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo and E. Salas (Eds.), Team

256

effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 7-261). San Francisco,

California: Jossey-Bass Inc.

James, B. A. (2008). Diversity, Group Identity, and Citizenship Education in a Global

Age. American Educational Research Association, 37 (3), 129–139.

Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., De Luque, M. S. and House, R. (2006). In the eye of the

beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. Academy of

Management Perspectives, 20, 67–90.

Javidan, M. and Waldman, D. A. (2003). Exploring charismatic leadership in public

sector: Measurement and consequences. Public Administration Review, 63(2),

229-242.

Jayakody, J. A .S. K. (2008). Charismatic leadership in Sri Lankan business

organizations. Journal of Management Development, 27, 5: 480-498.

Jayasingam, S. and Cheng, M. Y. (2009). Leadership style and perception of

effectiveness: Enlightening Malaysian managers. Asian Social Science, 5(2), 45

65.

Jehn, K. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and

disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of

Conflict Management, 5, 223–238.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of

intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.

Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in

organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557.

Jehn, K. A. and Chatman, J. A. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual

conflict composition on team performance. International Journal of Conflict

Management, 11(1), 56-73.

Jehn, K. A. and Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal

study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 44, 238-251.

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B. and Neale, M. A. (1999). Why difference makes a

difference: a field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763.

257

Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., Chenoun-Gee, H. (2001). The relative influence of IS project

implementation policies and project leadership on eventual outcomes. Project

Manage, 32 (3), 49–55.

Jin, S., Seo, M., and Shapiro, D. L. (2008). Revisiting the link between leaders’

emotional intelligence and transformational leadership: The moderating role of

emotional intensity. Best Paper Proceedings. New York: Academy of

Management Press.

Johnson, K. L. (1997). Adhesion and friction between a smooth elastic spherical

asperity and a plane surface. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 453,

163.

Johnston, R. (2000). Complaint management: forget customer satisfaction, improve the

process. Orinsight, Operational Research Society, 13 (4), 9-13.

Jung, D. I., and Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The

role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group

performance. Small Group Research, 33, 313-336.

Kacmar, K. M. and Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of organizational politics scale

(POPS): Development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 51, 193–205.

Kalshoven, K. and Den Hartog, D. N. (2009). Ethical Leader Behaviour and Leader

Effectiveness: The Role of Prototypicality and Trust. International Journal of

Leadership Studies, 5 (2), 202-120.

Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N. and De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011a). Ethical Leader

Behavior and Big Five Factors of Personality, Journal of Business Ethics, 100,

349–366

Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N. and De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011b). Ethical leadership

at work questionnaire (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional

measure. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 51-69.

Kankanhalli, A., Tand, C.Y., Wei, K-K. and Holmees, C. (2004). Cross-cultural

differences and information systems developer values. Decision Support Systems,

38, 183-195.

Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders.

Canadian Journal of administrative science, 18(4), 257-265.

Kanungo, R. N. and Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical Dimensions of Leadership.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

258

Kark, R., Shamir, B. and Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:

Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246–255.

Kark, R. and Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming

relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio &

F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road

ahead (vol. 2, PP. 67–91). Amsterdam: JA1 Press.

Kerman, M. and Hanges, P. (2002). Survivor reactions to reorganization: Antecedents

and consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Journal

of AppliedPsychology, 87, 916-928.

Key, J. (1997). Reliability and Validity. Retrieved March 14, 2009, from

http://www.okstate.edu/ag/agedcm4h/academic/aged5980a/5980/newpage18. htm.

Keyton, J. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran &

M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research

(PP. 192-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kidwell, R. E., Jr., Mossholder, K. W. and Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and

organizational citizenship behaviour: A multilevel analysis using work groups and

individuals. Journal of Management, 26, 775–793.

Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A. andTreviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases,

and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at

work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1-31.

Krathwohl, D. (1997). Methods of Educational and social Science Research: An

Integrated approach, Addison Wesley Longman (2nd

ed.). ISBN: Sage.

Krauss, S.E. (2005). Research Paradigms and Meaning Making: A Primer. The

Qualitative Report, 10 (4), 758-770.

Kreft, I. G. G. and De Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kreps, D. M. (1990). Corporate culture and economic theory. In K. Shepsle, and J. Alt

(Eds.), Perspective on positive political economy (pp. 78-98). Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press.

Kriesberg, L. (2003). Constructive conflicts: From escalation to resolution (2nd

ed.).

Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Kroeber, A. L. and Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: a critical review of concepts and

definitions. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and

http://www.okstate.edu/ag/agedcm4h/academic/aged5980a/5980/newpage18

259

ethnology, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business

organizations. Journal of Management, 26: 489-513.

Korsgaard, A, Jeong S, and Mahony, D. (2008). Multilevel view of intragroup conflict.

Journal of Management, 34(6), 1222–1252.

Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco,

California: Jossey-Bass.

Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Bell, B.S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In

W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen, & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology:

Industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 12, pp. 333-375). London, UK:

Wiley.

Kuokkanen, L., Leino-Kilpi, H. and Katajisto, J. (2003) Nurse empowerment, job-

related satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Nursing Care

Quality, 18(3), 184–192.

Langfred, C. W. (1998). Is group cohesiveness a double-edged sword? An investigation

of the effects of cohesiveness on performance. Small Group Research, 29, 124–

143.

Larsson, S. and Ronnmark, L. (1996). The concept of charismatic leadership: its

application to an analysis of social movements and a voluntary organization in

Sweden. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9 (7), 32-44.

Laschinger, H. and Finegan, J. (2005). Using empowerment to build trust and respect in

the workplace: a strategy for addressing the nursing shortage. Nursing Economics,

23 (1), 6–13.

Lashley, C. (2000). Empowerment through involvement: A case study of TGI Friday's

restaurants. Personnel Review, 29(5), 1 - 18.

Lavaty, S. and Kleiner, B.H. (2001). Managing and understanding the French

employee. Management Research News, 24 (3/4), 45-8.

Lawrence, V. J. (1997). Multiculturalism, diversity, cultural pluralism: „tell the truth,

the whole truth and nothing but the truth‟. Journal of Black Studies, 27(3), 318–

333.

Leana, C. R. (1985). A partial test of Janis‟s groupthink model: effects of group

cohesiveness and leader behaviour on defective decision making. Journal of

Management, 11, 5- 17.

260

Lee, C., Cheng, T.C.E. Yeung, A. C.L. and Lai, K. (2011). An empirical study of

transformational leadership, team performance and service equality in retail

banks. . Omega, 39, 690–701.

Lee, C., F. and Chen, Z. (2011). Promoting group potency in project teams: The

importance of group identification. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 32,

1147–1162

Lee, N. and Nathan, M. (2010). Knowledge workers, cultural diversity and innovation:

evidence from London. Knowledge-Based Development, 1, (1/2), 53-78.

Lenartowicz, T. and Johnson, J. P. (2002). Comparing managerial values in twelve

Latin American countries: An exploratory study. Management International Review,

42(3), 279–307.

Lester, R. B. (1981). Building a sustainable society. New York: London: Norton.

Lester, S. W., Meglino, B. M. and Korsgaard, M. W. (2002). The antecedents and

consequences of group potency: A longitudinal investigation of newly formed

work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 352–368.

Leveson, L., Joiner, T. A., and Bakalis, S. (2009). Managing cultural diversity and

perceived organizational support: Evidence from Australia. International Journal

of Manpower, 30 (4), 377-392.

Levay, C. (2010). Charismatic leadership in resistance to change. The Leadership

Quarterly, 21, 127–14.

Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Tanzer, N. K. and Che, H. (2011). Distal charismatic leadership

and follower effects: An examination of Conger and Kanungo‟s conceptualization

of charisma in China. Leadership, 7(3) 251–273

Lim, T. (2011). Relationships among organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and

learning organization culture in one Korean private organization. Asia Pacific

education review, 11(3), 311-320.

Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance,

organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change

Management, 4, 193–215.

Lind, E. A. and Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New

York: Plenum.

Lisak, A. and Erez, M. (2009). Leaders and followers in multi-cultural teams: their

effects on team communication, team identity and team effectiveness. International

Workshop on Intercultural Collaboration proceedings, 81-88.

261

Lok, P., Westwood, R. and Crawford, J. (2005). Perceptions of organisational

subculture and their significance for organisational commitment. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 54, 490–514.

López-zafra, L., Garcia-Retamero, R and Landa, J.M. A. (2008). The role of

transformational leadership, emotional intelligence, and group cohesiveness on

leadership emergence. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2 (3), 37-49.

Lord, R. G. and Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J. and Freiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of

leadership: the role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 1–37.

Lott, A. J. and Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A

review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological

Bulletin, 64, 259–309.

Louis, M. R. and Richard, A. P. (2005). Designing and conducting survey research a

comprehensive guide (3rd

ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lui, H. and Stack J. (2009). Globalization: Debunking the myths. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Malshe, A., Al-Khatib, J., Al-Habib, M. and Ezzi, S. (2012). Exploration of sales-

marketing interface nuances in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Business Research, 65,

1119–1125

Marcus, J. (1995). The National Front and French politics: the resistible rise of Jean-

Marie Le Pen. London: Macmillan.

Mannix, E., and Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference?

Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2) 31–55.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E. and Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework

and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.

Mark, M. M. and Folger, R. (1984). Reponses to relative deprivation: A conceptual

framework. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (vol.

5, pp. 192-218). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Mathieu, J., Zajac, D. (1990). A review of meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates

and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychol. Bull, 108(2): 171-194.

Matsumoto, D. (2000). Culture and psychology: People around the world (2nd

ed.).

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

262

Mason, W. A., Conrey, F. R. and Smith, E. R. (2007). Situating social influence

processes: Dynamic, multidirectional flows of influence within social networks.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 279-300.

Masuda, A., (2005). Power Motives and Core Self Evaluation as Correlates of

Managerial Morlity. University at albay, SUNY paper presented at the 20th

annual meeting of the society for industrial Organisational Psychology. Los

angeles CA: (SIOP).

Mazur, B. (2010). Cultural Diversity in Organisational Theory and Practice. Journal of

Intercultural Management, 2 (2), 5–15

McCall, M. and Hollenbeck, G. (2002). Developing global executives: The lessons of

international experience. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing

Corporation.

McDaniel, C. and Gates, R. (2002). Marketing research: the impact of the Internet.

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

McDonald, G. M. and Zepp, R. A. (1989). Business ethics: Practical proposals. Journal

of management development, 8 (1), 55-66.

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice-Hall.

McFarlin, D. B. and Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as

predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes, Academy of

Management Journal, 35, 626-637.

McMahon, A. (2010). Does workplace diversity matter? A survey of empirical studies

on diversity and firm performance, 2000-09. Journal of Diversity Management,

5(2), 37-48.

McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their

consequences: a triumph of faith-a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1):

89-118.

Mellahi, K. (2001). Differences and Similarities in Future Managerial Values: A Five

Cultures Comparative Study. Cross Cultural Management: An International

Journal, 8(1), 45-58.

Mendenhall, M.E., Osland, J., Bird, A., Oddou, G. and Maznevski, M. (2008). Global

leadership: Research, practice, and development. London: Routledge.

263

Messick, D. M. and Mackie, D. M. (1989). Intergroup relations. In M.R. Rosenzweig

and L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology (pp. 45-81). Palo Alto. CA:

Annual Reviews.

Meyer, J. P. and Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J. and Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and

occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 78, 538–551

Meyer, J. P. and Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a

general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299–326.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,

continuance and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of

antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 1,

20–52.

Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R. and Sonntag, K. (2009). Affective commitment to change

and innovation implementation behaviour: The role of charismatic leadership and

employees‟ trust in top management. Journal of Change Management, 9(4), 399-

417.

Miles, P. and Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). When Weak Groups are Strong: How Low

Cohesion Groups Allow Individuals to Act According to Their Personal Absence

Tolerance Norms. Social Justice Research, 24 (3), 207-130.

Milliken, F. J., Bartel, C.A. and Kurtzberg, T.R. (2003) Diversity and creativity in work

groups: A dynamic perspective on the affective and cognitive processes that link

diversity and performance. In Paulus, P.B. and Nijstad, B.A. (Eds.), Group

Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration (pp. 32–62). Oxford University

Press, New York,.

Milliken, F. J. and Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: understanding

the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of

Management Review, 21 (2), 402–433.

Ministry of Commerce. (2004). the Quarterly Report. Saudi Arabia. Riyadh. (In Arabic)

Ministry of Labour, Saudi Arabia (2007). Force work Statistics. Riyadh: Ministry of

Labour.

264

Minkes, L., Small, M. W. and Chatterjee, S. R. (1999). Leadership and Business Ethics:

Does It Matter? Implications for Management. Journal of Business Ethics. 20,

327–335.

Mohammed, S. and Angle, A. C. (2004). Surface and deep-level diversity in work

groups: examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on

relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25, 1015–1039.

Mooney, A. C., Holahan, P. J. and Amason, A. C. (2007). Don‟t take it personally:

Exploring cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict. Journal of

Management Studies, 44(5): 733-758.

Morrison, A. (2006). Ethical Standards and Global Leadership. In: M. William. and W.

Elizabeth (Eds.). Advances in Global Leadership (Vol. 4, PP. 265-180). U.K:

Emerald Group.

Mowday, R. T. (1998). Reflections on the study and relevance of organizational

commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 4, 387–401.

Mowshowitz, A. (1997). Virtual Organization. Communications of the ACM, 40, (9).

30-37.

Muethel, M. and Hoegl, M. (2010). Cultural and societal influences on shared

leadership in globally dispersed teams. Journal of International Management, 16

(2010) 234–246.

Mughan, A., Bean, C. and McAllister, I. (2003). Economic globalization, job insecurity

and the populist reaction. Electoral Studies, 22, 617−633.

Mulinge, M. M. (2001). Employer control of employees: Extending the Lincoln-

Kalleberg corporatist model of satisfaction and attachment. Human Relations, 54,

285-318.

Myers, M. D. and Tan, F.B. (2002). Beyond models of national culture in information

systems research. Journal of Global Information Management, 10 (1), 24-32.

Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M.L. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: leadership

and organisational change. California Management Review. 77-97.

Neal, M. (2010). When Arab-expatriate relations work well: Diversity and discourse in

the Gulf Arab workplace. Team Performance Management, 16, 242–266.

Neuman, W. (2004). Basics of Social research: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches. Boston, MA: Pearson

Nibler, R., and Harris, K. L. (2003). The effects of culture and cohesiveness on

265

intragroup conflict and effectiveness. Journal of Social Psychology, 143(5), 613-

631.

Northcraft, G., Polzer, J., Neale, M., and Kramer, R. (1995). Diversity, Social identity,

and performance: Emergent social dynamics in cross-functional teams. In S. E.

Jackson and M. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms

for a changing workplace (pp. 69-96). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Nunnally, J. C. and Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd Ed.). New York:

McGraw Hill.

Nyhan, R.C. and Marlowe, H.A. (1997). Development and psychometric properties of

the organizational trust inventory. Evaluation Review, 21 (5), 614-35.

O'Connor, J. O., Mumford. M. D., Clifton, T. C, Gessner, T. L. and Connelly, M. S.

(1995). Charismatic leaders and destructiveness: A histriometric study.

Leadership Quarterly, 6: 529-555.

Olson, B., Parayitam, S. and Bao, Y. (2007). Strategic Decision Making: The Effects of

Cognitive Diversity, Conflict and Trust on Decision Outcomes. Journal of

Management, 33(2): 196-222.

Oppenheim, A. N. (1997). Questionnaire Design Interviewing and attitude

Measurement (New Edition). London: Pinter Publishers Ltd.

O'Reilly, C. A. and Caldwell, D.F. (1985). The impact of normative social influence

and cohesiveness on task perceptions and attitudes: a social information

processing approach. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 193-206.

Ospina, S., Schall, E., Godsoe, B and Dodge, J. (2004). Appreciative Narratives as

Leadership Research: Matching Method to Lens. In D., Cooperrider and M, Avital

(Eds.). Advances in Appreciative Inquiry (pp 147- 170),.Constructive Discourse

and Human Organization, Oxford: Elsevier Science, Ltd.

Ottaviano G. I. P. and Peri, G. (2006). The Economic Value of Cultural Diversity:

Evidence from US Cities, Journal of Economic Geography, 6, 9-44.

Ottaviano G. I. P. and Peri, G. (2005). Cities and Cultures, Journal of Urban

Economics, 58, 304-337.

Oxford English Dictionary (2009). “Paternalism”, Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford

University Press, Oxford.

266

Parry, K. W. and Proctor-Thompson S. B. (2002). Perceived Integrity of

Transformational Leaders in Organizational Settings. Journal of Business Ethics,

35(2), 75–96.

Partington, D. (2002). Qualitative and quantitative issues in research design’, Essential

Skills forManagement Research. London: SAGE.

Patel, C., Budhwar, P. and Varma, A. (2011). Overall justice, work group identification

and work outcomes: Test of moderated mediation process. Journal of World

Business.

Paul, J., Costley, D. L., Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W. and Trafimow, D. (2001). The

effects of charismatic leadership on followers‟ self-concept accessibility. Journal

of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1821–1844.

Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An

intervening process theory. Organization Science, 6, 615–631.

Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M. and Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: an

analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28.

Pellegrini, E. and Scandura, T. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: a review and agenda for

future research. Journal of Management, 34 (3), 566-93.

Peltokorpi, V. (2006). The impact of relational diversity and socio-cultural context on

interpersonal communication: Nordic subsidiaries in Japan. Asian Business &

Management, 5(3), 333–356.

Peng, A. C. and Tjosvold, D. (2011). Social face concerns and conflict avoidance of

Chinese employees with their Western or Chinese managers. Human relations

(New York), 64 (8), 1031–1050.

Perryer, C. and Jordan, C. (2005). The influence of leader behaviours on organizational

commitment: A study in the Australian public sector. International Journal of

Public Administration, 28, 379-396.

Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive Advantage through People: Unleashing the Power of

the Work Force. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Pfeffer, J. (2005). Producing sustainable competitive advantage through the effective

management of people. Academy of Management Executive, 19(4), 95–108.

Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A

multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of

Management Review, 25, 783–794.

267

Pillai, R. and Meindl, J.R. (1991). The effect of a crisis on the emergence of charismatic

leadership: a laboratory study. Academy of Management Proceedings, 235-9.

Pillai, R. and Meindl, J. R. (1998). Context and charisma: A „„meso‟‟ level examination

of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic

leadership. Journal of Management, 24(5), 643–664.

Pillai, R., Williams, E. S. and Tan, J. J. (2001). Are the scales tipped in favour of

procedural or distributive justice? An investigation of the USA, India, Germany

and Hong Kong (China). The International Journal of Conflict Management, 12,

312-32.

Pinkley, R. (1990). Dimensions of conflict frame: Disputant interpretations of conflict.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 117-126.

Piper, W. E., Marrache, M., Lacroix, R., Richardson, A. M. and Jones, B. D. (1983).

Cohesion as a basic bond in groups. Human Relations, 36, 93-108.

Platow, M. J. and van Knippenberg, D. (2001). A social identity analysis of leadership

endorsement: The effects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distributive

intergroup fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1508–1519.

Podsakoff, P. M. and MacKenzie, S: B. (1994). An examination of the psychometric

properties and nomological validity of some revised and reduced "substitutes for

leadership" scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 702-713.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B. and Bachrach, D. G. (2000).

Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and

empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management,

26 (3), 513–563.

Podsakoff, P. M., Niehoff, B. P., Mackenzie, S. B. and Wiliams, M. l. (1993). Do

substitutes for leadership really substitute for leadership? An empirical

examination of Kerr and Jermier‟s situational leadership model. Organisational

Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 54, 1-44.

Podsiadlowski, A. and Ward, C. (2010). Global mobility and bias in the workplace. In

S.C. Carr (Ed.), The Psychology of Global Mobility (pp. 279-300). New York:

Springer.

Polit, D. and Beck, C. (2004). Nursing Research: Principles and Methods (7th

ed).

Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

268

Porter L, W. and Crampon W, Smith F. (1976). Organizational commitment and

managerial turnover: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behaviour and Human

Performance, 15, 87-98.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T. and Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational

commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric techctinas. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.

Popper, M. (1999). The source of motivation of personalized and socialized charismatic

leaders. Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, 22, 231-246.

Popper, M. (2002). Narcissism and attachment patterns of personalized and socialized

charismatic leaders. Journal of Social and Personal Relations, 19(6), 798-809.

Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational

identification. In D. A. Whetten, & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in

organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 171–207). Thousand

Oaks, CA7 Sage.

Priem, R., and Price, K. (1991). Process and outcome expectations for the dialectical

inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus techniques of strategic decision making.

Group and Organization Studies, 16, 206-225.

Prieto, L. C., Phipps, S. T. A. and Osiri, J. K. (2009). Linking workplace diversity to

organizational performance: a conceptual framework. Journal of Diversity

Management, 4 (4), 13-21.

Putnam, L. (1994). Productive conflict: Negotiation as implicit coordination.

International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 285-299.

Putnam, R. D. (2003). Ethnic Diversity and Social Capital. Paper presented at the

Ethnic Diversity and Social Capital, ESRC Families and Social Capital Research

Group Seminar. London: British Academy.

Ragins, B. R. and Gonzalez, J. A. (2003). Understanding diversity in organizations:

Getting a grip on a slippery construct. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational

behavior: The state of the science (2nd

ed.), ( pp. 125–164). New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Ramady, M. (2010). The Saudi Arabian Economy: Policies, Achievements and

Challenges (2nd

ed.). New York: Springer.

Rantz, R. (2002). Leading urban institutions of higher education in the new

millennium. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(8) 456-466.

269

Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. The

Leadership Quarterly. 16, 655-687.

Reicher, S., Haslam, S. A. and Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of

leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of

social reality. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 547-568.

Remmé, J., Jones, S., van Der Heijdem, B. and Bono, S. D. (2008). Leadership, Change

and Responsibility. Meyer & Meyer Media: UK.

Richard, O. C. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A

resource-based view. Academyof Management Journal, 43, 164–177.

Riggio, M. C. (2004). Carnival: Culture in action: The Trinidad experience. Routledge:

New York.

Rispoli, L. and Leung, D. (2011). The Contribution of Small and Medium-Sized

Businesses to Gross Domestic Product: A Canada-United States Comparison.

Economic Analysis Research Paper Series No. 070. Available at SSRN:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1864144

Rivera-Vazques, J., Ortiz-Fournier, L. and Flores, F. (2009). Overcoming cultural

barriers for innovation and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 13(5), 257-270.

Roberge, M. and van Dick, R. (2010). Recognizing the benefits of diversity:

When and how does diversity increase group performance? Human

Resource Management Review, 20, 295–308

Roberson, Q. and Park, H. (2007). Examining the link between diversity and firm

performance: The effects of diversity reputation and leader racial diversity. Group

& Organization Management, 32, 548-568.

Robertson, C., Crittenden, W., Brady, M., and Hoffman, J. (2002). Situational ethics

across borders: A multicultural examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 38, 327–

338.

Robertson, C. J., Gilley, K. M. and Street, M. D. (2003). The relationship between

ethics and firm practices in Russia and the United States. Journal of World

Business, 38 375–384.

Robinson, G., Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. Academy of

Management Executive, 11, 21–31.

Robson, C. (2002). Real World research (2nd

ed.).UK: Blackwell.

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1864144

270

Robson, C. (2011). Real World research (3rd

ed.). Chichester: Wiley

Rosener, J. B. (1995). America's competitive secret: utilizing women as a management

strategy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rosener, J.B. (2011). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68 (6), 119-125.

Rosenthal, S. A., Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership

Quarterly, 17, 617–633.

Ross, R. (1989). Conflict, In R. Ross and J. Ross (Eds.), Small groups in organizational

settings (pp. 139-178). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Rowden, R.W. (2000). The relationship between charismatic leadership behaviours and

organisational commitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

21, 30-5.

Rowold, J. and Heinitz, K. (2007). Transformational and charismatic leadership:

assessing the convergent, divergent, and criterion validity of the MLQ and CKS.

Leadership Quarterly, 18, 121–33.

Rowold, J., Kersting, M. (2008). The assessment of charismatic leadership: Validity of a

German version of the Conger-Kanungo Scale (CKS). European Journal of

Psychological Assessment, 24, 124–130.

Rowold J, Laukamp L. (2009). Charismatic leadership and objective performance

indicators. Applied Psychology: an International Review, 58(4):602–21

SABIC (2010). A culture of innovation, a year of success Report & Accounts. Saudi

Arabia: SABIC press.

SABIC (2011). A culture of innovation, a year of success Report & Accounts. Saudi

Arabia: SABIC press.

Salkind, N. J. (2003). Exploring research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sánchez, J.C., and Yurrebaso, A. (2009). Group cohesion: Relationships with work

team culture. Psicothema, 21(1), 97-104.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill A. (2009). Research Methods for Business

Students (5th

ed.). Harlow: FT/Prentice Hall..

Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109-119.

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd

ed.). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Schein, H. E. (2011). What is culture?. In M. Goodyan and J. Gittell (Ed.). Sociology of

271

organisations structures and relationships, (pp. 311-314). London: SAGA.

Schminke, M., Wells, D., Peyrefitte, J., and Sebora, T. C. (2002). Leadership and ethics

in work groups: A longitudinal assessment. Group and Organization

Management, 27, 272-293.

Schmitt, M. T. and Branscombe, N. R. (2001). The good, the bad, and the manly:

Threats to one‟s prototypicality and evaluations of fellow in-group members.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 510–517.

Schwenk, C. and Valacich, J. S. (1994). Effects of devil's advocacy and dialectical

inquiry on individuals versus groups. Organizational Behaviour and Human

Decision Processes, 59, 210-222.

Scull, B., Taylor, L., Temple, M.., Romanitha , J. J. (2010). Promoting Team

Collaboration: Understanding Personality, Conflict Resolution, Workplace

Teams, and Cultural Diversity. Research on Teams and Collaboration, 1-43.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1990). Value-added Leadership: How to get extraordinary

performance in school. New York: Harcourt Brace Javanonich.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., and Arthur, M, b. (1993). The motivational effect of

charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organisational Science,

4(4), 577-594.

Shastri, R .K., Shashi, M. K. and Sinha A (2010). Charismatic leadership and

organizational commitment: An Indian perspective. African Journal of Business

Management, 4(10), 1946-1953.

Shapiro, E. R. (2001). The Changing Role of the CEO. Organisational and Social

Dynamics, 1, 130-142.

Shaw, M.F. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behaviour (3rd

ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sherwin, D. S. (1983). The ethical roots of the business system. Harvard Business

Review, 183–92.

Shore, L. M. Herrera, B.G.C., Dean M. A., Ehrhart, HJung, K. D., IRandel, A. E. et al.

(2009). Diversity in organizations: Where are we now and where are we going?

Human Resource Management Review, 19, 117–133.

Seyranian, V. and Bligh, M. C. (2008). Presidential charismatic leadership: Exploring

the rhetoric of social change. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 54-76.

Simola, S. K., Barling, J. and Turner, N. (2010). Transformational leadership and

leader moral orientation: Contrasting an ethic of justice and an ethic of care. The

272

Leadership Quarterly, 21, 179–188.

Simons, T. and Peterson, R. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top

management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied


Simons, T. and Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The

effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 88, 432-443.

Sims, R. L., Kroeck, K. G. (1994). The influence of ethical fit on employee

satisfaction, commitment and turnover. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(12),

939 – 947.

Singh, B., Gupta, P.K. and Venugopah, S. (2008). Organizational Commitment:

Revisited. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 34(1), 67-68.

Singh, R. K. and Krishnan, V. R. (2002). Impact of impression management and value

congruence on attributed charisma. NMMS Management Review, 14 (1), 86-94.

Sivakumar, K. and Nakate, C. (2001). The stampede toward Hofstede‟s framework:

avoiding the sample design pit in cross cultural research. Journal International

Business Studies, 32(3), 555-574.

Smith, A. N., Brief, A. P. and Colella A. (2010). Bias in organizations. In J.F. Dovidio,

M. Hewstone, P. Glick, and V. M. Esses (Eds.), The Sage handbook of prejudice,

stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 441–456). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims, H.P., O‟Bannon, D. P. and Scully, J. A.,

(1994). Top management team demography and process: the role of social

integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly. 39, 412–438.

Snow, C. C., Snell, S. A., Canney-Davison, S. C. and Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Use

transnational teams to globalise your company. Organisational Dynamics, 32,

20-32.

Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Jr., Worden, S. K. and Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame

Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation..

American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464-481.

Sosik, J. J. S., Juzbasich, J. and Chun, J. U. (2011). Effects of moral reasoning and

management level on ratings of charismatic leadership, in-role and extra-role

performance of managers: A multi-source examination. The Leadership

Quarterly, 22 (2), 434-450.

Spector, P. E. and Jex, S.M. (1998). Development of four self- report measures of job

273

stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints

scale, quantitative workload inventory and physical symptoms inventory. Journal

of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356-367.

Stace, D. A. and Dunphy, D. C. (1991). Beyond traditional paternalistic and traditional

approaches to organizational change and human resource strategies. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 263–283.

Stahl, G., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A. and Jonsen, K. (2010). Unravelling the effects

of cultural diversity in teams: ameta-analysis of research on multicultural work

groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4), 690–709.

Stokes, J. P. (1983). Components of group cohesion: Intermember attraction,

instrumental value and risk taking. Small Group Research, 14(2), 163-173.

Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P. and Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and

effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120-133.

Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate statistics (5th

ed.).

Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. English manuscript of „La catégorisation

sociale.‟ In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Psychologie Sociale (vol. 1, pp. 272–302). Paris:

Larousse.

Tajfel, H. (2010). Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. New York: Cambridge

University press.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup conflict. In

S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24).

Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Tang, T. L. P. and Chiu, R. K. (2003) Income, money ethic, pay satisfaction,

commitment and unethical behaviour: Is the love of money the root of evil for

Hong Kong employees? Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 13–30.

Tansey, O. (2007). Process Tracing and Elite Interviewing: A Case for Non-Probability

Sampling. Political Science and Politics, 40, 765–72.

Tansky, J. and Cohen, D, (2001). The relationship between organizational support,

employee development, and organizational commitment: an empirical study.

Human Resource Development Quarterly. 12: 3, 285-300.

Tatum, B. C. and. Eberlin, R. J. (2008). The relationship between organizational justice

and conflict style. Business Strategy Series, 9 (6), 1751-5637

Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R. and Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A Longitudinal Study of Team

274

Conflict, Conflict Management, Cohesion and Team Effectiveness. Group &

Organization Management, 34 (2), 170-205.

Tepper, B. J. and Taylor, E. C. (2003). Relationships among supervisors‟ and

subordinates‟ procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship

behaviours. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 97–105.

Thite, M. (2000). Leadership styles in information technology projects. Project

Manage, 18, 235-41.

Thomas, D. C. (1999).Cultural diversity and work group effectiveness: An experimental

study. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 30, 242–263.

Thomas, P. and Fraser, W. (1994). Linguistics, human communication and psychiatry.

British Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 585–592.

Thomas, D. C. (2006). Domain and development of cultural intelligence: The

importance of mindfulness. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 78-99.

Tichy, N. M. and Devanna, M. A. (1990). The Transformational Leader. New York:

John Wiley.

Treviño, L. K., Brown, M. and Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative investigation of

perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the

executive suite. Human Relations, 56, 5-37.

Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P. and Brown, M. (2000). Moral person and moral

manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. California

Management Review, 42(4), 128–142.

Triandis, H. C. (1993). Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes. Cross-

Cultural Research, 27, 155-180.

Trice, H. M. and Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Tong, H. (2011). Cultural identity and language: a proposed framework for cultural

globalisation and glocalisation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural

Development, 32(1), 55-69

Tosi, H. L. and Greckhamer, T. (2004). Culture and CEO compensation. Organization

Science, 15, 657-670.

Tóth, Z. and Zeiger, R. (2009). Going multicultural. Leadership in international

organizations in Finland case study: UPM-Kymmene's GTS. Degree program:

BBA International Business. 1-105.

275

Tsui, A. S., Egan, T.D., and Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational

demography and organisational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37,

549-579.

Tsui, A. S. and Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organizations: Current

research and future directions. Lexington: Lanham, MD.

Turner, M. E. (1998). A social identify maintenance model of groupthink.

Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision processes, 73(2/3), 210-235.

Turner, J. C. and Haslam, S. A. (2001). Social identity, organizations and leadership. In

M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 25-65).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher S. D. and Wetherell, M. S. (1987).

Rediscovering the social group: A self categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Tyran, K.L. and Gibson, C. B. (2008). Is what you see, what you get? The relationship

among surface- and deep-level heterogeneity characteristics, group efficacy, and

team reputation. Group and Organization Management, 33(1), 46-76.

Tyler, T. R. and Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances

in experimental social psychology, 25, 115-191.

Vaccaro, I. G., Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, Frans A. J. and. Volberda, H. W.

(2010). Management Innovation and Leadership: The Moderating Role of

Organizational Size. Journal of Management Studies, 1-24

Valle, M. (1999). Crisis, culture and charisma: the new leader‟s work in public

organizations. Public Personnel Management. 28 (2), 245-57.

van Dick, R. (2004). My job is my castle: Identification in organizational contexts.

International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 19, 171-203.

van Dick, R. Grojean, M. W., Oliver, C., and Jan, W.(2006). Identity and the Extra

Mile: Relationships between Organizational Identification and Organizational

Citizenship Behaviour. British Journal of Management, 17, 283–301.

van Dick, R., Hirst, G., Grojean, M. W. and Wieseke, J. (2007). Relationships between

leader and follower organizational identification and implications for follower

attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

80, 133-150.

276

van Dick, R., Wagner, U. and Lemmer, G. ( 2004). The winds of change. multiple

identifications in the case of organizational mergers. European Journal of Work

and Organizational Psychology, 13: 121– 38.

van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity

perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 357–371.

van Knippenberg, D. (2011). Embodying who we are: Leader group prototypicality and

leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 1-14.

van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W. and Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group

diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008-1022.

van Knippenberg, D., Lossie, N. and Wilke, H. (1994). Ingroup prototypicality and

persuasion: Determinants of heuristic and systematic message processing. British

Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 289–300.

van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B. and De Cremer, D. (2005). Extending the

social identity model of leadership: The interactive effects of leader

prototypicality and leader procedural fairness. Paper presented at the XIIth

European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology, Istanbul, Turkey.

van Knippenberg, D. and Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work Group Diversity. Annual

Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541.

van Knippenberg, D. and Van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of

organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 73: 137–147.

van Knippenberg, D., Dawson, J. F., West, M. A. and Homan, A. C. (2010). Diversity

faultlines, shared objectives, and top management team performance. Human

Relation, 64(3), 307–336.

van Knippenberg, D. and Hogg, M. A. (2003). A Social Identity Model of Leadership

Effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 25, 243–

295.

van Knippenberg , D., Jeremy, F. D., West , M. A. and Homan, A. C. (2011 ).

Diversity faultlines, shared objectives, and top management team performance.

Human Relations, 64(3) 307–336.

van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D. and Hogg, M.A. (2004).

Leadership, self and identity: a review and research agenda. Leadership

Quarterly, 15(6), 825-56.

277

van Teijlingen, E., Rennie, A. M., Hundley, V. (2001). The importance of conducting

and reporting pilot studies: The example of the Scottish Births Survey. Journal of

Advanced Nursing, 34(3), 289-295

van Woerkom, M. and De Reuver, R. S. M. (2009). Predicting excellent management

performance in an intercultural context: A study of the influence of multicultural

personality on transformational leadership and performance. International Journal

of Human Resource Management, 20(10), 2013-2029.

Varella, P., Javidan, M. and Waldman, D. A. (2011). A Model of Instrumental

Networks: The Roles of Socialized Charismatic Leadership and Group Behavior.

Organization Science, 22(6), 131-144.

Vodosek, M. (2007). Intragroup conflict as a mediator between cultural diversity and

work group outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18(4), 345-

375.

Vorakulpipat, C., Rezgui, Y. and Hopfe, C. J. (2010). Value creating construction

virtual teams: A case study in the construction sector. Automation in

Construction, 19, 142–147.

Waldman, D. A. and Javidan, M. (2009). Alternative forms of charismatic leadership in

the integration of mergers and acquisitions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2),

130-42.

Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M. and Varella, P. (2004). Charismatic leadership at the

strategic level: A new application of upper echelons theory. Leadership Quarterly,

15(3), 355−380.

Waldman, D. A. and Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership:

levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review,

24(2), 266–285.

Walumbwa, F, O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., and Peterson, S. J.

(2008). Authentic leadership: development and validation of a theory-based

measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89-126.

Walumbwa,

F. O., Cropanzano, R. and Hartnell,

Chad, A. (2009). Organizational

justice, voluntary learning behaviour, and job performance: A test of the

mediating effects of identification and leader-member exchange. Journal of

Organizational Behaviour, 30, 1103–1126

Walumbwa, F. O., and Lawler, J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations:

transformational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes, and

278

withdrawal behaviors in three emerging economies. International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 14, 1083-1101.

Wang, E., Chou, H. and Jiang, J. (2005). The impacts of charismatic leadership style on

team cohesiveness and overall performance during ERP implementation.

International Journal of Project Management, 23, 173–180.

Webber, S. S. and Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related

diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of

Management, 27(2), 141–62.

Weber, M. (1947). Max Weber: The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New

York: The Free Press.

Wech, B. A., Mossholder, K.W., Steel, R. P. and Bennett, N. (1998). Does work group

cohesiveness affect individuals‟ performance and organizational commitment? A

cross-level examination. Small Group Research, 29, 472-494.

Weisner, T. S. (2009). Culture, Development, and Diversity: Expectable Pluralism,

Conflict and Similarity. Journal of the Society for Psychological Anthropology,

37 (2), 181–196

Wendt, H., Euwema, M. C., and van Emmerik, I. J. H. (2009). Leadership and team

cohesiveness across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 20 358–370.

Wen-Cheng, W., Chien-Hung, L. and Ying-Chien, C. (2011). Cultural diversity and

information and communication impacts on Language Learning. International

Education Studies, 4 (2), 111-115.

White, W. (2000). Toward a New Recovery Movement: Historical Reflections on

Recovery, Treatment and Advocacy, paper presented at the Center for Substance

Abuse Treatment, Recovery Community Support Program Conference,

Alexandria, Virginia.

White, D. W. and Lean, E. (2008). The impact of perceived leader integrity on

subordinates in a work team environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 765–

778.

Whyte, G. (1998). Recasting Janis‟s groupthink model: the key role of collective

efficacy in decision fiascos. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision

Processes, 73(2–3), 185-209.

Widmeyer. W. N. and Williams, J. M. (1991). Predicting cohesion in a coaching sport.

Small Group Research, 22. 548-570.

279

Wilderom, C. P. M. and Berg, P. V. (2010). Socialized charismatic leadership and

organization culture as predictors of firm performance, Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Williams, H. M., Parker, S. K. and Turner, N. (2010). Proactively performing teams:

The role of work design, transformational leadership, and team composition.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 301-324.

Williams, K. Y., and O'Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in

organizations. In B. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational

behavior, (pp. 77-140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.

Wilson, E. (2009). School-based research: a guide for education students. London:

SAGE.

Wolfe, J. (2010).Team writing: A Guide to Working in Groups. Boston: Bedfords/St.

Martin's, 80-103.

Wright, N. and Drewery, G. (2002). Cohesion among culturally heterogeneous groups.

Journal of American Academy of Business, 2(1), 66–72.

Wright, N. S., and Drewery, G. P. (2006). Forming cohesion in culturally heterogeneous

teams. Differences in Japanese, Pacific Islander and Anglo experiences. Cross

Cultural Management, 13(1), 43-53.

Wright, R., and Ellis, M. (1996). Immigrants and the changing raciavethnic division of

labor in New York City, 1970-1990. Urban Geography, 17, 31-53.

www.chemweek.com, Retrieved on July 6, 2012.

Xin, K. R., Pelled, L. H. (2002). Supervisor-subordinate conflict and perceptions of

leadership behaviour: a field study. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 25-40.

Yammarino, F. J. and Dubinsky, A. J. (1994). Transformational leadership theory:

Using levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions. Personnel Psychology,

47, 787-8 11.

Yancy, G. A. (2003). One body, one spirit: Principles of successful multiracial

churches. Downers Grove. IL: Intervarsity Press.

Yin, K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd

ed.). London: SAGE

Publications Ltd

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research Design and Methods (4th

ed.). London, SAGE

Publications Ltd


280

Yorges, S. L., weiss, H. M., and Strickland, O. J. (1999). The effect of leader outcomes

on influence, attributions, and perception of charisma. Journal of applied

Psychology, 84,428-439.

Yoon, J., Baker, M. R. and Ko, J. W. (1994). Interpersonal attachment and

organizational commitment: Subgroup hypothesis revisited. Human Relations, 47,

329-351.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organisation (5th

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Education

Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership

Quarterly, 12(4), 451–83.

Zee, K. V., Atsma, N. and Brodbeck, F. (2004). The Influence of social Identity and

Personality on outcomes of Cultural diversity in Team. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 35(3), 283-303.

Zhou , H., Long, L. R. and Wang, Y. Q. (2009). What is the most important predictor of

employees' turnover intention in Chinese call centre: job satisfaction,

organisational commitment or career commitment?. International Journal of

Services Technology and Management, 12, (2), 129 – 145.

Zhu, W. Avolio, B. J., Riggio, R. E. and Sosik, J. J. (2011). The effect of authentic

transformational leadership on follower and group ethics. The Leadership

Quarterly, 22(5), 801-817.

Zhu, W., May, D. R. and Avolio, B. J. (2004). The impact of ethical leadership

behaviour on employee outcomes: The roles of psychological empowerment and

authenticity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 16–26.

Zúquete, P. J. (2011). The flight of the eagle: The charismatic leadership of Sá Carneiro

in Portugal's transition to democracy. The leader Quarterly, 22(2), 295-306.

281

APPENDIX A: STUDY’S QUESTIONNAIR

INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE

Dear Respondent,

I am a PhD student in Human Resources and Marketing Management at Portsmouth

University in the United Kingdom. I am inviting you to participate in a research project

to study “The Role of Leadership Behaviours in Leading Culturally Diverse Workplaces

Effectively”. With the growth of multi-national organisations and increasing changes in

the work force, issues of cultural diversity hold an important place on managers‟

agenda. Therefore, this study focuses on employees‟ in Saudi Basic Industries

Corporation (SABIC) perception of the role of leadership behaviours in leading cultural

diversity in their work group, as well as their perceptions of selected work-related

outcomes.

The results of this research will assist us in further understanding the characteristics of

leadership in your company in order to better manage culturally diverse groups.

There are several things you need to know about this survey before going further.

All survey responses are anonymous. You do not have to sign or indicate your

name or reveal any information which makes you directly and individually

identifiable.

Only demographic data such as age group, education and work experience are

being collected for purposes of analysing any differences among large groups

across the entire survey population. We ask for your assistance in providing

these data.

Your response is completely voluntary. Your are free to withdraw your

participation at any time, and you may also choose to not answer any questions

that you do not wish to for any reason.

I hope you will be willing to take the time to respond to the questions. Thank you in

advance for participating in this study. If you have any questions concerning this

research, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or call

me on 00447846223884.

Sincerely,

Moudhi Alzoman

282

- Employee Questionnaire

Par I- Background Information.

Please tick the relevant box.

How long have you been with your current company?

From 6 months to less than 1 year

From 1year to less than 3 years

From 3 years to less than 5 years

From 5 years to less than10 years

From 10 years to 20 years

longer than 20 years

How long have you worked under your current line manager?








Under 18

18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

Over 55

283

What is the highest level of education you have completed?

Did not finish high school

High school or equivalent

Some college work completed

Bachelor‟s degree

Master‟s degree

Doctoral degree

Other (Please describe)..............................................................................

What is your nationality?.......................................................................

284

Part II- Line Manager Perceptions

Instructions: Please be as candid as possible, remember, all your responses will remain

strictly anonymous. Indicate the extent to which each of the following items is

characteristic of your current manager by circling the appropriate category next to the

item.

The response categories are as follows: 1 = Very Uncharacteristic, 2 = Uncharacteristic,

3 = Slightly Uncharacteristic, 4 = Slightly Characteristic, 5 = Characteristic, 6 = Very

Characteristic.

286

Part III- Leadership Prototypicality

Instructions: Think of your current line manager, please be as candid as possible,

remember, all your responses will remain strictly anonymous. Read each of the

following statements and circle the appropriate level of agreement next to it.

The response categories are as follows: 1= Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither

agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree.

287

Part V - Measure Team Identification

Part V - Measure Team Identification

Instructions: Please read each of the following statements and circling the appropriate

level of agreement next to it.

The response categories are as follows: 1= is not at all true for myself to 6 = is totally

true for myself.

288

Part VI- Affective Organisational Commitment

Instructions: Thinking of your current organisation, please be as candid as possible,


following statements and circle your level of agreement next to it.

The response categories are as follows: 1= Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Slightly

disagree, 4 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Slightly agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly

agree.

289

Part VII- Managerial Ethicality

Instructions: Thinking of your current manager, please be as candid as possible,





agree.

290

Thank you very much for having completed the questionnaire. I appreciate your

willingness to respond. If you are still happy for me to use your responses, please seal

the completed questionnaire in the attached self-addressed reply envelope and send it to

the researcher.

Thank you again

291

- Line Manager Questionnaire

Part I- Background Information. Please tick the relevant box.

How long have you been with your current company?








Under 18

18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

Over 55

What is the highest level of education you have completed?

Did not finish high school

High school or equivalent

Some college work completed

Bachelor‟s degree

Master‟s degree

Doctoral degree

Other (Please describe)................................................................................

What is your nationality?............................................................................

How many people do you directly supervise?....................................................

Part II- Group Relationship Conflict

Instructions: Thinking of your current group, please be as candid as possible,

292



The response categories are as follows: 1= Not, 2 = a -Little, 3 = Moderately, 4 = Quite-

a-bit, 5 = Very.

293

Part III- Group Cohesion

Instructions: Thinking of your current group, please be as candid as possible,





agree.

Thank you very much for having completed the questionnaire. I appreciate your

willingness to respond. If you are still happy for me to use your responses, please seal

the completed questionnaire in the attached self-addressed reply envelope and send it to

the researcher.

Thank you again

294

APPENDIX B: SABIC PERMISSION

295

APPENDIX C: CRITICAL VALUES OF THE CHI-SQUARE

DISTRIBUTION

296

APPENDIX D: ETHICAL REVIEW CHECKLIST

Effective Leadership of a Culturally Diverse Workforce … · Arabia Basic Industries Corporation...

Documents

Transcript of Effective Leadership of a Culturally Diverse Workforce … · Arabia Basic Industries Corporation...